Inequality ... and the Fed

[srgreene]

The usually bearish, but always insightful Stanley Druckenmiller has some choice comments about inequality in the USA. I have made much the same point, and been denounced for it, with no effort at refutation.

After The Bank of Canada sheepishly admitted this week that "some of the monetary policy tools it is using to address the COVID-19 pandemic, such as quantitative easing (QE), could widen wealth inequality," Druckenmiller drops the proverbial hammer on all the hedged-speak ("could"), and blasts that

“I don’t think there has been a greater engine of inequality than the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States... so hearing the Chairman [Powell] talking about visiting homeless shelters is very rich indeed..."


Druckenmiller then goes after the mindset- so brilliantly illuminated by the likes of AOC- who thrill to spending money we don't have (because, you see, "we owe it to ourselves").


While I am not wealthy, I can attest to the wisdom of Druckeniller's words: by simply having most of our assets in common stocks, held for years, and admittedly aided by some timely investments in AMZN, SHOP, and TSLA, my husband and I have benefited considerably from the Fed's largesse. But I think it's a phony prosperity, and I am always whispering to hub dear that we should be less aggressive in our investment posture (so far, I've been mostly wrong). As we face retirement, we are, however, moving in that direction.

The unholy combination of the Fed and a financially irresponsible Congress have given an enormous boon to those with assets. Conversely, in an ultra-low interest rate environment, one that hides risk, those saving money have been played for "suckers". The truly weird thing is that the left largely supports the financial irresponsibility of the US government.

I will let Druckenmiller have the last word:


"...for the life of me I can't understand why the left is so excited about money-printing when all the data shows that the people who benefit from money-printing are rich people."

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/druckenmiller-theres-been-no-greater-engine-inequality-fed

 

[KeithD]

Thank God Donald Trump is out of power and a new, human administration, can continue its work to bring both sanity and something closer to equity and equality to this nation.

 

[nowisthetime]

Thank God Donald Trump is out of power and a new, human administration, can continue its work to bring both sanity and something closer to equity and equality to this nation.

Indeed, the adults are back in charge.

 

[CornusKousa]

Thank God Donald Trump is out of power and a new, human administration, can continue its work to bring both sanity and something closer to equity and equality to this nation.

You have to pick one, equality of opportunity or equity of outcome, can't have both.

 

[WillJ8787]

You have to pick one, equality of opportunity or equity of outcome, can't have both.

So says the Fascist authoritarian.... meanwhile, back in reality, we will have both.

 

[CornusKousa]

So says the Fascist authoritarian.... meanwhile, back in reality, we will have both.

You're conflating realism and fact based reality with "fascist authoritarian".

In reality you've never had both, and nobody has ever had equity of outcome, every attempt to do so has failed and resulted in some of the worst human suffering on record.

And equal opportunity results in wildly unequitable outcomes....making leftist like yourself rage with jealousy and wealth envy.

 

[Lazaran]

.
"Words" mean things, not "word" means thing.

When someone calls for a "more equitable" society, with a focus on shrinking the gross disparity between the upper and lower margins, it is not a call for an impracticable "perfectly equitable" society.

A person would have to be an idiot not to recognize the distinction.

A person would have to be a "borderline sociopath" to argue that the current levels of disparity between the upper and lower margins in society couldn't/shouldn't be addressed.

*nods*

 

[CornusKousa]

"Words" mean things, not "word" means thing.

Cling to the typo son, it's all you've got

When someone calls for a "more equitable" society, with a focus on shrinking the gross disparity between the upper and lower margins, it is not a call for an impracticable "perfectly equitable" society.

Yet no one ever says where it stops.....much less AGREE where that stops.

There will ALWAYS be calls for more equity from the left, it's what makes them leftist.

A person would have to be an idiot not to recognize the distinction.

Then make the distinction, where EXACTLY do we stop pursuing equity??

I bet you can't/wont That would be too alt-reich of you to do so.

A person would have to be a "borderline sociopath" to argue that the current levels of disparity netween the upper and lower margins in society couldn't/shouldn't be addressed.

*nods*

Not at all.

It doesn't need to be addressed.

Other people getting rich and having more than you isn't a crime against the individual or society.

This is the USA where you should be free to make as much money as you want with as minimum of a government infringement on your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as possible.

The ONLY thing this needs to be addressed are the forcible wealth transfers the government makes by holding the civilian population at gunpoint and forcing it.

 

[Rightguide]

"...for the life of me I can't understand why the left is so excited about money-printing when all the data shows that the people who benefit from money-printing are rich people."

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/druckenmiller-theres-been-no-greater-engine-inequality-fed

They have no formal education in economics or knowledge of how wealth is really created.

 

[Rightguide]

.


A person would have to be a "borderline sociopath" to argue that the current levels of disparity netween the upper and lower margins in society couldn't/shouldn't be addressed.

*nods*

The sociopaths are those who think government has the answer to the alleged "disparity," or that the consequences of government actions to equalize the two levels would be acceptable to a free people.

The only solution is real education, not the fortification of national ignorance going on in our public schools today. The government run schools are producing politically minded, barely literate drones, who are in many cities, towns, and neighborhoods, psychologically and educationally, unprepared for competition in the market place. These schools do not motivate young people to succeed in the freest place in the World. They're taught to go out and tear it all down instead, which leads to what?

PS: I wouldn't be spending too much time criticizing the typos and grammar of others if I were you, either.

 

[Lazaran]

.
Histrionic typos.

 

[CornusKousa]

.
Histrionic typos.

Keep hitting that buzz word....

It's the only thing you've got!!

 

[Lazaran]

.
It's apt.

 

[CornusKousa]

.
It's apt.

Only in leftist fantasy land

 

[icanhelp1]

"Words" mean things, not "word" means thing.

When someone calls for a "more equitable" society, with a focus on shrinking the gross disparity between the upper and lower margins, it is not a call for an impracticable "perfectly equitable" society.

However a government arbitrarily injecting cash into a cash rich economy does more to increase the disparity between upper and lower classes. Inflation affects lower income demographics as opposed to the higher more affluent.

Neither society nor government can socially engineer a more equitable society in a capitalist market economy. Although we may be in the throws of a hybrid economy, somewhat market driven with a tinge of socialism the foundation still rest on individual entrepreneurship and freedom of choice not excessive government control. Competition breeds excellence, socialism breeds mediocrity.

A person would have to be an idiot not to recognize the distinction.

A person would have to be a "borderline sociopath" to argue that the current levels of disparity netween the upper and lower margins in society couldn't/shouldn't be addressed.

*nods*[/QUOTE]

You address it not by expanding government but making government smaller, government for the people not people ruled by government. It's one thing to have social safety nets quite another to hand out freebies to the tune of trillions of dollars.

Whatever that word is??

 

[Lazaran]

.
ineedhelp1 thinks that targeted stimulus payments to families and financial assistance to American small businesses amounts to "arbitrarily injecting cash into a cash rich economy" and that the many thousands of dollars received by those at the lower end of the margins is a detriment to them.

Well I guess that may ultimately be true if the wealthy are allowed to keep the trillions of dollars they gained from the republicans and the traitor in chief's tax cuts for the rich and corporations, and from their Covid profiteering.

 

[2021Noobie]

Fuck! For a while there was no record of where Trump’s flunkies sent money
They refused to report or keep track
Then we found out big restaurant chains got some by claiming their small restaurants each constituted small businesses

Whatever

There should transparency

Congress needs to do its job for The People not their biggest lobbiests
Our whole government is lubricated by bribes
Another reason the new voting bill will be killed
They don’t want to remove their snouts from the trough

 

[icanhelp1]

ineedhelp1 thinks that targeted stimulus payments to families and financial assistance to American small businesses amounts to "arbitrarily injecting cash into a cash rich economy" and that the many thousands of dollars received by those at the lower end of the margins is a detriment to them.

I never said targeted stimulus wasn't needed.
Government forced shutdowns places the onus of responsibility onto the government. Stimulus checks to the less fortunate is a government responsibility it's the scope of stimulus that's questionable. Overpaying unemployment benefits thinking there wouldn't be unintended consequences is just plain ass poor leadership and ignorance. Don't need 4 trillion in additional spending.

Well I guess that may ultimately be true if the wealthy are allowed to keep the trillions of dollars they gained from the republicans and the traitor in chief's tax cuts for the rich and corporations, and from their Covid profiteering.

[/QUOTE]

Wealth redistribution is never an answer in a market based economy. Tax reform made our businesses competitive on the world stage. People keeping more of their money is a good thing. Increasing corporate and capital gains tax ( main source of venture capital ) will put a wet blanket on an economy that is looking to break out. Never saw a poor man give someone a job.

Increasing employment numbers, an increased labor participation rate and less spending works must better. pay as you go spending bills.

 

[Lazaran]

.
Of course......

The rich paying more is always a non-starter.

GTFO

 

[icanhelp1]

.
Of course......

The rich paying more is always a non-starter.

GTFO

Rich should pay their fair share. People on the left get wrapped around the axle on CEO compensation, CEO pay is based on market value just like Tom Brady’s.

 

[srgreene]

Thank God Donald Trump is out of power and a new, human administration, can continue its work to bring both sanity and something closer to equity and equality to this nation.

Such an insightful, thoughtful, well-supported claim. If you've got nothing to say sir, why bother speaking? You don't address the issue I raised at all- you just offer a mindless diatribe. Sheesh.