[heavyset_go]

> This is a slick visualization and agree with your point. I feel ZIRP for such an extended time period was nuts and it was responsible for the asset bubble, let weak players survive and supported more risk taking.

I think it might also end up being important to remain competitive in a global market where the other economic superpower's government is willing to invest trillions into building whatever it wants and needs despite profitability[1].

Some things we want/need won't be immediately profitable, or even profitable in the long run. They might not even be things we realize we need until something unprofitable is researched and developed.

Not saying that Snap is something we need, but if the US is forced to strictly rely on market forces to compete, "free" capital via low/no interest rates is a way to kind of do it.

[1] https://tnsr.org/2022/12/chinas-brute-force-economics-waking...

[rchaud]

How much of ZIRP-inflated capital went into chasing fanciful ventures like UberEats, Wework, Doordash, Airbnb, crypto and Twitter? State-run capitalism channeling funds into strategically important areas feels like a breath of fresh air compared to handing it to venture capitalists.

[brutus1213]

There is a nice Youtube channel called asionometry that shows that this was done time and time again (maybe more in Asia and Europe) in things related to electronics and semicon manufacturer, and it failed most of the time. TSMC was a shocking exception though I'm sure there are others.

In the old days, these investments were tiny compared to what is being currently spent on the chips act. I think for STEM a better approach would be a govt sponsored entrepreneurship thing .. imagine the same YC deal but we give this to any PhDs (or maybe even Masters) once in their career. I'm from Canada and when I see the cash wasted on other initiatives, I can't help but wonder why this is done. Not to say Masters or PhDs are geniuses. It is just the current system means only the well-to-do or well-pedigreed can get into places like YC (and maybe elite schools like Berkeley) while intelligence, grit and ambition are more widely distributed.

[heavyset_go]

I agree, hence my comment about the US choosing to rely strictly on markets to allocate capital. If the only lever the country is willing to pull is to adjust interest rates, it's sort of a means to that end, however inefficient.

[usrusr]

But how many businesses that might have been profitable just fine and that will be wanted/needed at one point have disappeared or just never happened because their market was killed by one of those post-profitability unicorns high on ZIRP-fueled market cap? Up to what point is it still market capitalism and where does it become barely more than an elaborate hoax benefiting those who lack neither collateral nor the will to leverage?