Recently, it has been argued that exceptionally low interest rates are necessary for a healthy, thriving economy.
This argument does not take into account the entire purpose of interest rates, and what should be the natural rise and fall of rates in relation to the increase or decrease in deficit spending. Despite its more conservative reputation of the last 50 years in contrast to the democrat party, the Republican party has been known generally as the party that always champions economic prosperity. Because of this, and because of the success of President Reagan's economic policies which led interest rates to drop, in contrast to the high rates under Jimmy Carter, there has been an assumption that the policy of low interest rates under virtually all circumstances is part of the conservative or America First platform. Is this true? If so, when did this start?

The true platform, and indeed, the foundation for America First policy is one of honesty, where the logical, natural laws of cause and effect are honored. It is not a platform that seeks to suspend these laws and mask the consequences of inflationary spending for as long as possible in order to "keep the wheels turning". The honest picture is not always the most attractive or most convenient one. It simply reflects the true conditions. Yet this helps expose real problems in a timely manner. It was this very honesty and non-partisanship on the part of the Federal Reserve that helped expose to the public the errant, destructive policies of Jimmy Carter and the democrats, bringing in the Reagan Revolution. President Reagan himself did not believe that the Federal Reserve should hold interest rates artificially low, but that the rates should reflect real economic conditions, either for the better or the worse.
Most are aware that the 1980's is considered a very successful time economically, with a strong American industrial base, with American jobs being kept and created in truly meaningful spheres of work. What many may not be aware of is that this was all done with double digit interest rates. Among the lowest of the interest rates was those for first time home buyers, at the specially low rate of just under 13%. With these interest rates, did people have great trouble buying or staying in their home? No. Were they having to hold down multiple jobs and stay on the run for six or seven days a week just to "make ends meet"? No. Were gas or grocery prices high? No. Did people have great trouble being able to afford a car or more importantly, afford music training for their son or daughter? No.
In contrast, the deepest and longest-running recession since the 1930's began in 2008 and continued during the entire eight years that Barack Obama lived at the Whitehouse. All of this time was with record-low interest rates. What was the difference? The difference was the spending.

It was not until the early 1990's that universally low interest rates began to be promoted, particularly as standing policy. By this time, the United States had already prospered like at no other time in its history, had created 20 million new jobs, and the Cold War was won without having ever fired a shot. Conservatives and republicans did not need, nor did they want to promote universally low interest rates, for the sake of economic progress. This policy was promoted by the democrats, and none other than Hillary Rodham Clinton, for the sake of circulating what she called 'horded wealth'.

In light of these and many other realities, are high interest rates the great obstacle to economic success that some have made them seem? Are low interest rates really of true help to the economy? What some may consider a great inconvenience in high rates is actually a powerful reminder of the importance of prioritization, thrift and saving for the things of true value, with the assurance that they will have a meaningful return on their investment and their time. It is this very savings and investment that strengthens domestic industry and allows it to thrive, and that helps generate true wealth. In contrast, an abundance of money showered onto the economy by the federal government does not create true wealth. It only creates an illusion of wealth by the "change" it creates, which is then billed as "progress" and "economic growth". It is this deficit spending that creates a rigged economy, devalues the dollar, and escalates prices.

In summary, if a country finds that it has to keep interest rates at the lowest possible levels for people to afford anything meaningful, or it is reliant on moving the rates down by one or two points just to make the difference between movement or complete failure, it has a much more serious problem that needs to be addressed, beginning now.

www.donaldjtrump.com