[dragonwriter]

You left out #3, tighten lending criteria and raise interest rates on loans to increase income per dollar lent and reduce volume of lending, which also improves liquidity.

But, yeah, if you are flush with cash and don't own a home but want to, #1 & #2 sound great if you consider only their first order effects on you.

#1, especially, is a huge brake on the economy (as is it's close relative #3). Which probably also has a negative impact on you, unless you are living entirely off of a pile of cash previously earned.

[0x445442]

Given there's so much of this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs) right now, I'm not convinced #1 would have a such a negative impact. If we broaden are thinking it could have an awesome impact long term.

[vpmpaul]

The problems with these types of books to me is that the researcher surgically analyizes a tiny part of the whole picture and claims this is the grand solution or something like that.

This book does nothing other than highlight common knowledge but does nothing to show why or how it is that way and what can be done to begin to change it.

Its the equivilant of saying well the reason the timing belt on your car breaks is it is too weak. So I made a 150kg gear system to replace it. "Wont that be too heavy for the engine to turn it?" , "Oh yeah you will have to replace the whole engine and transmission as well." Except in this instance it is all of society and humanity that would have to be changed or replaced.

On example: the reason duct tapers exist is that they handle the exceptions from really, really ,really, really difficult problems to solve that are already partially solved and working good enough.

[dragonwriter]

> Given there's so much of this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs) right now, I'm not convinced #1 would have a such a negative impact.

Well, it would. Now, you can certainly argue that with an ideal distributional system (or even a far-from-ideal one that is still better than the one the US has, which aren't exactly rare in the developed world), we could have significantly lower total output and still equal or better overall well-being (and far better practical conditions for the lower 60-75% of the income/wealth distribution). And, sure, you'd be right. But we don't have such a system.

> If we broaden are thinking it could have an awesome impact long term.

Returning to a system that encourages positive-feedback economic crashes isn't broadening our thinking, it's just blindly throwing away beneficial progress.

Are there other economic friend that might eliminate the need for the current mitigation for that problem and be far better overall? Probably. Find and implement them first, though.