Yeah because the redistribution is not just from the rich downwards. It's from the middle class to the rich. Communism is a trojan horse for the rich to get richer. If it weren't, then the rich people who promote communism, would be the first to donate their wealth, and we wouldn't even need a discussion.
Ah yes, the old "actually the billionaires get richer when you nationalize their companies"
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.
I agree with you socialism on paper is great and probably the best system there could be. However IMO people are greedy by nature and without a complete nationwide zeitgeist change, it will never be properly implemented. Someone in power will always get greedy and ruin it for everyone else.
That should be obvious. Who else would implement it? Even if it starts off well, the system of redistribution is easily corrupted and taken over because it is all centralized.
Socialism = communism. I won't into details, it is easily searchable, many big proponents of those systems said so themselves.
> 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).
They need those billions of dollar so they can have pissing matches about who gets to space first or who has the bigger yacht.
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.
I think there is a big difference between buying ever bigger yachts and the sort of things Musk has managed with space and electric cars.
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.
Saying this is the result of "printing" money is really disingenuous.
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.
A huge chunk of it is QE and everyone knows QE is a meaningless operation.
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 disingenuous because there's so much evidence that QE doesn't impact consumer prices. The money supply has been increasing like mad for a decade now, and in that time consumer prices have both crashed and exploded at various times.
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.
No, you're not diluting wealth unless you're sitting on a Scrooge McDuck pile of cash.
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.
Money isn't wealth. It really isn't. Anyone who thinks money is wealth is denying the existence of reality. After all, if money were truly wealth then we should try to contact aliens and sell the entire earth to them. We'd have all the wealth according to that logic.
Redistributions have some benefits but they don't have as large of an impact as is portrayed in American Politics or Media [1]. The best thing is to focus on growth, so that the pie that is split is larger.
We had many people sounding the alarm for months and the White House and the Fed and Yellen and the Treasury were like, no, it's TRANSITORY. That was their narrative.
If had been anyone but Biden, god forbid someone like like Trump, etc., people would have been asking real questions. Instead we got a complicit press passing along the message.
Avoiding hyperinflation is about maintaining faith in fiat currency. Announcing inflation is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think everyone paying any attention expected inflation, but downplaying it was exactly what the ruling class had to do to avoid hyperinflation.
Hyperinflation... are you joking? Hyperinflation has always had an external cause. [0]
The deflationary forces in most fiat currencies are so strong the central bank can choke the entire economy to death with the snap of a finger. Central banks are scared of raising interest rates, not inflation.
I want to ask you the same question, are you joking? Your citation is a video of a guy making claims with 0 citations himself.
Hyperinflation can be caused by printing of money, and in fact in the example video the case of Zimbabwe was cited as caused by a collapse in food production but was actually caused almost exclusively by the printing of money. You should read into the details of the Zimbabwe hyperinflation case for a good laugh at how ridiculous it was. The only way that could've happened for any other reason would be a complete disappearance of all domestic commerce and industry overnight.
As far as Weimar goes, the logic behind how he explains it holds no water. External debt in gold caused hyperinflation in a free floating currency? This doesn't stand to even the least bit of scrutiny. "Don't owe in any currency other than your own" is sound advice for some reasons but not to prevent hyperinflation. If you could draw me a picture of how the Deutchmark under the Weimar republic inflated away not as a consequence of debasing the currency I'd like to see it. They debased to pay debt, but the hyperinflation was caused by the debasing.
As far as Venezuela goes I'm not too familiar with the details but I will say I'm usually skeptical of arguments that amount to a finger pointing at America.
Ok, so why didn't they start addressing the situation then? Why wait till now to start "thinking" about doing something?
In any case, it's not like it was a secret and you risk jinxing it -it's not "magic". People other then the administration were saying it for at least six months.
You do risk jinxing it. Once people believe high level of inflation are coming, they move wealth out of fiat for other assets. That leads to inflation. And it cycles in on itself.
The classical example is the Weimar Republic. The government printed money to get out of financial problems, but that initially led to inflation, not hyperinflation. What led to hyperinflation was when people started dumping papiermarks for other assets.
Imagine: You believe the US will see 50% inflation, and Canada will see 5%. What do you do? Swap all your USD for CAD before that happens. What does that do? Devalue the dollar. Now, everyone expects 60% inflation. People start investing in stocks, property, or just about any other store of value. That devalues the currency. And so on.
This is not actually correct. Hyperinflation is not caused by loss of faith in currency, the causal chain is actually the other way around, hyperinflation causes loss of faith in currency. But when that loss of faith occurs you get a runaway positive feedback loop because behavior changes once the faith is lost.
The sticker value of everything in an economy in aggregate is a function of 2 things, the total value of everything in aggregate and the total circulating money supply. When the money supply increases, as it moves around this increase is reflected in the economy as an increase in prices. It is this increase that causes loss of faith. This is not evenly distributed across different industries and goods and services, as these price changes change peoples buying habits asymmetrically. Usually the things that rise in price first and the most are goods with inelastic demand.
They always try to downplay it because of what you said, they think they can keep the game going if they maintain faith, but it never works.
Definitely makes one want an alternative to first past the post voting, which encourages not only the two party system but the "you're either voting for someone you don't like, or you're voting against someone you really don't like" end game.
The two party system is a result of the "major minor" party laws in each State. The ballot access laws effectively force a two party system by squeezing competing parties financially and with administrative filing duties.
The article is talking about price inflation while the comments are talking about monetary inflation, which IMO is the main cause of the price inflation. The article asserts only that price inflation is the result of disrupted supply chains due to COVID, obviously a non negligible factor but it is highly irresponsible to leave out the leading cause, the greater than 40% increase in the supply of USD.
Of course their forecast went up. They knew it would. Everything a political entity says is political, their forecast was PR for their administration.
37 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 75.2 ms ] threadBut 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.
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.
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"
> 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).
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.
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.
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.
1. https://ifstudies.org/blog/even-denmarks-welfare-state-cant-...
If had been anyone but Biden, god forbid someone like like Trump, etc., people would have been asking real questions. Instead we got a complicit press passing along the message.
The deflationary forces in most fiat currencies are so strong the central bank can choke the entire economy to death with the snap of a finger. Central banks are scared of raising interest rates, not inflation.
[0] https://youtu.be/_uQpyFda6I8
Hyperinflation can be caused by printing of money, and in fact in the example video the case of Zimbabwe was cited as caused by a collapse in food production but was actually caused almost exclusively by the printing of money. You should read into the details of the Zimbabwe hyperinflation case for a good laugh at how ridiculous it was. The only way that could've happened for any other reason would be a complete disappearance of all domestic commerce and industry overnight.
As far as Weimar goes, the logic behind how he explains it holds no water. External debt in gold caused hyperinflation in a free floating currency? This doesn't stand to even the least bit of scrutiny. "Don't owe in any currency other than your own" is sound advice for some reasons but not to prevent hyperinflation. If you could draw me a picture of how the Deutchmark under the Weimar republic inflated away not as a consequence of debasing the currency I'd like to see it. They debased to pay debt, but the hyperinflation was caused by the debasing.
As far as Venezuela goes I'm not too familiar with the details but I will say I'm usually skeptical of arguments that amount to a finger pointing at America.
In any case, it's not like it was a secret and you risk jinxing it -it's not "magic". People other then the administration were saying it for at least six months.
The classical example is the Weimar Republic. The government printed money to get out of financial problems, but that initially led to inflation, not hyperinflation. What led to hyperinflation was when people started dumping papiermarks for other assets.
Imagine: You believe the US will see 50% inflation, and Canada will see 5%. What do you do? Swap all your USD for CAD before that happens. What does that do? Devalue the dollar. Now, everyone expects 60% inflation. People start investing in stocks, property, or just about any other store of value. That devalues the currency. And so on.
All inflation requires is a sudden loss of faith.
The sticker value of everything in an economy in aggregate is a function of 2 things, the total value of everything in aggregate and the total circulating money supply. When the money supply increases, as it moves around this increase is reflected in the economy as an increase in prices. It is this increase that causes loss of faith. This is not evenly distributed across different industries and goods and services, as these price changes change peoples buying habits asymmetrically. Usually the things that rise in price first and the most are goods with inelastic demand.
They always try to downplay it because of what you said, they think they can keep the game going if they maintain faith, but it never works.
Of course their forecast went up. They knew it would. Everything a political entity says is political, their forecast was PR for their administration.