The Shock Doctrine [1] described that idea that the rich could undertake disasters of various types in order to push unpopular policy in their wake. I don't thi

The Shock Doctrine [1] described that idea that the rich could undertake disasters of various types in order to push unpopular policy in their wake. I don't think it was ever updated to the 2008 recession, but the bailout of the banks via buying poorly performing securities via quantitative easing follows that though with the same effect. The fed bought risky bank mortgage securities, while still allowing mortgage loan servicing continue to collect on loans and real estate parcels (and equity value) of individuals who didn't get a bail out - and now whatever survived will be sold back to the banks. Even if not intentional, it's a question of financial buffers. The extremely wealthy can weather recession and do even better by buying distressed assets from any who don't have the buffer which they hold. It's not the absolute numbers of the wealth, it's the amount of growth in control of assets that matter in this model. Without the right public policy, the wealthy win on the backs of the poor on the downswing and upswing of the broad economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine I wonder what happens when we swing into recession and there is nothing left to take.