4 ms·

> However, if we do that with the broader stock market, I suspect it'll exacerbate the wealth gap issue you lament the most widely used cryptos either have fix

by toolz 4y ago

> However, if we do that with the broader stock market, I suspect it'll exacerbate the wealth gap issue you lament the most widely used cryptos either have fixed inflation or noteably no inflation with bitcoin. These are merely a ton of correlations, but it's hard to imagine the wealth gap getting worse under a non-inflationary, trickle down economic model. The trickle down model might work with non-inflationary currency, but it seems obvious to me that it doesn't work in our current system where the bankers get the most value from the dollars its allowed to create and it loses value as it moves towards lower income pockets. https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

danans 4y ago
> it's hard to imagine the wealth gap getting worse under a non-inflationary, trickle down economic model Trickle down economics has exacerbated the wealth gap, as demonstrated by large scale international retrospective studies of its effects [1]. Given that, it's hard to imagine how making things more trickle-down would improve the wealth gap. 1. https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/poverty/530731-huge-new-study-shows-trickle-down-economics-makes-inequality/ https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/poverty/530731-...
- toolz 4y ago
  The paper the article links doesn't seem to address inflationary trickle-down economics. You have to have a theory as to why it doesn't work. Simply showing it doesn't work doesn't really show why it doesn't work. I think a logical hypothesis is that it doesn't work to lessen wealth inequality is because first movers advantage. In an inflationary economy the first people to touch the money get the most value of it as it loses value over time. In a deflationary economy this would flip and I'd argue that's exactly what we need to happen. There is no such thing as someone who sits around hoarding wealth at a macro scale. This is made obvious by the fact that it takes roughly 3 generations for families to lose their wealth. Sure, maybe the frugal entrepreneur holds or invests, but that person will die and give it to someone who values money less as they didn't earn it. They will likely spend the money and so-on until the money has been injected back into circulation, with each step of the way that money gains value, which means that money is worth the most when it reaches the producers/workers.
  - danans 4y ago
    > The paper the article links doesn't seem to address inflationary trickle-down economics. Inflationary trickle-down (AKA supply side) economic policy is exactly what we've had since the 1980s (even from the parties on the left), so I don't know what else it would be addressing. Before that we had inflationary demand side economics. We've not had a significant deflationary period in the US, but Japan has, due in no small to their historical resistance to allowing immigration. It's not clear that the US can or should follow their model.
    - toolz 4y ago
      I agree it's not clear, but speaking specifically to japan, check out their income inequality https://twitter.com/jmschles/status/564624643781189632 https://twitter.com/jmschles/status/564624643781189632 It seems like maybe a datapoint in favor of the hypothesis I presented, at least. I can't get past the WSJ paywall, though, unfortunately.

by toolz 4y ago

danans 4y ago

> it's hard to imagine the wealth gap getting worse under a non-inflationary, trickle down economic model Trickle down economics has exacerbated the wealth gap, as demonstrated by large scale international retrospective studies of its effects [1]. Given that, it's hard to imagine how making things more trickle-down would improve the wealth gap. 1. https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/poverty/530731-huge-new-study-shows-trickle-down-economics-makes-inequality/ https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/poverty/530731-...

toolz 4y ago
The paper the article links doesn't seem to address inflationary trickle-down economics. You have to have a theory as to why it doesn't work. Simply showing it doesn't work doesn't really show why it doesn't work. I think a logical hypothesis is that it doesn't work to lessen wealth inequality is because first movers advantage. In an inflationary economy the first people to touch the money get the most value of it as it loses value over time. In a deflationary economy this would flip and I'd argue that's exactly what we need to happen. There is no such thing as someone who sits around hoarding wealth at a macro scale. This is made obvious by the fact that it takes roughly 3 generations for families to lose their wealth. Sure, maybe the frugal entrepreneur holds or invests, but that person will die and give it to someone who values money less as they didn't earn it. They will likely spend the money and so-on until the money has been injected back into circulation, with each step of the way that money gains value, which means that money is worth the most when it reaches the producers/workers.
- danans 4y ago
  > The paper the article links doesn't seem to address inflationary trickle-down economics. Inflationary trickle-down (AKA supply side) economic policy is exactly what we've had since the 1980s (even from the parties on the left), so I don't know what else it would be addressing. Before that we had inflationary demand side economics. We've not had a significant deflationary period in the US, but Japan has, due in no small to their historical resistance to allowing immigration. It's not clear that the US can or should follow their model.
  - toolz 4y ago
    I agree it's not clear, but speaking specifically to japan, check out their income inequality https://twitter.com/jmschles/status/564624643781189632 https://twitter.com/jmschles/status/564624643781189632 It seems like maybe a datapoint in favor of the hypothesis I presented, at least. I can't get past the WSJ paywall, though, unfortunately.