The Fed will continue the accommodation of debt, which is an income measure. Not for the average income, however, but to support the naturally declining rate of profit due to falling income (deflation) with higher productivity (adding to the supply side), referred to as productivity gains.
Adding to the supply of money does not increase income for most consumers (but it will increase inflation with a “reasonable” expectation, on demand).
Supply-side economics increases debt (on demand). Accommodation is a debt-extension program to support the demand necessary to resist the declining rate of profit by default. Pop analysts refer to this natural tendency as an earnings recession.
Accommodation is a well-rehearsed pattern of resistance, intending to resist a natural tendency that exists by default. It resists the inherent liability associated with adding to the supply side by reducing demand. Without the accommodation (adding debt to demand the supply) capitalism is an obvious failure, revealing its “natural identity” on demand.
It is important to understand that supply-side economics adds to the money supply in the form of debt. The trick, for the capitalist, is to add debt without causing inflation, which the Fed says is the measure it needs to trigger raising the interest rate, which reduces demand to resist deflation.
If it appears to be a circular argument, that would be correct. The “trick” is to run a game: making it appear that the tautology is the arguable, natural circulation of the risk or the risk flow, having the reasonable expectation of inflation, which is “too much money chasing too few goods,” which just happens to be contrary to the proof of adding to the supply side.
Operating with a disconfirmed hypothesis, the Republican Party, whose economic platform is supply-side economics, has to talk about something–anything!–else, and the media goes right along, running the game, supplying million-dollar contracts to buy and sell the message presented to me and you on demand.
It is a pattern of resistance that is becoming less and less effective, mostly because the stakes are too high.
When the general election comes around, we will hear supply-side arguments. Sanders is much more likely to beat the economic drum while Republicans want to talk about global terrorism and national security. They won’t win, especially with Sanders, who is apt to show how those issues are immediately demanding but are being used to divert attention away from a failed economic platform.
Republicans will argue the supply-side every time. Most people don’t really understand it except to experience the measurable effect–working more for less, if you can get a job at all.
Sanders is the natural resistance to the supply-side argument. Mrs. Clinton is more accommodative. She will rail against trickle-down economics, but resist debunking the supply-side argument because it is too arcane.
Trickle-down economics (Hamiltonianism) is a failed economic model. It is associated with supply-side theory in that it is a reinvention of a failed economic model. Socialism for the rich (state capitalism) is a great success for rich people, ensuring the “natural identity” of the capital (like Ayn Rand said), giving income inequality not only the moral strength (the virtue) of natural law (as Hamiltonians described it) but also the force and legitimacy of public authority.
Since there is no natural resistance to natural law, Republicans (and Democrats who argue him to be impractical) say Sanders is delusional. Sanders, however, is the best candidate to counter supply-side arguments, arguing a pattern of resistance that goes back to the founding of the American nation, naturally resisting the harm intending to be done in the name of providing for the public good, or “the general welfare,” endowed by nature by default.
Hamilton’s model was founded on the extension of debt, just like the king did, except the king is now “We The People.” That it extends to you, in the form of an asset and not a liability, to which you are naturally subordinated (or morally obliged), is what the Sanders campaign is all about.
Your support is the natural pattern of resistance, accommodative by default.