<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>BenoitEssiambre</author><text>The value of money is completely determined by fed actions and allowing it to drift in detrimental value paths would be the farthest thing from respecting the markets. Economy wide &amp;quot;malinvestment&amp;quot; is not a thing. It entails that a person living off of others is more productive than a person working. It&amp;#x27;s nonsense.&lt;p&gt;Although money should be just an intermediary tool for trade and negotiation, an artificial asset that is neutral, in the short run this intrinsically valueless paper can distort the markets, even if it has predictable value, but only if it is manipulated into being a store of value that has a better risk adjusted return than private market stores of value.&lt;p&gt;Paper money has no intrinsic value in itself. If the fed keeps it predictably devaluing fast enough, always moving it towards its intrinsic value, it acts as a very useful enabler of trade by creating a unit of measurement for value and medium of exchange.&lt;p&gt;But unfortunately, for fiat to enable trade, it also has to artificially be made into a store of value. If this paper is made into a store of value that retains value better than private stores of value (such as stocks, bonds, or just stockpiles of stuff), it jams the markets for private stores of value. It turns savers into accumulators of pieces of paper or numbers in accounts instead of being holders of things that are backed by economic activity and wealth creation. It becomes a subsidy from investors, entrepreneur, job creators and workers to holders of pieces of paper. It is the worst kind of subsidy
 because it blocks wealth and welfare creation.&lt;p&gt;The only way for central banks to allow private markets to function properly, is to get money out of the way by making sure it always devalues fast enough that it doesn&amp;#x27;t overly displace private stores of value that are backed by real economic activity.</text><parent_chain><item><author>adam419</author><text>Here&amp;#x27;s another solution:&lt;p&gt;Respect the wisdom of markets. Allow corrections to take place and don&amp;#x27;t bury malinvestment under the rug only for it rear it&amp;#x27;s ugly head worse later on by acting as if you have a better intuition on what the price of money should be.&lt;p&gt;Most people accept the virtue of free markets. Yet many don&amp;#x27;t see that the actions the Fed has been taking destroys the concept of a market by artificially supplementing supply or demand in an unbounded way based on a perceived sense of greater understanding.&lt;p&gt;The problem is it&amp;#x27;s really hard for most of these policy makers to build a platform based on &amp;quot;Let&amp;#x27;s do nothing and let the markets correct themselves&amp;quot;. In such complex domains like an economy the action bias is very real, problematic, and the best thing to eliminate if you want to renormalize markets.</text></item><item><author>nostromo</author><text>This article doesn&amp;#x27;t answer the question and seems primary based on nostalgia.&lt;p&gt;My theory: the Fed&amp;#x27;s zero interest rate policy is very good at inflating asset values: S&amp;amp;P500, housing, you name it.&lt;p&gt;Rising income is a second-order effect: we hope that rising asset values will lead to increased wages.  That used to be the case, but no longer is.  Why?  Because of automation and globalization probably.&lt;p&gt;So, the Fed has the pedal to the metal for seven whole years and we get mediocre job growth, no real wage growth, but screaming high housing costs and stock market.  And who owns the most real-estate and stocks?  The wealthy do, which is why inequality is growing.&lt;p&gt;Even though I&amp;#x27;m critiquing the Fed&amp;#x27;s policy, I don&amp;#x27;t have the answers and would probably pursue the same policy.  It&amp;#x27;s a real conundrum.  Perhaps basic income, or some other &amp;quot;throw money from helicopters&amp;quot; idea is the solution.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Why Rent Is So High and Pay So Low</title><url>https://lareviewofbooks.org/essay/why-your-rent-is-so-high-and-your-pay-is-so-low-tom-streithorst</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>tcbawo</author><text>This is a gray area.  If we allowed a large automaker to go bankrupt, we probably would have lost the supply chain and many supporting industries which would be gone (from the US) forever.  Same with banks.  As much as we detest bailing out bankers, allowing the US to economy to be cut off from credit would create lasting collateral damage.</text><parent_chain><item><author>adam419</author><text>Here&amp;#x27;s another solution:&lt;p&gt;Respect the wisdom of markets. Allow corrections to take place and don&amp;#x27;t bury malinvestment under the rug only for it rear it&amp;#x27;s ugly head worse later on by acting as if you have a better intuition on what the price of money should be.&lt;p&gt;Most people accept the virtue of free markets. Yet many don&amp;#x27;t see that the actions the Fed has been taking destroys the concept of a market by artificially supplementing supply or demand in an unbounded way based on a perceived sense of greater understanding.&lt;p&gt;The problem is it&amp;#x27;s really hard for most of these policy makers to build a platform based on &amp;quot;Let&amp;#x27;s do nothing and let the markets correct themselves&amp;quot;. In such complex domains like an economy the action bias is very real, problematic, and the best thing to eliminate if you want to renormalize markets.</text></item><item><author>nostromo</author><text>This article doesn&amp;#x27;t answer the question and seems primary based on nostalgia.&lt;p&gt;My theory: the Fed&amp;#x27;s zero interest rate policy is very good at inflating asset values: S&amp;amp;P500, housing, you name it.&lt;p&gt;Rising income is a second-order effect: we hope that rising asset values will lead to increased wages.  That used to be the case, but no longer is.  Why?  Because of automation and globalization probably.&lt;p&gt;So, the Fed has the pedal to the metal for seven whole years and we get mediocre job growth, no real wage growth, but screaming high housing costs and stock market.  And who owns the most real-estate and stocks?  The wealthy do, which is why inequality is growing.&lt;p&gt;Even though I&amp;#x27;m critiquing the Fed&amp;#x27;s policy, I don&amp;#x27;t have the answers and would probably pursue the same policy.  It&amp;#x27;s a real conundrum.  Perhaps basic income, or some other &amp;quot;throw money from helicopters&amp;quot; idea is the solution.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Why Rent Is So High and Pay So Low</title><url>https://lareviewofbooks.org/essay/why-your-rent-is-so-high-and-your-pay-is-so-low-tom-streithorst</url></story>