3 ms·
No. That is exactly the kind of argument that was debunked. The rich, when given money, do not take the money and create for the poor. In everything I’ve read
by Hnrobert42 5y ago
No. That is exactly the kind of argument that was debunked. The rich, when given money, do not take the money and create for the poor.
In everything I’ve read about direct giving, inflation is so insignificant, it isn’t even concern that’s addressed.
- Enginerrrd 5y ago>In everything I’ve read about direct giving, inflation is so insignificant, it isn’t even concern that’s addressed. I'm not necessarily against you here, but I'm curious: How does your sentiment square with the fact that a significant amount of direct giving just occurred, and we seem to now have significant demand-pull inflation to the point the ports are all backed up and the fed admits to 6% inflation which we know is understated. It would seem that doesn't reconcile, especially since post-2008 loose fiscal policy and low interest rates did NOT result in significant inflation as a comparison.
- Loughla 5y agoI feel like this is an argument willfully ignoring many, many other factors than direct giving. Such as an actual global pandemic. I cannot believe that the stimulus money given to the US public has had the supply effects spanning the globe that are also partially responsible for inflation. I firmly believe doing so is a) shortsighted, b) unbelievably arrogant, and c) just plain ignorant of how the world has changed in the last 18 months. In other words, I do not believe this is as strong of an argument as you think it is. Supply chain, labor shortage, a bounce-back effect in various spending categories after a low year in 2020. All of these things absolutely must play a factor in that. Not just handing out money to people.