Money, itself, isn't as real as the goods, services and assets that it buys. Money is just a number system.

As the national debt keeps going up, people worry that we may run out of money. In reality, we can just print more money, it's not a real commodity that runs out. It's not as real as the goods and services that it buys. It's the actual goods and services that we may not have enough of.

The problem with printing money is that doesn't create the goods and services, it just creates the money itself. Too much money causes inflation in the price of things since it means more dollars chasing the same number of goods and services.

The money, itself, isn't as real as the things it buys. Money is basically just an accounting tool. It's a way to regulate the economy. The actual flow of goods and services is what makes up the true economy.

Printing money doesn't create goods and services, but it can grease the wheels of the economy clearing up bottlenecks for facilitating the production and distribution of goods and services.

On the other hand, too much money can overprice things and plug up the real economy. Balance is what is needed for a finely tuned economy. There needs to be just enough money for things to run smoothly and not too much money to upset the balance.

The money, itself, is not a real commodity, it's just a tool for doing the math and keeping the economy humming.

A good question to ask is this. "Is our economy serving our best needs?" Money is just a tool of mathematics, it's not a god or even a real resource in itself.

Lower interest rates might just push up existing asset prices pushing inflation. This might be why the Fed is cautious.

If Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell were to push for lower interest rates, it would likely push up the values of assets; such as stocks and real estate. This could inflate costs; such as housing costs. That is one reason why he is resisting pressure from Trump.

Another thing I heard, on a talk show, is that lower interest rates, for US bonds, would make them less popular, making it harder for the government to finance debt by selling bonds. It might have to resort to creating new money, also inflationary. The Bond Market can be a check on Trump.

Time to mention my idea of having two interest rates; a lower one for creating new wealth, such as for construction loans and a higher one for buying up already existing assets.

Now it's Trump's turn to become the unpopular incumbent.

Public opinion does swing like a pendulum. More people are becoming wary of what could be seen as Trump's overreach according to some recent polls.

Also lots of things, that people complain about like inflation, are difficult for any president to mgically fix. Tarrifs could make consumer products more expensive; especially in the short run.

In the long run, maybe society is too consumptive and dependent on long distance supply chains, but we can't "have it all" and change doesn't come overnight. Do we really want a recession? There is a phrase that goes, "be careful what you ask for as you might get it."

Recent news from New York.

An executive order might end congestion pricing, but it can't end congestion itself.

New York City was trying to reduce traffic gridlock on Manhattan Island with congestion pricing for automobiles on that limited space. No executive order can magically end traffic congestion or end worry about climate change, for that matter. On such a crowded island as Manhattan, public transit is a better way to go.

Is inflation a problem? Quality of life should be the true bottom line.

Sunrise. Image from my smartphone at the end of the hallway in public housing outside my studio apartment. Hallway lights reflected on window glass to the right.

Republicans have won some elections being propelled by public concern about inflation. Some folks would like to roll back prices to pre pandemic levels, but that would be deflation; something associated with depression. Be careful what you ask for cause you might get it.

Deflation can lead to much less consumer spending as consumers postpone purchases till the price comes down farther; not necessarily always a bad thing, but be careful what you ask for. In the computer field, we have already had deflation, but consumption does continue. For decades, advancing technologies have lower prices while increasing capabilities. This trend is often called "Moore's Law."

Moore's Law has not lead to a total collapse of spending as people still buy things in order to use them. Waiting years, before buying a computer or smartphone, while waiting for a better deal, means going without the use of such devices for years. People buy anyway and then upgrade when the newer models become available.

There is still a brisk enough consumer market, in electronics, so many good phones go to landfills. Phone and internet service providers still push upgrades making their networks less compatible to older devices.

Certain things, like housing and healthcare, continue to get more expensive and deflation, in those areas, could lower the overall cost of living. Do homeowners want their home values to deflate? Deflation is usually seen as bad and leading to unemployment as well. We all need to be careful what we ask for as we might get it.

For renters and first time home buyers, dropping property values can be a good thing; if one is able to stay employeed, however.

Often it does seem like the economy is a meaningless treadmill. For every step we go forward in wages, we fall 2 steps back in prices; especially for things like housing and healthcare.

Taking a deeper look at what we are trying to accomplish, with our economy, is what needs to be done. How gratifying is life? Are we happier? Are we heathier? Is the economy making progress toward climate stability? Is our technology improving in ways that enhance civilization?

Rate of inflation is back down, but bringing prices back to pre inflation levels would be deflation. Do we want that?

Overall inflation is almost back down to the around 2% modest target, but some people are still not satisfied. Prices are still higher now than they were before the last period of inflation started. I guess we could try and bring prices down to below current levels. That's deflation. Do people really want deflation?

Many economists say that deflation should be avoided as it is usually associated with recession and depression. Is that what people secretly want? Do they want a collapse of the economy? Maybe people have a secret desire for less consumption and materialism. Is there a secret desire for less emphasis on wealth and money?

Falling home values might make housing cheaper, but it would put some folks "upside down" in their home; that is if they owe a mortgage.

If Trump returns to the White House, I think it's likely that the following divisiveness and instability could cause the economy to go into a tailspin. That's why a lot of money does seem to be on the side of Kamala Harris. Apparently Harris does lead in campaign contributions. It's what could be called "blue state money" as blue states do tend to be more successful economically.

I think the innovation of liberal culture tends to be good for prosperity and resilience in modern times given the "information / high tech economy." It's no longer your grandfather's economy. Personally, I still feel that a lifestyle of less consumption is desirable and better for the natural environment and I also feel that we can make personal choices toward less consumption with Harris as president.

With Trump as president, personal choices toward less consumptive lifestyles would still be possible, but the increased instability and hatred toward one another, that a Trump Presidency is likely to stir up, would be undesirable for many reasons. Economic collapse, a likely scenario under Trump, could force people into less consumption, but certain scenarios of being forced into economic turmoil would not be pretty. On the other hand, given more likely social stability and status quo under Harris, we could still make the personal choices toward more responsible lifestyles; such as in evolution versus revolution.

There should be a higher interest rate for speculation and a lower one for creating something.

The Federal Reserve walks a tightrope between raising interest rates which could lead to recession and lowering interest rates which could lead to inflation. Trying to figure out the best "one size fits all" rate is problematic.

I've often thought they should be able to set different interest rates for different uses of the money. Rates should be high for speculation on existing assets and low for creating new assets. For instance speculation that bids up the price of existing housing should be discouraged while construction of new housing should be encouraged.

Housing has been one of the big drivers of inflation in recent years. Raising interest rates tries to cool speculation and inflation, but it also can reduce construction of new housing which would increase supply.

There is a similar situation in business as money can be used just to bid up stock prices and have companies buy one another (existing assets) or money can be used to build new assets.

Government can be a good use for low interest rates when it uses money for improving infrastructure.

Rather than having a one size fits all solution for interest rates, I think there should be a way to have different interest rates for different uses of the money.

I also think the Federal government, thus Biden these days, gets blamed for things like housing inflation, but much of the cause of short supply is caused by local zoning ordinances. The Feds don't usually weigh in on zoning decisions done at the local level.

State governments, such as here in Washington State, are now starting to try and weigh in on local zoning to increase housing supply. Recent state legislation is starting to discourage cities, within the state, from having too much restrictive single family zoning.

Should we have different interest rates for different uses?

Creating new money can lead to inflation. Here are some partial solutions I think might help tame the inflation problem a bit.

People talk about the Fed creating different windows for providing money, like teller windows in a bank.

For instance, I think about this related to funding the private sector. Create a window of low interest loans to fund new supply for things we need like housing. Low interest rates if business is building new housing; especially affordable housing, but even just housing in general. There was the phrase "drill baby drill." Now we can have "build baby build." Bring on more supply to satisfy supply and demand.

Another window would jack up iterest rates if the money is used by private investors to bid up the price of existing real estate and assets. A high interest rate for speculators bidding up prices, but not accomplishing new supply.

As for government debt, which is often accused of driving up inflation by creating the need to print money, we do seem to need government. Yes, we can try to make it more efficient, but the big items in government spending are usually off the table, so to speak, for cuts. Medicare, Military, Veterans benefits, disaster relief. Other tiny parts of the budget, like NASA are also important. I like things like advancing science, but even conservatives seem to want "American exceptionalism." If we cut NASA, or something like the Biden Chips program, we could be seading the high ground in STEM to other countries like China.

Speaking of disaster relief, the pandemic is an example of all bets are off. We aren't going to cut now, we do need 3 trillion more dollars to get us through this situation.

How about allowing the government to "lock in" the prevailing interest rate at the time that the spending was authorized?

Before and during the pandemic, interest rates were low. We borrowed on the cheap. Similar to what many homeowners get, can the government lock in low interest rates on past debt; like a mortgage?

Now some folks are worried about inflation. One of the worse examples of inflation during and soon after the pandemic was the rise in home values. I hear close to 20% in a year. Rents going up also. This contributing to what is called housing insecurity for many folks.

We do need to ratchet up interest rates on speculation, but there are things we still need for our survival that could still go to the low rate window.

We need to build more housing for our growing population and economy, but another bank, the Earth, is also limited. Sprawl all over the farmlands of Whatcom County.

Reduce population growth, smaller homes and footprints for each individual. Live like my (Robert Ashworth) lifestyle. It's a trade off between materialism growth versus some aspects of quality in life. Take time for friendships, slow travel and so forth even if it doesn't pay the money bills. One can still enjoy the fruits of advancing technology. Smartphones do have a smaller footprint than the old style vacume tube radios and televisions.

Why there are a lot of jobs in spite of rising interest rates

Some people are scratching their heads wondering why there are still so many jobs in spite of high interest rates. I just thought of a reason. Lowering interest rates is a bad way to increase the number of jobs.

Up until the pandemic, low interest has basically gone into inflating home values and other assets; not as much into creating jobs. Now that interest rates are higher, asset values are starting to calm down, but job creation remains strong; so far at least.

Conservatives tend to think private enterprise is better at creating jobs than government. That philosophy has been a big factor behind trying to create jobs via low interest rates. It hasn't worked that well. To a large extent, private entrepreneurs have held onto their money and acted to protect their asset values. This doesn't lead to that much job creation. More recently, there has been a surge in government spending, covid relief, infrastructure and stimulus spending. I think that might be a better way to create jobs; even in the private sector as private companies are often mostly just vendors supplying government contracts.

The true private market has been more sluggish in past years due to many factors; including caution about risking capital on new ventures. There's been some new ventures and innovation in private enterprise, but also a lot of aversion to risk. Conservatives would say that aversion to risk is mostly caused by layers and layers of government regulation. Yes, that's a big factor, but not everyone wants what private enterprise brings to their neighborhood. One example of a restrictive regulation, of course, is single family zoning.

Now that there's more talk about the housing shortage, I am noticing more multi family construction going on in the past 3, or so, years. This, being a factor leading to the boom in construction jobs and a shortage of skilled labor in the carpentry field.

Job creation has been pretty strong during the Biden Presidency. Conservatives are wondering "how can that be?" Some folks are predicting a crash to come soon due, in part, to the rising interest rates. They also don't trust "Bidenomics."

Who knows, but so far, the job picture still looks pretty rosy and I think rising interest rates hasn't detracted much from job creation. Rising interest rates may mean less people making a living by flipping real estate.