3 ms·

> 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 ca

> 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]

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]