Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's probably true, but he doesn't blame the FED for it. I said "Prove the actions of the FED are hurting more people than it helps". Your link doesn't come CLOSE to doing that. The author's main claim seems to be that CAPITALISM generally leads to more income inequality - and that the time period from 1945 to 1980 was a period of UNUSUAL gains for the middle class - and that since that time we have returned to a MORE TYPICAL situation for a Capitalistic society (ie that the wealth gap widens over time).
Ken
Most people understand what has went on since the 80's. Bubbles, bubbles, market welfare.
Most people understand what has went on since the 80's. Bubbles, bubbles, market welfare.
I'm certain YOU beleive that - but you certainly didn't PROVE that - and in fact YOUR LINK simply makes the case that Capitalism is returning to it's NORMAL STATE - not that it's "market welfare" but that it's NORMAL for the rich to get richer in a Capitalistic society. His argument is that the 20th Century was an ABNORMAL TIME in that over most of that period wealth inequality WENT DOWN. Considering that the FED was not even created until 1913 ALL that PRIOR period of the 1800s etc - when wealth inequality was the NORM - you certainly can't make a correlation between wealth inequality and the FED.
If anything the authors claim UNDERMINE your claim that the FED is responsible for that wealth inequality - since the wealth inequality existed long before the FED was established - and in fact the creation of the FED corresponds with the beginning of the INCREASE (temporary as it may have been) in wealth equality.
You certainly can't make any correlation between the existance of the FED and an increase in wealth inequality - and if anything the OPPOSITE is true. During most of the FEDs 100 years of existance, wealth inequality WENT DOWN. That's not true for the last 30 years, but it WAS TRUE for a good part of the previous 70 (especially for the 35 years between 1945 and 1980),
I'm certain YOU beleive that - but you certainly didn't PROVE that - and in fact YOUR LINK simply makes the case that Capitalism is returning to it's NORMAL STATE - not that it's "market welfare" but that it's NORMAL for the rich to get richer in a Capitalistic society. His argument is that the 20th Century was an ABNORMAL TIME in that over most of that period wealth inequality WENT DOWN. Considering that the FED was not even created until 1913 ALL that PRIOR period of the 1800s etc - when wealth inequality was the NORM - you certainly can't make a correlation between wealth inequality and the FED.
If anything the authors claim UNDERMINE your claim that the FED is responsible for that wealth inequality - since the wealth inequality existed long before the FED was established - and in fact the creation of the FED corresponds with the beginning of the INCREASE (temporary as it may have been) in wealth equality.
You certainly can't make any correlation between the existance of the FED and an increase in wealth inequality - and if anything the OPPOSITE is true. During most of the FEDs 100 years of existance, wealth inequality WENT DOWN. That's not true for the last 30 years, but it WAS TRUE for a good part of the previous 70 (especially for the 35 years between 1945 and 1980),
Ken
It is normal for the rich to get richer. It's not normal for the middle and lower classes to stagnate at the same time.
No I can not make a correlation that there is an increase in inequality because we have the Fed. It's clear it's grown because of the policy the Fed has followed though. They didn't have to.
It is normal for the rich to get richer. It's not normal for the middle and lower classes to stagnate at the same time.
No I can not make a correlation that there is an increase in inequality because we have the Fed. It's clear it's grown because of the policy the Fed has followed though. They didn't have to.
I have zero doubts that the Fed has helped the rich. But tell me how you think the Fed caused the middle class wages and output to languish.
I have zero doubts that the Fed has helped the rich. But tell me how you think the Fed caused the middle class wages and output to languish.
As far as your question goes it becomes irrelevant once you made your first admission. It should not be the place of any government agency, be it a direct one or even a quasi one to pick and choose winners and losers.
As far as your question goes it becomes irrelevant once you made your first admission. It should not be the place of any government agency, be it a direct one or even a quasi one to pick and choose winners and losers.
Yes, the wealth is being "created" by the fed and not because business is doing so well.
The rich are always favored. Fed or not. Here or there. Iraq or Russia or Zimbabwe.
The Fed augments business and employment here through money policies.
And as I said no doubt it helps the rich. I just don't see how it is causing our labor/wage dilemma.
The Fed might 'take' from the middle class through inflation. And also from the rich. But the Fed is trying to boost inflation through money policy with little result.
Show me how the Fed is disfavoring the middle class. I don't think it is.
Many businesses are finally enjoying better profits and higher employment today. Real wealth is being created today much more often and in larger volumes than in 2009.
Industrial and manufacturing output is up. HC business is up. Employment is up. Exports are up. In many locales housing is up.
Median wages are not. And I don't see that as the Feds fault. I believe to be a result of on going successful global capitalism along with technologies that are displacing many jobs, yet with better output.
Central money policy is one big reason why the USA is pulling away form Europe as far as industrial output and employment.
The rich are always favored. Fed or not. Here or there. Iraq or Russia or Zimbabwe.
Now there is a triumvirate we should emulate.
Quote:
The Fed augments business and employment here through money policies.
And as I said no doubt it helps the rich. I just don't see how it is causing our labor/wage dilemma.
It's not that so much. It's making sure that the big guys continue to make large returns despite the fact that business is not justifying those returns. Why build up business when you can do nothing and still profit?
Quote:
The Fed might 'take' from the middle class through inflation. And also from the rich. But the Fed is trying to boost inflation through money policy with little result.
Sorry, as anyone that does their own shopping will tell you, the government is full of crap when they say there is no inflation.
Quote:
Show me how the Fed is disfavoring the middle class. I don't think it is.
Many businesses are finally enjoying better profits and higher employment today. Real wealth is being created today much more often and in larger volumes than in 2009.
Considering what it has cost us, that is setting the bar very low. I will argue that the same could be said today even if we had done nothing.
Quote:
Industrial and manufacturing output is up. HC business is up. Employment is up. Exports are up. In many locales housing is up.
Median wages are not. And I don't see that as the Feds fault. I believe to be a result of on going successful global capitalism along with technologies that are displacing many jobs, yet with better output.
Central money policy is one big reason why the USA is pulling away form Europe as far as industrial output and employment.
Crumbs. They get billions and others get minimum wage.
It's not that so much. It's making sure that the big guys continue to make large returns despite the fact that business is not justifying those returns. Why build up business when you can do nothing and still profit?
Sorry, as anyone that does their own shopping will tell you, the government is full of crap when they say there is no inflation.
Considering what it has cost us, that is setting the bar very low. I will argue that the same could be said today even if we had done nothing.
Crumbs. They get billions and others get minimum wage.
If you're saying that the rich and big business can now make more money simply with their capital, I think Piketty and I would agree with you. And I have already agreed that Fed policy can help enable that.
But IMO the middle class doesn't languish as a result. The middle class languishes because the resultant trickle down has also been poorer because of technologies and globalism.
And the middle class has failed on itself in not demanding bails, and preferential money policies. Taxes are too high there, especially work related and gas taxes, and bails non-existent.
No one says there is no inflation. There is low inflation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
