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This discussion has been archived.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: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @09:44AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @09:44AM (#557906)

    In addition, I'll note, once again, that the scarcer party in the employment relation is the employer. There are plenty of would-be employees out there, but not so many employers. Sorry, but that makes the employer more valuable than the employee and why I favor policies that help employers over policies that help employees.

    I agree so far, but for me that means that we lack employers, and instead of putting our help to incumbent employers, we need to re-widen their base and their supply on the market, as competition puts them out.

    In particular, I think it highly delusion to assume that employers will continue to employ people in the face of aggressive laws attacking employment or the holding of wealth. We have contrary to the assumption strong indications that employers will drop developed employees for automation and outsourcing to the developing world whenever possible. That indicates to me that employers are far more sensitive to costs of employment than the idealists would like, and that it'll be disaster when someone finally shoves in a rule that heavily disrupts employment (like for example, a universal $15 per hour minimum wage, the dissolution of corporations because "corporations aren't people", or the widespread seizure of assets of the wealthy).

    Obviously, what we have there is regulatory capture - wealthy employers wouldn't want employees to get too much, but they certainly don't want to make it easy for wage slaves to cross over and become small businesses too easy, hence, laws which on their surface look like they are designed to protect employees (or customers, or others) are actually there mostly to keep employees corralled in the pen.

    So, not all wealthy are employers, but wealthy employers want to make it difficult for the poor to become employers (or self-employed).

    I must add that there is not one single line of division: Among wealthy employers, those wealthier are pushing for the laws which hinder and put under pressure those less wealthy. That is the origin of legislature which "protects" employees.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1