Posted on 09/07/2015 7:31:14 AM PDT by Cheerio
A few months ago, a hurt Ben Bernanke put on his blogger hat and set out to explain why, in his mind, the unconventional policies undertaken by the Fed in the post-crisis years have not contributed to record income inequality. As we noted at the time, epic hilarity ensued.
Bernankes explanation went something like this: while QE does indeed inflate asset prices, poor people have been getting poorer for quite some time, so sure, maybe the Fed contributed a little bit, but probably not a whole lot and besides, the more Keynes the better when it comes to smoothing out the business cycle and a smooth business cycle is good for everyone. Finally, Bernanke patiently explained that to the extent ZIRP punishes savers its nonsensical to mention it in any discussion about income inequality because after all, poor people dont have savings.
(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...
Why is this even an issue? Am I the only one who thinks this is ridiculous?
Why should wealth increase equally? How can it?
If I am worth a million and my net worth increases 5% it is a $50k increase. My neighbor has a hundred k and it increases 5% or $5k. So the gap has widened. Who except some ideologically driven moron looking to whip up the ignorant would give a damn? Why do we care about people who are just jealous of what others have?
“Wealth gap” is a truly evil concept.
What it means is that, if you save your money, or invest it in stuff that holds its value, and create legacy for your children, that is UNFAIR to folks who squandered all they had on tennis shoes, iPhones, and lottery tickets.
Excellent question, billyboy!!
Nice how these wizards of smart leave the EPA costs and beef and fuel and other things out of their calculations.
Because if you create enough poor, desperate people they will come after what YOU have.
They should have real financial education in the public schools. Financial ignorance drives much of the income inequality.
Along with making poor life decisions.
YEs, but if you have zero incentive for savers who just see their money eaten away by inflation greater than interest if they try to save, why should they not spend on current needs/wants rather than getting eaten up?
This article is not about the free market. This is about a bunch of elites manipulating the market with funny money, with the effect of making themselves and their rich friends richer and most everyone else poorer. Sending interest rates through the floor means that younger people don’t learn the value of saving and older people don’t collect any revenue on their savings, even though inflation (e.g., food, rent) is turning those savings into dust.
Income inequality is inevitable. Thatt doesn’t mean that manipulating the market to increase inequality is a good thing.
You are 100% correct. The "wealth gap" has been widening since the Industrial Revolution. But it's not just the so-called "robber barons" of the late 1800s who became wealthy. The wealth of all Americans has increased greatly. And it's still increasing.
My six siblings and I are far better off than our parents. And because my father was a hard worker, we went from lower middle class (i.e. poor) to middle class when I was a child.
Now several of my siblings have wealth of over one million dollars, and the others are doing well too. My wife and I are not wealthy, but we are doing quite nicely. Because somebody else became made a lot more money or became a billionaire does not bother me in the slightest.
Explain how this manipulation is working and exactly how it makes some poorer.
No one is “creating poor”, the poor are creating themselves.
Making education available does not assure it will be taken any more than 2 people creating a child assures they will raise it properly.
UNFAIR UNFAIR
You used real numbers, and real math. White privilege and micro aggression.
And you used logic, to top off the offense.
Among the crooks are (in no particular order)
there is no wealth inequality
there is human inequality stemning from many causes but mostly the making of many poor decisions that are at root laziness.
that is, laziness over and over easy way out decisions result in the inability to earn
Actually our fearless Govt. “invites” the Poor from other very poor countries into our country just to keep it “fair.” Sort of a built-in wealth gap maker machine.
“This is about a bunch of elites manipulating the market with funny money, with the effect of making themselves and their rich friends richer and most everyone else poorer.”
During my years in the corporate world I saw the effects of financial manipulation. I saw factories in the US closed while the funds that would have bought new equipment to modernize the US factory and make it competitive was spent to build a replacement overseas. I saw senior executives one year borrow $3 billion to fund a stock buyback which increased reported EPS (earnings per share) and allowed them to maximize their bonus based solely on EPS. The next year the stock was trading 35% below the buyback price but the $3 billion in debt was still a $3 billion obligation of the corporation. I also saw financial and legal executives given operating positions for which they were not prepared, and in which they performed poorly, for the sole purpose of dressing up their resumes with an operating position in preparation for a future CEO assignment. In many cases the companies they ran for a short period of time were damaged to the point they were divested or shut down. The passing over of highly qualified and experienced operating managers for these jobs resulted in a talent drain that negatively impacted performance in future years.
In 19th and 20th centuries, when American’s great industrial infrastructure was built, CEO’s were drawn from the product side of the business (manufacturing and R&D) or the customer side of the business (sales and marketing). These executives understood the products the company made and the customer needs. In the 1970’s the power in the CEO office and board seats shifted to the financial executives and lawyers, many MBA graduates of prestigious schools such as Harvard and Wharton. The new generation of CEO’s were financial manipulators (buyers and sellers of assets) and not builders and visionaries. The new breed of CEO’s destroyed businesses, jobs and were responsible for the offshoring of American manufacturing. Concurrent with the destruction of companies, people and shareholder equity occurring during the great wave of buyouts, restructuring, and offshoring came a significant increase in executive pay. Before the 1970’s executive compensation was primarily salary based and the average CEO earned about 10 times the salary of the average hourly employee. Today CEO and senior executive pay is allegedly “performance” based (stock options and bonuses) and is 100 times or more the pay of the average worker even in corporations reporting several years of disappointing returns. Somehow the “performance” goals triggering high bonus payouts and option awards get met even when sales and earnings are mediocre.
In the same way bankers earn extraordinary incomes, even when their banks fail. In 2008 the government bailed out banks, and by 2010 the same senior executives at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Citibank who demanded and received a taxpayer bailout were paying themselves multimillion dollar bonuses and granting themselves lucrative stock options. Under true capitalism, those executives would have been fired in 2008 and begging on the streets in 2010.
Having seen the raped of many once great US companies, the unnecessary offshoring of many factories employing middle class Americans, and the government backing of irresponsible greedy bankers I’m unable to blame wealth disparity on the working people of the US. Those working people have endured 20 years of declining real incomes.
The truth is, income disparity in the US today is not due to Adam Smith’s invisible hand of the marketplace. It is due to the control of capital by a few who in collusion with government weight the scales in favor of the legal and investment class.
The old saying goes “Poor folks have poor ways”. So in that sense we don’t disagree.
However I do think much of the income inequality is deliberate social engineering and it is smart and humane to counter this.
Also not everyone who is poor did it to themselves. Life can be very cruel and unfair.
Seems pretty cynical to import tens of millions of the poorest people on earth and then complain about a wealth gap.
While I agree with you, the policies that have been implemented by the regime are evil, and are causing serious financial problems for most people, while propping up their cronies.
The QE has driven the value of money down, and while the government insists that there’s no inflation, every thing required to live your life costs more.
In addition to that, the unnatural depression of interest rates both discourage savings and encourage investment, which is causing a huge bubble in stock prices.
Eventually, interest rates will have to come up, and it will tank the stock market, hurting small investors who can’t afford to be in hedge funds.
I honestly think the coming stock market crash will dwarf 2008.
Mark
How is income inequality “deliberate”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.