3 ms·
the only point I'm making is that someone with $2,000,000,000 in assets, now having $1,500,000,000 in asset is in the exact same wildly more favorable and flexi
by vmception 4y ago
the only point I'm making is that someone with $2,000,000,000 in assets, now having $1,500,000,000 in asset is in the exact same wildly more favorable and flexible position than the person that has no assets and not enough savings to support themselves for a few months as their earnings go directly to expenses. The latter group being the vast majority of the population.
I'm not making a point about which outcome is better at all, I'm making a point that the federal reserve can't do anything about that.
- darawk 4y agoBut the level of inequality has been reduced. Obviously the people at the very top are still going to be very rich. But there is an entire spectrum of wealth that is going to get compressed, which was the original point. When people talk about "inequality increasing" over the past several decades, what they mean is the opposite of that spectrum compressing. In 1980 there were obviously very rich people. They were just less rich, relative to the median person than they are today. The Fed is responsible for a significant chunk of that divergence. That was the point.