4 ms·

> When the upper middle class and rich can leverage themselves into assets that grow proportionally to inflation, they get richer and poor people get poorer.

> When the upper middle class and rich can leverage themselves into assets that grow proportionally to inflation, they get richer and poor people get poorer. So, basically, "When in a capitalist society, the upper middle class and rich get richer and poor people get poorer."

enraged_camel 10y ago
Not the middle class. Upper middle class. The distinction is important, in my opinion.
- devishard 10y ago
  Agreed, I accidentally a word. Edited it in.
jbooth 10y ago
No, he/she didn't say that and that's not true. We've oscillated a lot on the matter, between the gilded age, the new deal, the postwar years, and the reagan years into whatever the heck is going on now. QE definitely benefitted the rich much more than the poor. Obama seems to have favored it because it was the only demand-side (sorta) stimulus that he could make happen with the politics being what they are. But nothing happens in a vacuum and it's not a definitive statement about capitalism vs other systems.
- devishard 10y ago
  > No, he/she didn't say that I'm well aware that they didn't say that. I'm saying that because disagreeing with them. > that's not true. Really? Why, in a capitalist system, would the upper middle class and rich, who are the only people with money to invest in assets that grow proportionally to inflation, not invest in assets that grow proportionally to inflation? Isn't the entire basis of capitalism that people act rationally in self-interest?
  - jbooth 10y ago
    You addressed my first 5 words and ignored my further 3 sentences to justify those first 5 words, here. Could you do me and readers a favor and engage the argument here?
    - devishard 10y ago
      > We've oscillated a lot on the matter, between the gilded age, the new deal, the postwar years, and the reagan years into whatever the heck is going on now. What matter could you possibly be talking about that spans a century of Western economics? What are you even saying? > QE definitely benefitted the rich much more than the poor. Agreed. > Obama seems to have favored it because it was the only demand-side (sorta) stimulus that he could make happen with the politics being what they are. Eh, who cares what Obama favored? That's not really even on-topic. > But nothing happens in a vacuum and it's not a definitive statement about capitalism vs other systems. I felt that I responded to this sentence well enough given it's not a definitive statement about anything, but if you'd rather I quoted it and responded to it separately, here's my response: "Really? Why, in a capitalist system, would the upper middle class and rich, who are the only people with money to invest in assets that grow proportionally to inflation, not invest in assets that grow proportionally to inflation? Isn't the entire basis of capitalism that people act rationally in self-interest?" In the future, if you want me to respond to your whole posts, maybe try making your whole posts make a coherent point.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
ftwinnovations 10y ago
No, printing money (QE, inflation, what have you) is absolutely NOT a capitalist tenet. Quite the opposite. We do not live in a true capitalist society anymore, although we still use the term, and so disparage it. Creditism would be better, since the government and federal reserve push debt/credit like its the way the world aught to work, instead of production, saving, and intelligent reinvestment. This is what bothers me so much about the new anti-capitalist push. Sanders is right about the banks and Wall Street and the like, but he's dead wrong that capitalism is the problem. The problem is this perverse crony capitalist centrally planned insanity we've been living in. And this is not a republican or democrat thing. Its basically just the way things have worked for a long time, highly accelerating when Nixon stuck the final nail in the gold standards coffin.
- devishard 10y ago
  > No, printing money (QE, inflation, what have you) is absolutely NOT a capitalist tenet. Quite the opposite. It may not be a capitalist tenet, but it's an unavoidable result of capitalism. Capitalism works great for a little while, but then some people amass too much wealth and pull the ladder up behind them. This is the only logical conclusion. Money and power allow you to change the playing field. So even if somehow we could start everyone off with equal opportunity and let them compete in a fair capitalist system, the ones who gain money and power early on will simply follow incentives and change the playing field in their favor. You can call this unfair playing field "perverse crony capitalism" and argue that it's not capitalism, and you're right, but so what? "True capitalism" will always turn into "perverse crony capitalism" so returning things to capitalism is at best a temporary measure.

enraged_camel 10y ago

Not the middle class. Upper middle class. The distinction is important, in my opinion.

devishard 10y ago
Agreed, I accidentally a word. Edited it in.

jbooth 10y ago

No, he/she didn't say that and that's not true. We've oscillated a lot on the matter, between the gilded age, the new deal, the postwar years, and the reagan years into whatever the heck is going on now. QE definitely benefitted the rich much more than the poor. Obama seems to have favored it because it was the only demand-side (sorta) stimulus that he could make happen with the politics being what they are. But nothing happens in a vacuum and it's not a definitive statement about capitalism vs other systems.

devishard 10y ago
> No, he/she didn't say that I'm well aware that they didn't say that. I'm saying that because disagreeing with them. > that's not true. Really? Why, in a capitalist system, would the upper middle class and rich, who are the only people with money to invest in assets that grow proportionally to inflation, not invest in assets that grow proportionally to inflation? Isn't the entire basis of capitalism that people act rationally in self-interest?
- jbooth 10y ago
  You addressed my first 5 words and ignored my further 3 sentences to justify those first 5 words, here. Could you do me and readers a favor and engage the argument here?
  - devishard 10y ago
    > We've oscillated a lot on the matter, between the gilded age, the new deal, the postwar years, and the reagan years into whatever the heck is going on now. What matter could you possibly be talking about that spans a century of Western economics? What are you even saying? > QE definitely benefitted the rich much more than the poor. Agreed. > Obama seems to have favored it because it was the only demand-side (sorta) stimulus that he could make happen with the politics being what they are. Eh, who cares what Obama favored? That's not really even on-topic. > But nothing happens in a vacuum and it's not a definitive statement about capitalism vs other systems. I felt that I responded to this sentence well enough given it's not a definitive statement about anything, but if you'd rather I quoted it and responded to it separately, here's my response: "Really? Why, in a capitalist system, would the upper middle class and rich, who are the only people with money to invest in assets that grow proportionally to inflation, not invest in assets that grow proportionally to inflation? Isn't the entire basis of capitalism that people act rationally in self-interest?" In the future, if you want me to respond to your whole posts, maybe try making your whole posts make a coherent point.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]

ftwinnovations 10y ago

No, printing money (QE, inflation, what have you) is absolutely NOT a capitalist tenet. Quite the opposite. We do not live in a true capitalist society anymore, although we still use the term, and so disparage it. Creditism would be better, since the government and federal reserve push debt/credit like its the way the world aught to work, instead of production, saving, and intelligent reinvestment. This is what bothers me so much about the new anti-capitalist push. Sanders is right about the banks and Wall Street and the like, but he's dead wrong that capitalism is the problem. The problem is this perverse crony capitalist centrally planned insanity we've been living in. And this is not a republican or democrat thing. Its basically just the way things have worked for a long time, highly accelerating when Nixon stuck the final nail in the gold standards coffin.

devishard 10y ago
> No, printing money (QE, inflation, what have you) is absolutely NOT a capitalist tenet. Quite the opposite. It may not be a capitalist tenet, but it's an unavoidable result of capitalism. Capitalism works great for a little while, but then some people amass too much wealth and pull the ladder up behind them. This is the only logical conclusion. Money and power allow you to change the playing field. So even if somehow we could start everyone off with equal opportunity and let them compete in a fair capitalist system, the ones who gain money and power early on will simply follow incentives and change the playing field in their favor. You can call this unfair playing field "perverse crony capitalism" and argue that it's not capitalism, and you're right, but so what? "True capitalism" will always turn into "perverse crony capitalism" so returning things to capitalism is at best a temporary measure.