SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
"Although today high levels of inequality in the United States remain a pressing concern for a large swath of the population, monetary policy and credit expansion are rarely mentioned as a likely source of rising wealth and income inequality. [...]
The rise in income inequality over the past 30 years has to a significant extent been the product of monetary policies fueling a series of asset price bubbles. Whenever the market booms, the share of income going to those at the very top increases.[...]
[F]inancial institutions benefit disproportionately from money creation, since they can purchase more goods, services, and assets for still relatively low prices. This conclusion is backed by numerous empirical illustrations. For instance, the financial sector contributed massively to the growth of billionaire's wealth"
Source: https://mises.org/library/how-central-banking-increased-inequality
I'll leave my comments as comments, but note that The Mises Institute is proudly, one might say almost by definition, Austrian School. Both the Institute and the School have had their fair share of criticism. Which of course doesn't mean that individual author is wrong on this particular matter. -- Ed.(FP)
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:25PM (7 children)
It's funny that the same people arguing against automation will also argue that the productivity increases had to have come from the workers. Clue: the workers are the same workers they've always been. If you see a productivity increase, it came from someplace else.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @11:40PM (2 children)
It came from technology helping humans be more efficient along with simple business practices like the assembly line or specialized jobs that allow humans to become more efficient at a narrower set of responsibilities. Regardless, there is nothing in your rationale that makes it OK to screw over the workers. You can deny it all you want, but the rest of humanity sees what you are too ignorant / willfully stupid to get.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 23 2017, @12:13PM (1 child)
And how do you figure they were screwed? Did they pay for the automation that assisted their productivity or are they the same warm bodies they've always been?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by lentilla on Wednesday August 23 2017, @01:47PM
Well; in a way; yes to both.
It was the workers that did the; well; work. Yes, they got paid, but when there is sufficient wealth it really does need to be shared with those around you. Perhaps if you visit me you might only get beans, rice and water for dinner because that's all I had in the larder. If one visits a wealthy friend, dinner might be veal, oysters and champagne. I would consider it wrong for the wealthy friend to feed the poor friend only beans and rice - particularly if when we ate together his plate was graced by veal and oysters, and champagne in his cup alone.
I can't argue that there won't always be some level of disparity between people - that appears to be human nature. There does come a point however, where someone has enough to share with the people around him. A moral imperative, if you will. I'm not suggesting you give your only car to a poor man but at the point that you have so much wealth that it starts increasing by itself, you are obligated to share some part of it.
This kind of obligation is not an artefact of the modern age - humans were considering these needs well over two and an half thousand years ago - allow me to quote from Leviticus 19:9:
Now I don't do much reaping of fields or gathering from vineyards personally but I do see the clear applicability of this to modern life.
- = -
Now, on to your second question: "are [not the workers simply] the same warm bodies they've always been?" Well, yes, they are.
(Well; actually; a modern worker is likely to be far more educated than his pre-Industrial era forefather, so in a way an average worker of today is likely to be quite a good bit more than a warm body and muscles. Anyway, I won't explore that further.)
Anonymous Coward says in the grandparent to this post: "It came from technology helping humans be more efficient along with [other various improvements]". I think our Anonymous friend is absolutely spot on the mark. We - humanity that is - have collectively improved over time. "Collectively" is the important part. It wasn't one person who did all the improving, it was millions of humans, most long dead, that contributed to this common wealth. Now the people with the money might have put up some needed capital - and I hope they were richly rewarded for doing so. Don't forget though, that the conditions of the time allowed both; (a) the smart man to come up with an innovation, just as much as; (b) the wealthy man to get (or stay) wealthy. So I really think excess "wealth" - "common wealth" as I said above - does need to be shared.
So are modern workers the same as their ancient counterparts? Well, even if you were to take the affirmative position, I would still say we have an obligation to share the bounty with those around us because this common wealth was earned not by one man alone but by "team humanity" working solidly throughout the ages.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday August 23 2017, @04:12AM (3 children)
So perhaps you would like to live of the same income that agrarian peasants had (adjusted for inflation)?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 23 2017, @12:14PM (2 children)
I create wealth, thank you very much. Do the same and you can be other than poor as well.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday August 23 2017, @03:10PM (1 child)
I am far from poor, thank you very much.
But that's not the issue. You seem to think that billionaires need to be protected. Perhaps you think that one day, you might be a billionaire?
Let's be clear here. You are never going to be a billionaire. You vote and argue against your own interests.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DECbot on Wednesday August 23 2017, @09:35PM
If we're being clear, let's be clear. The billionaire will spend tens of thousands of dollars each year to protect his wealth from the government and will thus be unaffected from any wealth distribution scheme. However, the "fortunate" in the $40,000 to $120,000 income bracket will not have more than a few hundred dollars a year to protect themselves and will likely pay more in taxes than the billionaire.
Your right, nations do not better themselves by enriching the wealthiest of their population. Likewise, they cannot embetter themselves by imposing heavy taxes on the serfs. What we've seen work historically is light taxes on the serfs and heavy penalties on the billionaires for not keeping the serfs gainfully employed.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base