But no, the wealth class cries foul in either case, you're either diluting their wealth or you're stealing it.
I know, we can tell the poor to pull harder on their bootstraps, yup, that's the answer around here.
I would like to see some stats at the end of the year on the average pay increase in the US. I have a strong suspicion the increase in good will be much higher than the average page increase.
Think what you want about them as people but the likes of Musk, Gates and Buffett but they're filling a huge gap that governments (our whole western civilisation really) are badly neglecting.
1. https://ifstudies.org/blog/even-denmarks-welfare-state-cant-...
If you have investments or property, they go up with inflation. If you're leveraged, inflation is a huge win.
Inflation is a massive redistribution of wealth, but it's more complex than that. The debt-ridden lower classes benefits. The non-debt-ridden renter class is harmed. The mortgage-holding class benefits. And so on.
Inflation is good for folks with student debt too.
The country is facing major supply and labor constraints in many industries. Most companies would happily sell more of their products at a lower price, but they are kind of stuck producing what they can, and are auctioning it off to the highest bidder.
We can debate whether the increase in money supply is causing inflation, but calling the claim “really disingenuous” doesn’t seem fair to me.
Here is a simplified example. Banks grant $4 trillion in credit (mortgages and other loans). They also create bonds worth $4 trillion. The central bank does QE and buys $4 trillion of bonds. This entire process injected $4 trillion into the economy through loans but it increased the supply of credit by $8 trillion.
Of course from the perspective of the bank its better to mix the urine in a huge pool...
It's also disingenuous because there are so many reports of shortages across tons of sectors. Which is the most obvious and immediate cause of price increases. Demand is staying the same or increasing while supply has plummeted. Prices are going to spike in that situation regardless of QE or other money supply increases.
We aren't even insulated from this. There are bidding wars for everything now. Lots of people here have direct experience with difficulty sourcing components and customers who are willing to pay crazy prices for what limited capacity their companies have.
You sir are confusing the bandaid that is socialism for communism, because the former is what the non-republican rich people cry out for, because it maintains the capitalist system. Very very few people with wealth support ditching the capitalist system.
> Very very few people with wealth support ditching the capitalist system.
I also agree with this... they want capitalism, FOR THEMSELVES ONLY. In order to achieve that, they promote socialism/communism for everyone else. This is achieved by imposing regulations and taxes on small businesses, effectively crippling them, while the large corporations enjoy all the loopholes and benefits of a global market.
In order to fix capitalism, it must work for everybody equally. No bailouts, for starters, and you still need regulations to avoid the big guy from completely dominating the game. Redistribution of wealth, by definition requires centralization of resources. Resources (money, assets, etc) must flow towards a single point, and then flow back to a different location... this is a HUGE point of failure, that can be easily controlled and corrupted. The alternative is to do the opposite, and decentralize resources as much as possible.
I just disagree that publicly owned means what it's supposed to mean. The public cannot own anything as it is not an individual. Someone else has to manage what is collectively owned, and these individuals that represent the public, effectively become the rich people that so many say are the problem with capitalism. In other words, while I agree that monopolizing land and resources is a problem, making these resources public is actually exacerbating the problem because it further concentrates the power and wealth into the hands of even fewer number of individuals. It goes from a thousands of rich people owning things, to the government "publicly owning" it, except we're in fact talking about a handful of politicians controlling all of that wealth.
Europe takes this approach much more than America, where government is not trusted, but I think history is very clear as to which place has had the most problems with government abuse of power. Europe was a mess in the 20th century, while America grew to a super power, and I firmly believe this is because of the distrust in government.
Again I don't know what is the best solution to fix a handful of rich people owning the majority of wealth, but it is definitely not further concentrating that wealth into an even smaller number of individuals that are notorious for lying and manipulating the public (politicians). Trusting politicians is incredibly naive, and at the moment it seems the best solutions involve voting for those people that can prove they will use the power to SHRINK government, such that wealth returns back to the rest of population (but not via public ownership which is really politicians playing the role of the rich people).
Only thing I found.
Personally my favorite Marx quote is:
"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary"