I don't have a vacation home in southern Spain, but thank you for the idea. And of course, the mkt is perfectly capable of setting the price of money. However, there's plenty of theoretical and empirical evidence to suggest that the mkt AND a central bank together do a better job at setting the price of money than the mkt alone. To establish a parallel, let's think a bit further about your statement that the mkt seems capable of setting the price of AAPL shares. This is indeed the case, but the very same mkt also benefits from insider trading laws and a regulator that attempts, with various degrees of success, to enforce these laws and punish the most egregious violators. The reason for the existence of such a mechanism that "assists" the mkt with the pricing of various shares, AAPL among them, is the accumulated evidence that it's beneficial. Same for central banking. Now you may hold a different view, but, no offense, on the issues of monetary economics I would much rather listen to someone like Milton Friedman.I never said one would lend at 4% with the long bond at 10%. I was referring to a time period many years ago when that is what banks use to do, lend to their community. The comment about the long bond at 10% had to do with re-pricing risk assets. Marty, this may come as a shock to you, but businesses for over half a century use to pay 10% to 15% interest on their loans and they thrived. My father was one of them. Let the market set interest rates. You never did answer me. Why is it that the market seems to be capable of setting the price of shares of AAPL, the price of corn, copper and even the price of your vacation home in southern Spain, but for some godforsaken reason, it's not capable of setting the price of money? This is absolutely ludicrous. But I am curious as to your thoughts on that.
I am confused. First we were talking about the seniors, now we're talking about the personal loan rates for middle-class and poor people. Moreover, if you think policies should be targeting the well-being of "single black mothers of 3 on the south side of Chicago" even more than they are currently, you're much further to the left in the political spectrum than I thought you were. Where's all this socialist angst coming from, all of a sudden? Don't you think the US government is doing enough for the poor already?Are you serious? Marty, are you not seeing the record prices in the paper the last few months about the most expensive home ever sold in London and recently here in NY? Marty, 75% of the US has no discernible net worth. They are drowning in debt. Their rates of interest....take a guess? It ain't no 1% Marty. Oh no sir, for the poor, oh we let the market decide those rates, the poor man or middle class person is paying 15% to 30% for money. Meanwhile the top 5%, yes Marty, the SPX is treating them nicely. I wonder how many single black mothers of 3 on the south side of Chicago are long the SPX? Exactly. As for retired people, have no idea what's going on over in England, but the seniors in this country are NOT long the market and they have not been since the credit crisis. Jesus Mary and Joseph, do you honestly think someone in their 60's and 70's is going to be long stocks with their life savings after that debacle in 2008????????? No offense Marty, but you seem a little out of touch with reality. Maybe I spend more time around poor people then you do, but most seniors, my parents included are living check to check waiting for that social security to come in the mail. They earn NOTHING on their savings with 1% CD rates. And no, they are not going to get long stocks in their 70's. Seniors never had to do that and they should not have to start doing that now.
Regarding the fate of the seniors, let me give you some statistics that may or may not contradict your anecdotal findings. Firstly, the poverty rate among the 65+ age group has been in steady decline since the 1970s, including during the post-crisis years. Secondly, according to the data I have seen, the share of near-retiree households with retirement assets has held reasonably constant since 2000 at arnd 70%. The median amt of retirement assets peaked at $111k in 2007 and was at arnd $100k after the crisis (measured in constant 2010 dollars). Finally, there's some research that has examined the standard of living of retirees by measuring their incomes before and after retirement. According to these studies (I can give you references, if you like), median retiree's inflation-adjusted after-tax (real net) income remained steady at or above 100% of their pre-retirement income.
Again, I might not spend as much time as you arnd poor people, but I know quite a few people on Social Security really well. Their lives sure don't appear that poor to me, but maybe that's 'cause I used to live in much less generous circumstances. Similar to what I mentioned above, if you feel there should be more policies targeting the well-being of retirees and that the US govt isn't doing enough, I am a little confused.
P.S.: I'd be happy to respond to the specific points raised in the articles you have posted, but a little later.