<div dir="ltr">And...an aging demographic argues the case too, that higher rates will support the retired and retiring. Also, the current super low rates are not available to most working class and poor and retired people. The super low rates are benefiting only those who can get cheap loans.  </div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:38 PM, ish mailian <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ishmailian@gmail.com" target="_blank">ishmailian@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I don't know much about RN's relationships with female academics or their husbands but he may still claim to be supporting both a rate hike by the Fed and working people, the poor, and the retired, most of whom are not rich but nevertheless, live on investments, the great portion of which is in fixed income securities. <div><br></div><div>One need only give Nader the benefit of the broken Phillip's Curve. There are a growing number of economists who now contend that the continuance of the zero bound policy is hurting the economy and working people because, while unemployment has been driven down to near NAIRU by Fed policy, it will nothing to lift wages and will cost, not only those retired to live on less, but those close to retirement to work longer because investment in safe retirement assets is discouraged while bubbles are made an popped, and, while those indebted must pay off loans with non-inflated wages. </div><div><br></div><div>The Fed has a triple mandate, though the press and the Fed and Congress confuse things by calling it a duel mandate. The third part is rates. The Fed is charged with keeping rates in a range that promotes growth. It's no doing that now. It is fixated on the Phillips curve model and it's not working now. JY did well to focus on the unemployed and the participation rate and the quit rate etc..., in other words, employment and wages, and ignore inflation. She should continue with that plan. The Fed can't fight the world. At this point, RN is on to something....lift rates to help the working people. </div><div><div class="h5"><div><br></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 9:18 AM, David Morris <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:fqmorris@gmail.com" target="_blank">fqmorris@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Ralph Nader, epic mansplainer, tells Janet Yellen to listen to her husband.<div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.salon.com/2015/11/02/ralph_nader_epic_mansplainer_tells_janet_yellen_to_listen_to_her_husband/" target="_blank">http://www.salon.com/2015/11/02/ralph_nader_epic_mansplainer_tells_janet_yellen_to_listen_to_her_husband/</a><br></div><div><br></div>Apparently, Ralph Nader is still talking, though in a way that certainly inspires a deep desire to go to Tumblr to find as many “shut up†gifs as one can find. Over the weekend, Nader published a nonsensical piece at the Huffington Post complaining that “humble savers†are getting screwed by the Federal Reserve’s unwillingness to raise the interest rate, which Nader seems to think is an elaborate plot to help the rich banks at the expense of working people.<br><br>As Jordan Weissmann at Slate points out, the entire argument doesn’t make a lot of sense, as “relatively few households actually survive on interest income.†Most ordinary people would benefit a lot more from a robust economy than a higher interest rate on their savings account, but Nader seems to assume a nation of people living on investments rather than on paychecks, which really undermines his spokesman-for-the-working-class schtick.</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>