That piece is arguing that at best, VWINX will fall less than other traditional funds, e.g. since it leans toward value¹. That's in contrast to funds that are designed to benefit from inflation. Which is why I felt that it doesn't make much sense to directly compare performance of these two types of funds.
¹This is not unusual for traditional 40/60 funds. Only 4 out of 120 (30%-50% allocation) funds have portfolios that are in growth style boxes (per M* screener).
The writer speaks in sweeping generalities without substantiation:

• the fact that the Fed Funds rate will stay at or near zero for at least the next few years [as of Sept 2020].
  Facts don't change, but predictions do as events change or more data is known. In June, "The central bank forecast[] it would raise interest rates twice by the end of 2023 after previously estimating there would be no interest rate hike until 2024."
  Most recently (Sept), "Just over 70 per cent of [leading academic economists surveyed by FT] believe the Fed will raise rates by at least a quarter of a percentage point in 2022, with almost 20 per cent expecting the move to come in the first six months of the year. That is far earlier than the 2023 lift-off from today’s near-zero levels that Fed officials pencilled in back in June."
  
• Higher inflation likely leads to higher interest rates and a steeper yield curve?
  Wellesley traditionally holds a longer duration portfolio than is typical for its peers. That would hurt Wellesley if you believe this generalization linking interest rates and yield curves and that it will hold the next time.
  However, when we look at the last sharp spike in interest rates (1978-1981) we see a very different picture. Rate going up across all maturities (which would hurt all high grade bonds), but with the yield curve inverting - the opposite of steepening. (Inverted yield curves often presage recessions, which in turn can be triggered by high inflation and lower spending.)
  
  (Source page)

Speaking of the late 70s and inverted yield curves, banks (notably S&Ls) took a beating, as they lent out long term money at lower rates while borrowing short term money (via deposit accounts) at higher rates. SA notes that VWINX concentrates on financials, but doesn't break it down further. (According to its latest semiannual report, about half of the fund's financial sector holdings are in banks: JPM, BAC, MS, TFC.) Personally, I have faith in Wellington Management to navigate this risk.
M* has an actual analysis of real performance data for VWINX to see how the fund responds to rising interest rates.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1041732/stress-testing-some-vanguard-and-t-rowe-allocation-funds
What M* found was that Aug-Dec 2016, "as the price of long-dated bonds fell, Vanguard Wellesley Income lagged its average category peer by 1.2 percentage points." VWINX lost money over that period while on average its peers eeked out gains.
OTOH, "over the more recent January-October 2018 interest-rate climb ... [VWINX] modestly outpaced the average of that group by 0.5 percentage points. Even with its longer duration, the strategy’s lower exposure to weaker-performing non-U.S. equities gave it a bump.
Hmm, a lesser exposure to foreign equities. SA didn't pick up on this. Could help again if rates climb globally, but hurt if rates rise disproportionately in the US. Regardless, we're again talking about relative performance against peers, not measuring against inflation oriented funds.
I certainly wouldn't sell VWINX. Though that's different from saying that this fund is designed to weather extended bouts of inflation well.

Its been a weird month where Energy boomed and everything else was sorta sagging.
1 MONTH RELATIVE PERFORMANCE
-6.3 % Healthcare
-5.3 Real Estate
-5.3 Utilities
- 5 Basic Materials
-4.2 Communication Services
-4.2 Technology
-3.7 Consumer Defensive
-2.5 Consumer Cyclical
-1.5 Industrials
+13.9 Energy
+ 1.6 Financial

@LewisBraham
Your last entry reminds me of Ray Dalio's presentation on "How the Economic Machine Works". I recall one quote form his presentation that goes something like:
"One man's debt (liability) is another man's income (asset)"
Debt creates what he describes as the long and short term debt cycles. Individuals need to service (repay) there debt (Principal & interest) to the borrower (usually the bank). An arrangement exists whereby the government injects liquidity into the system at a very low interest rate (overnight bank rate). The bank in turns loans this liquidity (money) to individuals and corporations so that they can receive and offer goods and services.
The money loaned to individuals and corporations needs to be repaid to the bank (both principal and interest). The money borrowed by the bank is only repaid to the government to the extent that it is borrowed and the banks only outlay is the overnight rate of interest. The government repo's (soaks up) any liquidity (borrowed money) that was not used by the bank to extend credit to credit worthy borrowers.
If credit worthy borrowers add value (labor, innovation, good & services, demand for financial assets) they are able to both pay back the bank and grow the economy. It all works.
When borrowers default, the systems grinds to a halt.
I'm sure you understand all of this, but too many (myself included) Ray Dalio does a great job explaining it all (see video below).
Getting back to inflation. It seems a strong economy should both inflate (have elements good inflation) and deflate (have elements good deflation) simultaneously (would be nice).
IMHO, Biden's bill should be looked at through that lens.
When is Inflation good?
how-can-inflation-be-good-economy
why-is-inflation-good
When is Deflation good?
can-deflation-be-good
Ray Dalio's Presentation:

In preparation for retirement, most people spend 90% of their planning time on the financial issues and 10% on the non-financial issues. After retirement, the ratio reverses, and most retirees spend the vast majority of their time focusing on the non-financial issues of life

Seems like a article worth sharing. Lots of links to other topics for both young (Pre-retirees) and Old (In-retirees).
introducing-the-90-10-rule-of-retirement

You might find this interesting: https://money.usnews.com/financial-advisors/articles/q-a-blackrocks-jeff-rosenberg-on-systematic-fixed-income-investing

Hi @stillers

BTW, it's not shouting with me, it's emphasis. I learned from three decades of communicating directly to senior management of many firms that people many times (1) don't read what was written, I mean literally, they don't read it, (2) many times do not open links and if they do they read only the headlines and/or first para, and (3) miss the main points of what is written unless they are bolded or capitalized.

AGREE (but not shouting, meaning emphasis).
Too many times, especially when companies really started using pcs/laptops for all employees, that folks didn't seem to read as well as from printed text.
I still CAP some words for emphasis and more so will text messages so the full meaning is NOT missed...

Glad you get the whole emphasis thing.
THIS IS SHOUTING!!! THIS is emphasis.
And yep, LOTS has changed with technology and LOTS of it ain't so good for us. (No, I am not related to the Unabomber.)
A way, way too educated, very close friend is schooling me on what he (at least) refers to as "liquid intelligence." (That might be one of his or his guru's phrases. I dunno. Online I only see fluid and crystalized intelligence.)
My buddy claims that we, who actually DO read, read SO much SO fast online these days, and we think we are improving our intelligence and/or wisdom with all that intake.
But truth be told, we are failing miserably on all that as the "liquid intelligence" that we score though all that reading does NOT routinely get converted to I and/or W.
Think it through.
Think back to the last five articles you read TODAY. Think of what you remember as the FACTS and/or MAIN POINTS of those articles.
Then go back and re-read them. Check yourself. How did you do? Maybe pretty good. Maybe not so good. And if you spoke to people TODAY about what you read, you may have sounded pretty intelligent, crap, maybe even wise, about those topics. Maybe not so much.
Now next week start talking to someone IN DETAIL about those exact same five articles. Tell them the FACTS and/or MAIN POINTS of what you read. How did you do this time?
If you didn't write them down, will you even remember what they were about in say a month from now when you try to re-test yourself? Good luck with all that.
I've tried this a coupla times. If it was financial or sports related, I did VERY good on the day I read the stuff. And I still pretty good a week later. A month later, not so good. (Read, "Failed miserably.")
On other stuff NOT related to finance or sports, the next day and a month later, as Sgt Schultz of Hogan's Heroes fame might say, "I know nothing!" Yep, that "liquid intelligence" easily passed through me.

Event based markets are difficult to bet on, especially when the event is 2 weeks away. Small and micro caps are in red today. So, it is not full on risk, notwithstanding a decent up day in large cap averages.

Yep. Anybody’s guess how it will all play out. Not only the debt question, but Evergrande and a lot of other newsworthy issues. I’d expect a “relief bounce” in many markets lasting a day of two if / when the debt issue is settled. However, I still think the path of least resistance near term is down - if we’re talking about the major indexes. That’s not to say some individual stocks and sectors won’t do well.

Well, for many it goes a bit beyond guessing.
GoldmanSachs for one I trust uses some pretty sophisticated programs and their "guess" (if you can call it that) is for a S&P 9% gain in Q4.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/05/goldman-sachs-sees-a-big-4th-quarter-with-a-9percent-sp-500-gain-from-here.html
=======================
Having been an auditor/audit manager for 30+ years, I'm pretty anal about words as I've seen one incorrect word in a FS footnote can change a person's interpretation of a company's entire financial outlook. (I know, I've read that incorrect "one word" many times and sadly applied ones myself more than I care to remember.)
"Relief bounces" or more commonly "Relief rallies" are generally associated with secular bear markets:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/relief-rally.asp
FWIW, IMO, this is NOT a "relief rally" an I've NOT heard a single person in the biz refer to it as that. Just sayin'.

“Powell's chances have fallen from about 80% in August to 61% as of Monday morning. The sharp decline comes amid an ongoing stock trading controversy that has ensnared several Fed governors and led to the resignations of Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren and Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan.”
Story
Third member now implicated amid growing public outcry
Federal Reserve Vice Chair Richard Clarida switched between $1 million to $5 million from a bond fund into stock funds a day before Chairman Jerome Powell said coronavirus poses risks to the US economy, according to his financial disclosures from 2020. Forms filed with the government ethics office show that Clarida shifted funds out of a Pimco bond fund on February 27 last year, and bought into the Pimco StocksPlus Fund and the iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor exchange-traded fund on the same day, Bloomberg reported on Friday.
Story
PS - I’ve played around with the caption - not wanting to allege wrongdoing by Clarida. For better or worse, his trading has drawn suspicion and he’s become part of the larger issue.

What on earth is it? It’s the financial communities latest innovation in their ongoing efforts to separate you from your wealth, without ever having you notice (Cf “Where are the customer’s yachts?” and “portfolio manager” in The Devil’s Financial Dictionary for details.) Direct indexing allows you to directly and easily own all of the stocks in an index, rather than owning them indirectly through shares of a fund or ETF. And because you own the individual shares, you can also rebuild the index to suit your individual whims, passions, and insights.

Not really sure why the attack on direct indexing. It is almost universally lower cost than owning actively managed mutual funds and comparable fee-wise to many ETFs. But as important, the target audience at this point isn't the "you" as individual investor but sophisticated financial advisors using these accounts for tax optimization for their high net worth clients so accounts are not for an ostensibly uneducated individual investor just randomly picking stocks.
Also important, these direct indexed accounts are optimized via their algorithms in many cases to have as little tracking error with their chosen benchmarks as possible. Tax optimization is the primary end goal for investors in these accounts while ESG is an important secondary goal at this stage. It is not invidual investors just building portfolios to suit their individual whims. In fact if a client of advisors wants to leave too much out of their direct index account for their ESG goals that it will cause significant tracking error with the initial benchmark, the direct indexers will notify the advisor and clients of that fact and likely discourage it or at least warn the client. These accounts can also be tilted factor-wise towards value or momentum or other factors but that really isn't much different from the factor ETFs on the market today. So I don't get the rationale here.

"No such principled action [to resign] from the seven members of Congress – a rare, bipartisan group of four Democrats and three Republicans – who made hundreds of unreported financial trades despite (or perhaps because of?) the fact that five of the seven sit on the powerful House Financial Services Committee. Their actions violate the STOCK Act, which was designed to eliminate insider trading by members of Congress.
That’s not entirely “old guys acting badly,” since one of those involved is Cindy Axne (D-Iowa)."
Congressholes (since "Congressmen" is too narrow a term) only care about electability (i.e., what their base thinks). They have tapped fully into the primal psyche of their base who are in a Party love induced coma. But what are the media (Press) doing not expressing outrage until the Congressholes resign? The media is also tapping into the same primal psyche of their reader base for profits / gainful employment and does not stand to gain to try to hold the Congressholes accountable, especially when both parties are abusive. Can not help but wonder if US Press as a noble democratic institution is no more.
Thanks @David for another month of great commentary.

Mr. Walthausen has retired. Investors received a new proxy agreement concerning investment advisory agreements:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001418191/000141304221000838/walthdef14a.htm
Excerpt:
The enclosed Proxy Statement contains information about a proposal to approve new investment advisory agreements between Walthausen Funds and Walthausen & Co., LLC on behalf of the Walthausen Small Cap Value Fund and Walthausen Focused Small Cap Value Fund. The new advisory agreements are required because John Walthausen, the founder of Walthausen & Co., LLC, has retired and along with that retirement comes a planned internal change in ownership of the firm. We are pleased that the current management team will assume the responsibilities of Mr. Walthausen and carry forward the traditions and values established by Mr. Walthausen. His dedication to the firm and its clients, his unwavering commitment to independent research, and his insistence on excellence are ingrained in the culture of the firm and will serve the firm well into the future.
...Presently, 56% of the voting interests of the Adviser are held by John B. Walthausen, 12% by Paul T. Nichols, 10% by DeForest R. Hinman, 8% by Stanley M. Westhoff, 7% by Mark L. Hodge, 3% by Gerard S.E. Heffernan, and 3% by Curtis J. Lasek. Mr. Walthausen intends to withdraw as a member of the Adviser, and upon withdrawal his membership interests will convert to non-voting financial interests in the Adviser (the "Transaction").
From Walthausen's website:
http://www.walthausenfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/20180214_Walthausen_PM_Announcement_FINAL.pdf

@The Shadow- yes sir, I checked that out before the buy. Thanks again!
To everyone else- thank you very much for your thoughts and comments. Sitting on cash is driving me nuts, but at 82 with wife not interested in matters financial (other than to hear that everything is OK) I have to be careful here.
MFO is great. I just love this place and really appreciate the opportunity to listen and talk to so many really neat people.
OJ

From Reuters - “BlackRock added 31.3 million notes of Evergrande's debt between January and August 2021, pushing its stake in the company to 1% of the assets in its $1.7 billion Asian High Yield Bond Fund, according to Morningstar. HSBC increased its positions in the company by 40% through July, according to Morningstar. UBS increased its position by 25% through May, the latest date available in the fund tracker's database. None of the companies responded to requests to comment for this story. At the same time, other large fund firms such as Fidelity, Pimco, and Allianz cut their positions in the company by up to 47% between January and July, Morningstar said.”
Reuters Link
There is a more comprehensive / incisive story on same topic in the September 22 Financial Times, but more difficult to access due to paywall.
Possible FT Links:
From the Financial Times - “BlackRock in August bought up five different Evergrande dollar bonds through one of its high-yield funds, which had holdings in the developer then worth $18m, Morningstar data show. The size of the holding had already expanded sharply this year as the fund’s assets under management rose. The biggest asset manager had exposure of close to $400m across its funds, according to data compiled by Bloomberg based on June, July and September filing dates. An HSBC-run high-yield fund in July was also a net buyer of Evergrande’s debt and has increased bond holdings 38 per cent since February as the fund expanded in size, the Morningstar data showed, though the value of its exposure at $31m declined over that period due to falling prices. The data highlight a willingness on the part of some of the biggest investors in Evergrande’s offshore bonds to continue to add to their holdings even after prices had started falling in the earlier stages of a liquidity crisis that is rippling across markets.”

A lengthy but fascinating article in the Wall Street Journal analyzes what may really be going on in China, and looks at possible financial ramifications for the West. This article is free with the link below:
➤ Xi Jinping Aims to Rein In Chinese Capitalism
Here's another free article from the WSJ on this topic:

China’s Regulatory Storm Risks Triggering Wider Economic Damage
As Beijing tightens rules on real estate, technology and other sectors, worries grow that it could trip up growth
➤ Link to WSJ Article

TIAA Funds (updated; Retail):
https://www.tiaa.org/public/pdf/2020_estimated_annual_taxable_distribution-retail_share_class.pdf
TIAA Funds (updated;Institutional):
https://www.tiaa.org/public/pdf/Estimated_Annual_Taxable_Distribution-Institutional_Share_Class.pdf
TIAA Funds (updated; class W):
https://www.tiaa.org/public/pdf/2021_estimated-annual-taxable-distributions-w-class.PDF
TIAA Funds (updated; Premier):
https://www.tiaa.org/public/pdf/2021_estimated_annual_taxable_distribution-premier_share_class.PDF
TIAA Funds (updated; Advisor):
https://documents.nuveen.com/documents/Nuveen/Default.aspx?uniqueId=8e0484b8-cb12-4a4d-9d73-86967f57b5f9
TIAA Funds (updated; retirement):
https://www.tiaa.org/public/pdf/2021_estimated_annual_taxable_distribution-retirement_share_class.PDF
Tocqueville Funds:
https://www.tocquevillefunds.com/sites/default/files/Distributions_2021_prelim_111621.pdf
Touchstone Funds (Westernsouthern):
https://www.westernsouthern.com/-/media/files/touchstone/tax-planning/capital-gains.pdf
Transamerica Funds:
https://www.transamerica.com/sites/default/files/files/e070d/2021 Capital Gain Distribution Estimates 09.30.21 Approved.pdf
Tweedy, Browne:
https://www.tweedy.com/resources/library_docs/general/2021 Estimated Distributions 8-31-21.pdf
UBS Funds (new):
https://www.ubs.com/us/en/asset-management/individual-investors-and-financial-advisors/products/mutual-fund/_jcr_content/mainpar/toplevelgrid/col1/accordionbox_1691868404/linklist_279282322/link_168507298.0576113708.file/PS9jb250ZW50L2RhbS9hc3NldHMvYW0vdXMvdXMtZmluYW5jaWFsLWFkdmlzb3IvcHJvZHVjdHMvdWJzLW11dHVhbC1mdW5kcy9jYXAtZ2FpbnMucGRm/cap-gains.pdf
USAA Funds:
https://advisor.vcm.com/assets/resources-mutualfunddoc/USAA Mutual Funds Estimated Capital Gains and Income.pdf
ValueLine Funds:
https://vlfunds.com/gains
Van Eck Funds:
https://www.vaneck.com/us/en/vaneck-funds-2021-estimated-yearend-dividends-distributions.pdf
Vanguard Funds (updated 12/10/21 with ETFs):
https://advisors.vanguard.com//iwe/pdf/taxcenter/FAFYEEST_122021.pdf
Versus Capital Funds:
https://versuscapital.com/wp-content/uploads/2021-Versus-Capital-Estimated-Capital-Gains.pdf
Victory Funds:
https://advisor.vcm.com/assets/resources-mutualfunddoc/Victory Funds Estimated Capital Gains.pdf
Victory Integrity & Munder Funds:
https://advisor.vcm.com/assets/resources-mutualfunddoc/Victory Munder and VPII Mutual Funds Estimated Capital Gains.pdf
Victory RS Funds:
https://advisor.vcm.com/assets/resources-mutualfunddoc/Victory RS and VVI Funds Estimated Capital Gains.pdf
Virtus Funds (incl Westchester Funds-Merger Fund):
https://www.virtus.com/assets/files/2gs/virtus-mutual-funds-year-end-distribution-est-7065.pdf
Voya Funds:
https://individuals.voya.com/document/product/2021-estimated-capital-gains.pdf
Vulcan Value Partners Funds (updated):
https://www.vulcanvaluepartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2021-Distributions-Estimates-10.31.21.pdf
Walthausen Funds (check WSCVX-ouch):
http://www.walthausenfunds.com/fund-documents/
Wasatch Global Funds:
https://wasatchglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2021_Yr_End_Dist_Estimates_v1w1.pdf
Weitz Funds:
https://weitzinvestments.com/funds/distributions.fs
Wells Fargo Asset Management:
https://www.wellsfargoassetmanagement.com/assets/public/pdf/product-alerts/20211020-productalert.pdf
Westwood Funds:
https://westwoodgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Capital-Gains-Distribution-Estimate-11.12.21.pdf
William Blair Funds:
I & N classes
https://www.williamblairfunds.com/resources/docs/William Blair Funds - Estimated Distributions 2021 - Class I and N.pdf
R6 class:
https://www.williamblairfunds.com/resources/docs/William Blair Funds - Estimated Distributions 2021 - Class R6.pdf
WisdomTree ETFs:
https://www.wisdomtree.com/-/media/us-media-files/capital-gains-estimates-schedule/2021-us-preliminary-estimated-capital-gains-distributions.pdf

@BaluBalu- your suggestion has been discussed in detail many times over the years, and the management decided to create an "Off Topic" section for all topics other than financial matters. This arrangement has almost always been honored by the MFO members.
Since the Off-Topic section must be specifically selected to view it, it remains inoffensive to the majority of posters who are uninterested in non-financial commentary.

I think folks interested in having an opinion re the proposed legislation should read the bill and not draw conclusions based on some reporting in the media, even financial media.
BTW, mutual funds can also avoid/minimize distributing capital gains under the current law if they are not lazy. (That is in addition to their ability to do in-kind redemptions.) You can read about it at Liberty Street Funds.

If, in fact, the proposed legislation aims to levy CG taxes on the big traders and big financial firms that benefit from the tax loophole, I might favor it. OTOH, if the individual shareholder, “the little guy,” were to bear the burden of yearly CG taxes on fund distributions, I’d tend to think it was just another effort to shelter the truly wealthy to the disadvantage of the middle class. The recent changes in IRA distribution rules do not really affect the wealthy, who don’t rely on IRA investments to save for retirement. The rules do, however, shift a tax burden to the heirs of taxpayers who, in all likelihood, are of relatively modest means. The wealthy can pass on vast sums practically tax-free to their heirs. I’m old enough to remember the new tax rules governing IRAs the Reagan administration promulgated. Individual shareholders had to cough up big bucks for tax year, 1986, IIRC. Relative to my wealth, my two cents represent a lot, in case you were wondering…

msf -
The question was asked and answered about Vanguard's and S&P's disclosures in the context of a switch in index providers for its VDADX/VIG vehicles.
Your posts - bringing Fidelity, iShares, and Franklin into the mix, and bringing up, as you say, "average market caps" or mean market caps, rather than the median (which was under discussion) seem to me to be the financial equivalent of "what-aboutism".
WIKI
Wiki link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy, which attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving the argument.
MERRIAM-WEBSTER
M-W link here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/whataboutism-origin-meaning
Whataboutism ... is not merely the changing of a subject ("What about the economy?") to deflect away from an earlier subject as a political strategy; it’s essentially a reversal of accusation, arguing that an opponent is guilty of an offense just as egregious or worse than what the original party was accused of doing, however unconnected the offenses may be.
For the life of me, I can't understand why you are responding so vociferously to my original statements or conclusions.
1. There is a standard, well accepted definition of median.
2. Standard (no pun) & Poor's uses this definition in their description of their indices, including the new one that will be adopted by VDADX/VIG.
3. Vanguard does not use this definition.
4. Vanguard uses its own definition of median that is not clearly labelled (as noted by BaluBalu, it should be labelled "Weighted Median"), and Vanguard's (mal)practice can confuse Vanguard investors (such as BaluBalu).
IMHO, if you want to have a discussion about average (rather than median) market cap conventions used by various other market participants - go for it. Perhaps you could start a new thread for that topic.
PS: While I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion of Vanguard's poor website design (good Lord, we have enough of those!) consider the following.
Below is the link to the search results I obtained for 'median', when using the Vanguard website search box. None of them refer to the 'retirement plan' definition that you provided.
(Wonder what the definition for median is when you are not in a retirement plan?)
https://investor.vanguard.com/search/?origin=fasHome&legalStuff=otherStuff&query=median#query=median|filter=dataIDall

If anybody feels knowledgeable enough, I’d appreciate your explanation / opinions on the “liquidity” issue Randall Forsyth mentions briefly in the Sept. 13 Barron’s. The debt part I understand. But the liquidity part is what I’m not fully reeling in.
Here’s Forsyth’s final paragraph:
“As a result of the past 20 years’ policies, America's public debt is one-quarter larger than the economy, versus a little more than half of gross domestic product in the third quarter of 2001. At the same time, the Fed's assets—mainly U.S. Treasury securities—have grown more than 11-fold, to over $8.3 trillion. As a result, the financial system has become so overstuffed with liquidity that more than $1.1 trillion is parked at the Fed's overnight reverse-repurchase facility. Who could have foreseen this two decades ago?”
-
As investors, we like to have liquidity. It allows us to move from one position to another easily or take advantage of opportunities that arise. No? So why is having too much of it dangerous to the economy?