AKA “Intellectual vanity and policy poseurs”
AKA “Contorting sophistry in favour of contractionary monetary policy”
AKA “The global Serious id hrumphs again”.
Via Matt Cowgill I see weak corporate governance beneficiary  Richard Goyder humphs a hrumph about interest rates.
Really, what (if any) process of logic is behind this?
A monetary policy stance that targets consistent low, but positive, inflation is largely targeting a level of output that is at “capacity” (given current technology, laws, people etc.).
By definition we can’t produce more than capacity, because we don’t have the capacity to produce it. We’d just have inflation instead.
If you’re achieving consistent low, but positive inflation, your monetary stance is neutral.
Promoting monetary policy that is tighter than this, your policy is putting artifical contraints on an economy producing what it is enitrely capable of.
Naturally, producing what we can is reliant on not being prevented from doing so.
Subsequently I present Mr Goyder’s wisdom on a few other topics.
Dr Goyder, sports scientist:
I’m urging the coach to resist putting the fullback’s leg in a cast. We should promote players that can adapt to football and don’t rely on having unbroken legs, which can have unintended consequences.
Richard Goyder, anti poverty expert:
I’m urging DoCS to resist removing the lock from the poor’s kitchen cupboard. We should target a population that can adapt and is not reliant on eating the food they have available, which can have unintended consequences.
Herr Doktor Goyder, Zeppelinist.
I’m urging other Zeppelinists not to release any sandbags or tethers. We should target Zeppelins that can adapt and are not reliant on being allowed to float freely, which can have unintended consequences.
If only these disciplines had been endowed with the hard headed realism that dominates board rooms before. Hrumph!
[fn1] A special class of employees largely unanswerable to their nominal employers, with considerable power to set their own wages and responsibility. Also known as “executives” and, somewhat inexplicably, “businesspeople”.