Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by FatPhil on Tuesday August 22 2017, @01:23PM   Printer-friendly
from the Philosophers-Stone dept.

"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)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday August 23 2017, @03:09AM (2 children)

    by Whoever (4524) on Wednesday August 23 2017, @03:09AM (#557826) Journal

    Neither does it harm you. What goes on in a billionaire's life by in large has zero bearing on your own.

    That statement, is both wrong and stupid.

    It's wrong in that what billionaires do very definitely affects my life. For example, the influence of the Mercers on the recent election, or the creation of the Tea Party by the Koch Brothers.

    It's stupid in that:
    a. It assumes the status quo, where we have extreme wealth inequality.
    b. The phrase is "by and large", not "by in large".

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 23 2017, @12:29PM (1 child)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday August 23 2017, @12:29PM (#557945) Homepage Journal

    You think the Koch brothers created the Tea Party? You poor, kool-aid-drinking fool. You probably even think the election was bought last time around as well. Pro-tip: if it had been, Hillary would have won.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday August 23 2017, @03:07PM

      by Whoever (4524) on Wednesday August 23 2017, @03:07PM (#558028) Journal

      You actually want to deny the links between the Tea Party and the Kochs? Really? Are you for real, or just trolling?