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.
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.
Actually they have to do absolutely nothing except collect the interest on the money the Fed gave them to hold.
Quote:
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.
NOBODY should be getting or demanding preferential treatment.
Quote:
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.
That excludes many of the things killing people at the checkout. While the lower classes are currently experiencing a bit of a break when gas goes from $1.75 to $4.05 that really is inflation.
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.
Hey it was YOUR LINK.
That's what the author claims (that it's NORMAL for Capitalism for the rich to get richer while the middle class get poorer) - that was the whole point of his interview. He said outright that the 1914-1980 period (and especially the 1945-1980 period) when the middle class made gains in that regard was ABNORMAL for Capitalism). If you don't like what he's claiming WHY DID YOU POST THE LINK?????
Hey it was YOUR LINK.
That's what the author claims (that it's NORMAL for Capitalism for the rich to get richer while the middle class get poorer) - that was the whole point of his interview. He said outright that the 1914-1980 period (and especially the 1945-1980 period) when the middle class made gains in that regard was ABNORMAL for Capitalism). If you don't like what he's claiming WHY DID YOU POST THE LINK?????
The top couple percent. Why? Why risk loaning this out when you can make millions at no risk?
I think the "left" thought they were but they got bamboozled.
Just banks. Some of the top percent. That money is was and is part of the bail that the banks got and get for the 2008 fiasco. It continues with QE and low interest rate monetary pressure and policy. distrust of the Fed.
My view is that the Fed had to do what was necessary to prevent a more severe money crisis in 2008. You and many other disagree. But that being said, there has not been enough punishment for all the malfeasance that went on.
And IMO, the middle class has been short-changing itself. As far as bails, programs and supports and taxes. This is the snooze and lose portion.
Of course the rich don't have to give a flying f.
I have said all along with HC reforms, that if it satisfies or augments our broad middle class, it must be good policy. Same should be with money policy.
But I haven't heard any better alternatives than our current system.
Hey it was YOUR LINK.
That's what the author claims (that it's NORMAL for Capitalism for the rich to get richer while the middle class get poorer) - that was the whole point of his interview. He said outright that the 1914-1980 period (and especially the 1945-1980 period) when the middle class made gains in that regard was ABNORMAL for Capitalism). If you don't like what he's claiming WHY DID YOU POST THE LINK?????
Ken
It is progressively becoming more 'normal' for the rich to get richer and the middle class to stagnate. And that isn't 'right or wrong'. It is what it is, and not good for our majority. And we either do something to improve on it or not.
I would want us to do. And if the middle class doesn't make the right demands it can't happen on its own.
It is progressively becoming more 'normal' for the rich to get richer and the middle class to stagnate. And that isn't 'right or wrong'. It is what it is, and not good for our majority. And we either do something to improve on it or not.
I would want us to do. And if the middle class doesn't make the right demands it can't happen on its own.
The author interviewed in the link believes that it's not just "becoming more 'normal'" - it ALWAYS WAS NORMAL for Capitalism to do that - and that the 1945-1980 period when the middle class florished was an "abnormality" - an oddity brought about by very unusual conditions. It's his belief that we are simply returning to NORMAL Capitalism - a situation where the rich get richer and the middle class gets poorer.
It wasn't my link, I'm simply restating what the authors' argument was.
Just banks. Some of the top percent. That money is was and is part of the bail that the banks got and get for the 2008 fiasco. It continues with QE and low interest rate monetary pressure and policy. distrust of the Fed.
Wouldn't everyone like to get bailed out of their poor decisions?
Quote:
My view is that the Fed had to do what was necessary to prevent a more severe money crisis in 2008. You and many other disagree. But that being said, there has not been enough punishment for all the malfeasance that went on.
And you have to ask yourself why? Have you ever done that? Why?
Quote:
And IMO, the middle class has been short-changing itself. As far as bails, programs and supports and taxes. This is the snooze and lose portion.
I don't think anyone that voted for Obama expected him to renominate the total failure that is Ben Bernanke. Granted, they refused to condemn him or hold him accountable for that.
Quote:
Of course the rich don't have to give a flying f.
I have said all along with HC reforms, that if it satisfies or augments our broad middle class, it must be good policy. Same should be with money policy.
But I haven't heard any better alternatives than our current system.
Pop the bubbles before they inflate. That isn't the desire though is it?
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.
