4 ms·
Because they do always win (in aggregate, in relation to other income brackets). With changing economic situations, those with more resources have more options,
by dwallin 4y ago
Because they do always win (in aggregate, in relation to other income brackets). With changing economic situations, those with more resources have more options, and are therefore on average able to adapt more effectively. Sure there will be winners and losers in every tax bracket but a quick look at a graph of income inequality over time should disabuse you of the notion that the rich are somehow at a disadvantage in all this.
- ipaddr 4y agoThe parent's point is that these events are not making the rich any richer than they would be. Anyone with debt is better off with higher inflation as the amount required to pay back is worth less. Anyone who gave money away for interest takes a haircut. The richer entities usually loan money so this is better for the poor with debt. If wages don't raise than this changes
- Timon3 4y agoRich people have a lot more debt than poor people. If you're too poor, nobody will loan you anything. The more money you have, the better the conditions will be which are available for you. Would a rich person ever consider something like your average payday loan? After the last couple of years with practically free loans, who do you expect to have borrowed more? The rich or the poor?
- TheOtherHobbes 4y agoMore than that - loans to the very rich will always have a below-inflation rate. or worst case a near-inflation rate. Loans to the poor will always have an above-inflation rate. And the poorer you get the more extreme the rates. Interestingly this is somehow not considered inflationary.