> They are not in the business of deciding what is good for the economy overall, nor should they be.
> This idea you have about what is a 'productive investment' or not is fairy interventionist.
So, banks do not give a damn about what's good for the economy (while having enormous power to drive economies), but you believe interventionsim is bad anyway?
Also, if you don't know what a productive asset is, you just need to read a little bit: it's not hard to know.
The delusion of efficient central planning is maybe one of the most poignant problems in civilization, because free markets are completely counter intuitive.
The 'reading' that needs to be done here is Adam Smith.
It is extremely difficult to know what a 'productive asset' is.
Luxury items: feels like a waste? But this is a way for rich people to spend stupid amounts of money on something that only they value in their heads, but which nobody else values, and money spreads into the hands of working people. And there are a lot of intangibles that come out of that. Rich guys spending billions on race car teams is where a lot of automotive innovation comes from.
Education: feels productive? Show me millions and millions of papers that nobody else reads, that nobody will ever read and where the 'value' in that is. It would be more 'productive' to send them into Nursing in many cases. But who is going to decide which 'Scientists' are worthy and which one's are not? Tough job!
> This idea you have about what is a 'productive investment' or not is fairy interventionist.
So, banks do not give a damn about what's good for the economy (while having enormous power to drive economies), but you believe interventionsim is bad anyway?
Also, if you don't know what a productive asset is, you just need to read a little bit: it's not hard to know.