by Summary:
Quantitative easing has worsened inequality. Think of it like pouring water into a glass. If the glass is already full, the water spills over. The wealthy hold most of the glass. They benefit from the overflow. The rest of us? We’re left with dry cups. This isn’t just a metaphor; it’s reality. When central banks pump money into the economy, they inflate asset prices. Stocks, real estate, luxury items—these soar. Who owns these assets? The rich. The majority, who own little, see no benefit. It’s like giving a feast to a few while the rest starve. This policy deepens the divide, rather than bridging it. It’s a game rigged in favor of those already winning. The rich get richer, while the poor struggle to make ends meet. This isn’t just bad economics; it’s a recipe for social
Topics:
Steve Keen considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Quantitative easing has worsened inequality. Think of it like pouring water into a glass. If the glass is already full, the water spills over. The wealthy hold most of the glass. They benefit from the overflow. The rest of us? We’re left with dry cups. This isn’t just a metaphor; it’s reality. When central banks pump money into the economy, they inflate asset prices. Stocks, real estate, luxury items—these soar. Who owns these assets? The rich. The majority, who own little, see no benefit. It’s like giving a feast to a few while the rest starve. This policy deepens the divide, rather than bridging it. It’s a game rigged in favor of those already winning. The rich get richer, while the poor struggle to make ends meet. This isn’t just bad economics; it’s a recipe for social
Topics:
Steve Keen considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Mike Norman writes Trade deficit
Mike Norman writes Bond market now pricing in one 25 bps rate cut by Fed in 2025
New Economics Foundation writes What are we getting wrong about tax
Sandwichman writes The more this contradiction develops…
| Quantitative easing has worsened inequality. Think of it like pouring water into a glass. If the glass is already full, the water spills over. The wealthy hold most of the glass. They benefit from the overflow. The rest of us? We’re left with dry cups. This isn’t just a metaphor; it’s reality. When central banks pump money into the economy, they inflate asset prices. Stocks, real estate, luxury items—these soar. Who owns these assets? The rich. The majority, who own little, see no benefit. It’s like giving a feast to a few while the rest starve. This policy deepens the divide, rather than bridging it. It’s a game rigged in favor of those already winning. The rich get richer, while the poor struggle to make ends meet. This isn’t just bad economics; it’s a recipe for social unrest. When people feel left behind, they lash out. They demand change, but the system resists. It’s like trying to fix a leaky roof with duct tape. Sure, it might hold for a while, but it won’t last. We need a new approach. One that doesn’t just fill the glasses of the wealthy. We need a system that ensures everyone has enough to drink. Otherwise, we’re just setting ourselves up for a storm. And when that storm hits, it won’t be pretty. |
You're asking the wrong question.
IF the workers had invested their 18% of income that goes to the socialist welfare state [UK], the would have been quids in.
They didn't see the benefit because the welfare state asset stripped them
A welfare state is not socialist. You should not talk about things, you do not understand.
@@ThomasVWorm Redistribution is a prime aim of the welfare state. It does this by redistribution contributions, leaving a debt.
Now if it was capitalist, it would invest those contributions and use the investments to pay the debt.
It's socialist.
You don't like me pointing out its socialist, because you know
a) It's asset stripped the workers of their assets.
b) It's causes a lack of investment
c) It causes pensioner poverty
d) It causes the cost of living crisis
e) It causes austerity
f) It causes low take home pay.
It's a disaster. So you want to blame others.
So if you think the welfare state is so bad, abolish it.
Post disappearing.
So simple question to see if you understand it.
Welfare state. Assets zero.
How big are the debts?
Educate us
@@adenwellsmith6908 the state has the biggest asset of all: the whole national economy.
The welfare state works this way:
The state splits its population into two groups: those who needs help and those, who are required to help. The state then indebts the helpers by demanding a tax from them. Then it creates the money the state demands as taxes. This requires the helpers to demand the money. The state gives the money to the helpless.
In order to get the money the helpers must create a fitting supply which fits the demand of the helpless otherwise they don't get the money to pay the tax.
So we see a production tailored to the needs of the helpless. This is a very capitalistic approach, since the state uses the capital available to him.
And it is not even clear, whether this is only a redistribution of labour resources being used anyway. Since taxation reduces income, the lower income may people force to work more than eg. part time. So demanding the tax and being indebted this way enforces more production.
So if you use capital in a market economy, this is not socialism but capitalism. It even enforces investments into the production of those commodities and services demanded by the helpless. A market is driven by demand since the market agents target is profit which makes them giving a damn about what they do for it. Without demand they would not have an idea, what to do.
So integrating those, who cannot create a supply into the market too is a very capitalistic approach.
The welfare state is capitalism.
@@adenwellsmith6908btw, posts are not disappearing. The default filter/order of youtube is "top comments". You must change it to "newest comments" to see all comments.
Would love to see you have a conversation with Gary Stevenson his YouTube channel is Gary’s Economics. He essentially has been saying this for several years and he is an ex trader on the LSE, so his approach is more man in the street with straightforward logic leading him to the same conclusion.
Haha. Was about to write basically the same.
Awesome, now how do we make wages higher, groceries cheaper, and get lower taxes that are accurately spent to better the American public?
Unions. When the capitalist class is better organized than the working class, wages are low.
If you spend taxes to improve living standards, it does not matter how much you tax.
Must groceries be cheaper? Ask the farmers first. They need a reasonable price as workers need reasonable wages.
@@ThomasVWorm The farmers aren’t the ones seeing the increase in profits or the ones to blame for “shrink-flation”. I agree with mostly everything else you said though.
@@ThomasVWorm When a farmer sells his cow to the butcher that Tyson works with he can easily get under 15% of the final retail price of the meat sold.
To me QE never made sense, since this is not how banks should work. With QE the central bank becomes the net debtor. It never should be a net debtor. Banks are intermediates (and no, I am not talking about loanable funds bs) between debtors and creditors. This is how the bookkeeping of debt works.
When the central bank is forced to do QE, the government is doing something wrong.
As an ignorant punter I believe you but do not know what QE is.
Quantitative Easing
@@webfreakz yes, I know it is quantitative easing. I couldn't be bothered writing that. But I don't know what it is.
Without QE, the stock market would be at 15,000
I don't think this professor knows what equality and inequality means. Seems like his objective is to make a political statement about a topic that isn't political. QE is not designed to support or suppress equality or inequality.
Then who holds the debts?