[lmm]

> The end result? Those with the least money (the poor, and those on fixed incomes) are totally hosed. If you can't afford rent at $800, you surely can't afford it at $1400. More handouts only make the problem worse.

That's absurd; while a one-off is nowhere near as good as a basic income, a flat "handout" benefits the poor for obvious reasons (at the expense of the rich; there's no free lunch).

> The Fed's response (raising interest rates) will make cars and houses out of reach for many.

Buying cars and houses with money you don't have and hoping you can make up for it in the future is something we never should've normalised. Someone preaching "fiscal responsibility" should see this as a good thing.

[imtringued]

How do you expect fiscal responsibility in an economic system where money both embodies purchasing power which is a stock and liquidity which is a flow? Liquidity is a costly service provided by the public, every open shop and business provides liquidity and operating a business even with no customers costs money. This means anyone holding onto money can force others to spend money on providing expensive liquidity which completely eradicates the concept of fiscal responsibility because the holders of money aren't responsible for paying for the liquidity they benefit from.

[lmm]

So we have a moderate level of inflation so that those who keep their wealth in cash are paying for the liquidity. Seems fine.