Quote from morganist:
I don't know if agree with you fully. I guess it depends on what you mean by work. It does not solve all the problems. It solves some problems but creates others. Market correction, which is the action that market equilibrium creates, just means that the price of goods in an economy reflects their true value without artificial demand.
There are pros and cons to that. The best example at the moment is house prices. The price of houses is propped up by low interest rates. If the central bank let the interest rate float the price would fall. The current owners and artificial demand would fall. This would have an impact on the economy as a whole.
The advantage being housing becomes more affordable to the people who are in work. The problem is the impact interest rate rises, which would occur with a floating rate of interest, would have huge consequences on employment. I don't think there is necessarily a right or wrong answer just one that favours one group of people over another.
Great analysis. The key distinction is with distorted prices, comes a misallocation of capital and ultimately, it's destruction. When US home prices were 200 dollars per square foot, and doubled to 400 dollars per square foot, was it a good use of the national savings to invest in more houses? Did US homeowners and speculators ultimately profit from that decision? Why or why not? When tulips cost 12 guilders per bulb (1 months salary), and appreciated to 2,500 Guilders per bulb (16 years salary), was it a wise investment decision to leverage the countries savings and buy tulip bulbs? Did that ultimately profit the Dutch? Why or why not?
