> You'll see most economists advocating a consumption tax, instead.
I was under the impression that a land value tax was the most widely supported amongst economists (due to its efficiency, lack of distorting effects, and difficulty in avoiding).
> Both the "pumping up asset prices" and "while doing nothing for the real economy" is extremely disputable. It's kind of pompous of you to think you know better than the team of PhDs at the Fed, too.
See Richard Koo regarding balance sheet recessions for a less pompous assertion that QE does little to help. There are plenty of other eminent economists such as Mr Koo who also disagree with the FED's 'team of PhD's'.
I was under the impression that a land value tax was the most widely supported amongst economists (due to its efficiency, lack of distorting effects, and difficulty in avoiding).
> Both the "pumping up asset prices" and "while doing nothing for the real economy" is extremely disputable. It's kind of pompous of you to think you know better than the team of PhDs at the Fed, too.
See Richard Koo regarding balance sheet recessions for a less pompous assertion that QE does little to help. There are plenty of other eminent economists such as Mr Koo who also disagree with the FED's 'team of PhD's'.