3 ms·

This is hiding the real truth. Rich people invest more money and its a good thing that they invest because the investment goes into productive areas which ends

This is hiding the real truth. Rich people invest more money and its a good thing that they invest because the investment goes into productive areas which ends up back into consumption. The other way round is much much worse - imagine if rich people don't invest but rather just consume. It _takes_ away money from poor instead of building more wealth for everyone. So the overall point being made here is not that true

goatlover 18d ago
This is just trickle down economics, which has led to great wealth inequality while the middle and lower class wages have stagnated as inflation has gone up. What really helps is strong social safety nets and programs that help struggling people. The Nordic model leads to better societal outcomes.
goatlover 18d ago
This is just trickle down economics, which has led to great wealth inequality while the middle and lower class wages have stagnated as inflation has gone up and more people have to rent instead of owning their own porpoerty. What really helps is strong social safety nets and programs that help struggling people. The Nordic model leads to better societal outcomes.
danny_codes 17d ago
Well no, if rich people just consumed then the money would flow back into the economy via their consumption. This would generate economic growth. Whether that growth is greater or lesser than their capital investments would presumably be hard to measure. But to assume growth resultant from investments will always exceed growth from consumption requires evidence. Now an even better outcome would be that rich people didn't get rich in the first place. This would mean lower inequality, which in the data correlates with higher growth. This is demonstrated convincingly in Piketty's work. Overall, if youw ant to maximize growth for the poor (or really, growth for all of society at an equal pace, say), then you would want to dramatically raise taxes on rich people and eliminate the class entirely (IE, no more rich people). That would massively stimulate growth and of course skyrocket the wealth of currently poor people. It's a bit sad that the solution is so simple and has no downsides.

goatlover 18d ago

This is just trickle down economics, which has led to great wealth inequality while the middle and lower class wages have stagnated as inflation has gone up. What really helps is strong social safety nets and programs that help struggling people. The Nordic model leads to better societal outcomes.

goatlover 18d ago

This is just trickle down economics, which has led to great wealth inequality while the middle and lower class wages have stagnated as inflation has gone up and more people have to rent instead of owning their own porpoerty. What really helps is strong social safety nets and programs that help struggling people. The Nordic model leads to better societal outcomes.

danny_codes 17d ago

Well no, if rich people just consumed then the money would flow back into the economy via their consumption. This would generate economic growth. Whether that growth is greater or lesser than their capital investments would presumably be hard to measure. But to assume growth resultant from investments will always exceed growth from consumption requires evidence. Now an even better outcome would be that rich people didn't get rich in the first place. This would mean lower inequality, which in the data correlates with higher growth. This is demonstrated convincingly in Piketty's work. Overall, if youw ant to maximize growth for the poor (or really, growth for all of society at an equal pace, say), then you would want to dramatically raise taxes on rich people and eliminate the class entirely (IE, no more rich people). That would massively stimulate growth and of course skyrocket the wealth of currently poor people. It's a bit sad that the solution is so simple and has no downsides.