ralfy wrote:evilgenius wrote:
Or, maybe, you just don't understand what the term "rate" means?
Of course, I do. In this case, in order to pay for interest earned from savings, money has to be lent. To pay for that interest plus earn, more goods and services have to be sold. That means more spending.
The reason I asked that is not to rank you, by the way. No, I asked it because you seem to conflate a lot of things that are only indirectly related to a particular action, in this case monetary policy and personal choice, together, as if they existed as a pair in a vacuum. They don't. A Central Bank may direct monetary policy toward an economy, and the elements within that economy may be affected by it, but they are not wholly, or solely. There may be a correlation between monetary policy and people's spending, both how much and where, but it is not tight enough to predicate how one ought to behave, not such that what I called true conservatism would derail an economy. That's actually why we have to have a term like 'economy' in the first place.
Again, this is also a place where, if envy reigns, there can be trouble. If we never look at ourselves as the source of our own problems it is possible to justify any action perpetrated against those we assume oppress us, from cartoonists to bankers. Likewise, if we only see ourselves as the source of our own problems, there are things within any system, such as the sociopolitical one we live in, that create injustice and will never be addressed. Some things, like campaign finance reform, do require that people understand life is not all micro-economic.