The US central bank–the Fed–acts to promote full employment with price stability.
Some Fed governors say that employment is real close to being normal, but there is a really low participation rate.
(Analysis tends to focus on whether the Fed is reactionary, which is to describe a causal identity. Scapegoating the harm done is an important component of the bureaucratic model. Saying that inflation, for example, is caused by Fed action escapes the liability associated with the adjustment to income. However, as prices rise to expand the margin of profit, if money is not added to extend the debt to equity, the detriment is so great that it is not possible to escape the gravity of its obvious cause. Again, this is a racketeering scheme–a counter-identity game. It is made to look like a lot of intellectuals pouring over the arcanum of what objective reality is, but no, it is really a bunch of criminals intending to do harm, having a bunch of technical analysts describe it in a way that is so abstruse that HRC, for example, says it isn’t practical to argue about it. Just give in and react to it the best you can.)
The low rate of participation accounts for the low inflation the Fed says needs to rise, indicating a higher rate of interest in economic growth.
Higher inflation is the trigger, indicating higher demand for wages and salaries, which is actively resisted by big businesses, operating with free-trade agreements, for example, and with great success.
The rate of inflation is a relative value. To know what the real, current value is (its currency being its usefulness), it is necessary to then adjust for inflation to yield the real difference in income over time (which is its relative-useful value).
Relative value is the occupation of space over time. If we say that a low participation rate is normal; compared to what? The difference is a relative value that occupies space, and (like Kant said) even though it may not be readily apparent at the current time, we know it intrinsically now despite not having verified its existence as currently useful (being obliged to it, holistically, nonetheless). The truth is revealed by knowing the measurable difference, verified (tested for) by using practical reason, knowing then what was always known (and purely reasonable) but not useful (occupying your space, nevertheless) at the time.
For example, while it may be useful to provide productive incentive in the form of inducing a subsistence wage, it is not an incentive, then, but an inducement. If incentive is what drives productivity, it would be much more productive (practical, useful) for it to proceed from the bottom up (being disinflationary), but capitalists say that is unnatural; and “the time has come” for that to change!
The proper incentive is always there. It is not alienated. We’re just not using it properly.
(Other articles on “proprietary risk” by griffithlighton can be found on the World Wide Web.)
The magic is that we don’t have to wait.
The time is always now to really know the difference.
The right thing to do is always now.
Let it be.