Thread by @AlecStapp

I'm gonna stop you right there

wtf does "ultra, ultra low" even mean

"Interests at 1% were good for economic growth but interest rates at 0% caused GameStop"

got it, makes total sense

basically what this op-ed is arguing for

According to this NYT op-ed, if the Fed raises interest rates, then companies will borrow less money to do share buybacks and more money to build new plants/products because........ ?

In what model of the economy does this make sense??

This paragraph claims that price indexes miss the "cost increases obscuring a household-to-debt buildup for all but the wealthiest"

But thanks to an easy money/low interest rate/dovish Fed, household debt service costs are at an all-time low.

Did anyone fact check this op-ed?

This paragraph reminds of that famous quote: "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."

We shouldn't immiserate ourselves just because an old statute calls for "moderate" interest rates

He's not wrong

Also the author gets the "moderate" interest rates thing backward. Interest rates were high at that time the law was passed, so a call for "moderate" interest rates is asking for lower interest rates