[AngrySkillzz]

> people who benefit most have both assets and debt. These are wealthy people

Generally you have to have more assets than debt to be considered "wealthy." This is why the word "net" is important in the parent comment. And you are completely ignoring the second-order effects, which is that an economy with low, stable inflation is good for everyone. And if you are going to quibble "why is low, stable inflation good for everyone," then look at the deflationary spirals of the great depression (or any pre-1900 crash) and any hyperinflationary economy of your choosing.

> If demand decreases then production should decrease

Okay Chairman, have it your way. COVID hits, demand plummets, we do nothing to try to keep people in jobs or keep the financial system from collapsing. Less production is indicated!

> buggy whips

This is a total red herring and you know it. No one is talking about counter-cyclical monetary policy and implying it is being used to keep anachronistic firms in business.

[chordalkeyboard]

> Generally you have to have more assets than debt to be considered "wealthy." This is why the word "net" is important in the parent comment.

I think you’re missing the point.

> you are completely ignoring the second-order effects

I’m sure I referred to them repeatedly.

> an economy with low, stable inflation is good for everyone

This is argument by assertion, which I have already responded above by explaining, in detail, how this is not the case.

> look at the deflationary spirals of the great depression (or any pre-1900 crash) and any hyperinflationary economy of your choosing.

You’ve helped me to show why an unstable currency is bad. You haven’t supported your assertion of why a depreciating currency is good for everyone.

> COVID hits, demand plummets, we do nothing to try to keep people in jobs or keep the financial system from collapsing. Less production is indicated!

Sounds good. Those pesky billionaires are going to be upset that we don’t continue to pump up their asset prices but whatever.

> No one is talking about counter-cyclical monetary policy and implying it is being used to keep anachronistic firms in business.

Why not? Why is it good to print money so unproductive workers don’t get laid off, but its bad to print money to keep unproductive firms from disappearing?

[AngrySkillzz]

> Sounds good.

Aight chief I'm out. Glad we have agreed that 25% unemployment is a good thing. You sure are concerned about those working class people trying to feed their families! I am in awe of your superior economic knowledge and humanitarian instincts. It is unfortunate that the people running the central banks are such rascals, rigging the economy for the benefit of the ultra-wealthy, when you could be doing their job instead.