tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2277215496195926573.post8261649362473912380..comments2024-01-01T07:41:51.347-08:00Comments on RALPHONOMICS: Richard Murphy’s weak grasp of economics.Ralph Musgravehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09443857766263185665noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2277215496195926573.post-33813738440131175112017-12-19T08:47:30.015-08:002017-12-19T08:47:30.015-08:00There are actually some who advocate 0%, and there...There are actually some who advocate 0%, and there are others arguing for 3 or 4% at the moment. One argument for a small positive rate is that it does not involve big costs in the form of firms having to constantly update their price lists, but at the same time, it acts as a tax on people with loads of money who can't think of anything to do with it other than stuff it in a bank.Ralph Musgravehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09443857766263185665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2277215496195926573.post-26487904431217273042017-12-18T07:42:12.385-08:002017-12-18T07:42:12.385-08:00I don't find any detailed reasons for the cons...I don't find any detailed reasons for the consensus to be the 2%. Why is that? When did the 2% emerge as a magic number that cannot be discussed? I'm not economist, and in my view (perhaps simplistic) the common sense suggest a target of 0%.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11141174240364332967noreply@blogger.com