>What you are saying is that there is some implicit transfer of money from the rich to the poor No, I'm saying that who you think is rich and poor isn't so bla

>What you are saying is that there is some implicit transfer of money from the rich to the poor No, I'm saying that who you think is rich and poor isn't so black and white. Think about it for a moment. If you could borrow something, and then never pay back what you borrowed, you'd in fact end up gaining wealth... In other words, I'm saying that the rich more often use debt as leverage to acquire assets, and then work to pay back less in real terms what they owe (essentially nudging their borrowing a fraction closer to stealing), than they acquire wealth by scrimping and saving/lending. Sure they might lend once they have acquired wealth, but they don't initially acquire their wealth that way (it's way too slow). Governments do this anytime they choose to inflate their debts away. Instead of paying back in real terms what they owe, they bail themselves out with printed money reducing their debt burden. But the principle also happens in the stock market with derivatives (such as with a gamma squeeze for one example), and with mortgages and renting amongst other things. Additionally, if you work to look... tax schemes are debt favored. This is particularly true when it comes to corporate taxes, as debt financing is tax deductible, but dividend payments are not: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2011/sdn1111.pdf https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2011/sdn1111.pdf And lest not mention how interest rates where near 0% for over a decade. Who do you think that benefits? People with lots of debt - and the greater the debt the greater the benefit.