Inflation is a weapon of rich people to rob and exploit poor people. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15028553
Inflation is a weapon of rich people to rob and exploit poor people.

2% target inflation is generally an invention by rich people to enslave, exploit poor people.

Rich people own many properties, own shares in companies. Mostly the amount of liquid cash held by rich and poor people is about same since rich people prefer to hold little cash because they know that inflation will erode the value of cash at the rate at which they have set inflation at.

Inflation helps the rich to remain rich always because the poor will always have to work since their savings are eroded significantly by inflation and they have little property to dispose off to yield $$$ in old age.

Inflation helps to scare poor people into spending $$$ made by factories whose share holders are rich people.

But mainly, inflation helps to keep poor people working and serving rich people because any savings of the poor are eroded by inflation and the rich remain well served both by share dividends from the companies that they own as well.as from disposing off real estate or living off rent from their real estate which they rent at inflation adjusted (increasing) rent to the poor.

Example of rich people:
or
[YOUTUBE]ZQ-YX-5bAs0[/YouTube]


Example of poor old people working to death in Singapore (McDonald's, collecting waste cardboard for recycling, cleaning hawker tables to earn a living):
Image
Image
Imagehttp://theindependent.sg/elderly-lady-who-can-barely-walk-wipes-tables-at-a-hawker-centre-and-works-as-a-cleaner/

Poor old people renting cages to live in Hong Kong:
HKG cage housing:
Image
#15058106
Puffer Fish wrote:If that's the case, why does it seem to be progressives who were advocating policies that would result in higher inflation, while conservatives seemed to be the ones who were worrying about inflation?

Some progressives are rich people as well.

If they were not rich and dirty, they wouldn't have so much time for promoting LGBTQ activities etc.

Maybe I clarify my stand, that inflation is the waste product from rich/ powerful peoples economic activities, which pollutes the (economic) environment and destroys the lives of the poor.
#15058216
AFAIK wrote:Inflation is a tax on savings since your money buys less over time unless it is invested in something productive. Inflation should run at 10% to punish tax evasion.
It will definitely punish most ordinary people before that, because most people are not that good at investment. At the end this will only benefit investment bankers and make them super fucking rich, just like how the Insurance industry once so thrived.
#15058218
@AFAIK

AFAIK wrote:Inflation is a tax on savings since your money buys less over time unless it is invested in something productive. Inflation should run at 10% to punish tax evasion.


There are ways that the rich can invest their money, protect it from inflation and still make money even after calculating for inflation. Stocks are not fool proof from inflation. To protect their money from inflation and taxes and still be able to increase their purchasing power and make money despite inflation, the wealthy generally invest in Real Estate Investment Trusts that pay dividends and Inflation Adjusted US Treasury Bonds. For Inflation Adjusted US Treasury Bonds, for them to be profitable after taxes and inflation, they will need to be placed in a Roth IRA or Roth 401K and a qualified distribution must be made.

All that money would be tax free under US law. Real Estate Investment Trusts you don't necessarily have to be placed in a Roth IRA or Roth 401K for those particular investments to be profitable despite inflation and taxes like you would the Inflation Adjusted US Treasury Bonds (the IRS, which is the US tax collector generally likes to tax the principle adjustments that are correlated to the rate of inflation of Inflation Adjusted US Treasury Bonds if those specific bonds are not in a Roth IRA or Roth 401(k) account). The rich will always be able to protect their money from inflation no matter how bad inflation gets.
#15068553
Inflation of 2% or lower helps the rich. Inflation of 6 - 8 % helps the poor. Central Banks try to keep the inflation around 2%, which helps the rich. See the books of Galbraith.
.
Interest above inflation is an invention to give wealthy people the power to rob the poor. And it is unnatural.
When you harvest an enormous amount of apples and you store them, the value drops to zero in a few months.
But money grows and grows because of the interest.
Once your income from interest is more than your spending, your capital grows and grows.
And now there are so many billionaires, that the are unable to lend there money against high interest rates.
In Europe the banks have to pay to the Central Bank for storing their money.
If you have more than a million on the bank in the Netherlands, you have to pay the bank for keeping it.
For lower amounts the interest is near zero.
.
If we want to help the poor, we should demand and realize maximum wages.
In my opinion it is obscene when CEO's earn hundreds times the minimum wages.
We should stop with this 'madness'. We should limit the wages of CEO's to 50 times the minimum wages.
If a CEO works 2000 hours a year then his income should be at most 100,000 times the minimum wages per hour.
If the minimum wages is 10 dollar per hour, the maximum wages should be 1 million dollars per year.
.
Personally I would like the maximum wages much lower. 10 or 20 times the minimum wages.
But we should be realistic and try to realize what is acceptable to a vast majority.
.
The maximum wages should be for a steady job, like CEO of a large corporation.
For artists and entrepreneurs you need other regulations to get a fair society.
#15068559
That inflation helps the rich and hurts the poor is a filthy libertarian lie. The best way to reduce inequality is war, I'm talking about serious war not The USA invading Grenada. Really serious war, obviously WWI and WWII are the star contenders. Serious war almost invariably comes with serious inflation. Often some of this inflation is hidden through price controls, rationing and black markets.The reason that the USA did not benefit fully in terms of reducing inequality in WWI is that they came in late and even then didn't really fully commit themselves like the European participants.

The benefits of (serious) war in terms of reducing inequality don't just stop when the guns go silent. No the cross class social solidarity created by serious war leaves its effects long after. Libertarianism was virtually dead at the end of WWII. Libertarians could only survive ideologically by infiltrating themselves into social conservatism and nationalism. It was only as WWII and Korea receded and particularly when the Soviet Union collapsed that Libertarianism could have its day.
#15068572
Rich wrote:That inflation helps the rich and hurts the poor is a filthy libertarian lie. The best way to reduce inequality is war, I'm talking about serious war not The USA invading Grenada. Really serious war, obviously WWI and WWII are the star contenders. Serious war almost invariably comes with serious inflation. Often some of this inflation is hidden through price controls, rationing and black markets.The reason that the USA did not benefit fully in terms of reducing inequality in WWI is that they came in late and even then didn't really fully commit themselves like the European participants.


I strongly agree with this principle, but there are two problems:
1. Still more poor people are forced to fight and get killed, or more directly, massacred, in wars.
2. Nowadays our tools of destruction are far too powerful.
#15068577
Inflation is good for assets and bad for income. The rich have a lot of assets. If inflation matches economic growth, it's really not a problem.

I can remember when the Fed was inflation averse. That had problems.

Think of it in terms of family, you want a house for your future needs. So you worry less about the debt and more about building the future you want to live in. The problem for us is that we are racking up huge amounts of debt without building the future we want to live in.

I consider this thread to gone beyond saving, but thought I'd mention that.
#15068578
Patrickov wrote:2. Nowadays our tools of destruction are far too powerful.

Well yes, even in WWI, war had got a bit too industrial and mechanised for some people's tastes. I've long thought that the great crime that the Germans were punished for in 1918 was not spoiling the peace but spoiling the war. Now it must be said that must of the anti world War I attitudes that we now take as a given actually started developing in the late 1920s. Douglas Haig was a greatly respected war leader in 1918, seen to have led to victory in a noble cause. However I think there was a general feeling like with "Happy Days" that it had just gone on too long It was also too expensive, too bloody and too noisy. Before WWI we loved war. War was the best way to status back then short of being Royal. Nelson was a national hero despite being no aristocrat, and living in a scandalous manner. WWI spoilt all that and of course nuclear wars are not good an generating heroes.

1. Still more poor people are forced to fight and get killed, or more directly, massacred, in wars.

This wasn't the case in Europe. The aristocrats fought and died in higher numbers proportionality. Skilled Manual workers were often exempted.

This buying a substitute to take your place seems to have been an American thing. The Vietnam War was incredibly mismanaged. The whole social purpose of war is the "we're all in it together". You can't send off a minority of your young men to fight in some steaming disease ridden swamp (yes, yes, I'm aware of the geographical diversity of Vietnam), while the majority get to go to rock concerts, smoke dope and engage in free love. If you're going to conscript young men, it has to be all or none.
#15068615
Rich wrote:This buying a substitute to take your place seems to have been an American thing. The Vietnam War was incredibly mismanaged. The whole social purpose of war is the "we're all in it together". You can't send off a minority of your young men to fight in some steaming disease ridden swamp (yes, yes, I'm aware of the geographical diversity of Vietnam), while the majority get to go to rock concerts, smoke dope and engage in free love. If you're going to conscript young men, it has to be all or none.


Ah, looks like this is what I have been wrong about. Lazy people like me want to be a winning "strategist" instead of a winning warrior.
#15068619
Woah, I actually kind of agree with @BicCherry. He is right, the reason 2% is targeted is to try and force people into investments. However, poor people cannot invest what little money they have, because they need it to take care of immediate needs. Thus, poor people are left out of the investment community, which leaves them behind, while people with money advance.

I actually fucking agree with this guy for once. :lol:

Puffer Fish wrote:while conservatives seemed to be the ones who were worrying about inflation?


IN America, this is not true at all. conservatives deficit spend and print money just as much as liberals. Trump is always calling for lower interest rates (which encourage inflation)
#15068620
late wrote:Inflation is good for assets and bad for income. The rich have a lot of assets. If inflation matches economic growth, it's really not a problem.


This statement is generally true. Especially at a macro-economic level. However, growth matching/surpassing inflation does not help the poor. The evidence of this is the raising inequality and lack of increase of real wages over the last 50 years or so.

The problem across much of the world is that people use macro-economic indicators like GDP to then make claims about micro-economic situations (like the well being of poor people). The reality is, when the GDP grows, the poor don't see that growth.

In other words, trickle down economics isn't true.

Again, I have to say @BicCherry is right. Maybe he's a bit hyperbolic, but fundamentally, he's right.
#15068794
It is more accurate to say inflation is a weapon of currency manipulators to rob and exploit honest people. Rich people potentially have more options for protecting themselves but also are exposed to more risk. If you held no currency at all for more than a day you would be functionally immune, homeless people for example.

We used to hang currency counterfeiters.
#15069484
Rancid wrote:He is right, the reason 2% is targeted is to try and force people into investments.


That is imprecise at best. Central banks target ~2% because of the zero lower-bound. It gives them more room to lower the real interest rate in a crisis. When the nominal interest rate goes below zero, people tend to hoard cash. These days, the target should actually be much higher than 2%, or cash should be abolished.
#15069538
Rugoz wrote:That is imprecise at best. Central banks target ~2% because of the zero lower-bound. It gives them more room to lower the real interest rate in a crisis. When the nominal interest rate goes below zero, people tend to hoard cash. These days, the target should actually be much higher than 2%, or cash should be abolished.


This statement is the same point, you just stated the converse. :) Hoarding cash means people don't invest. ;) You target a non-zero number, so that people don't hoard (i.e. they invest). :)

Also, the 2% target is largely because the fed just feels it's a good number. There's not real hard empirical data based reason for 2%. It just kind of seems to work. You right, that it's possible the optimal target should be higher than 2%, but again, it's really hard to come up with a number that can be supported with hard evidence. The target is just because it seems to work, not because we know its best.
#15069541
It is "non-zero" because the Fed want a meal ticket for all their money printing, they do not do it for free. They try to keep it under some smallish number, like "2%", (does this count real asset inflation or just consumer goods?), because more will turn people into banker hanging nazis. Who even notices 2%?

Turkey is a pariah nation. The president (who wou[…]

To address that against the popular will, countri[…]

@Rich the figures say it all. Germany 109 deaths […]

I just got word that the number of positives for […]