Keithknight13
Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2014
- Messages
- 88
- Reaction score
- 26
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
It appears that government growth is actually starting back down now. If that's accurate, then it's a good thing.
I can't see how that is going to solve income inequality, though, unless it means that less tax money is going to go into subsidies for the large corporations.
I believe its the fact that tax dollars are taken by force, thus there's no incentive for governments to create a quality product/ service at a competitive price. When this money is spent on say wars, or welfare, it takes resources away from transactions that can be made voluntarily, making valuable goods fewer and more scarce, thus more expensive, thus less likely to be purchased by someone at a lower income level. Also, when governments print money (as the Fed does in trillions of dollars) the dollars go to big banks and they spend them on goods that are priced lower than if excess dollars were in the economy (inflation drag), while devaluing savings accounts for poor people. The wars also tax everyone, while hiring (Halliburton) or any of the private contracting firms overseas.
When the Fed hold interest rates at zero, people save less, and investors invest. Rich people invest the most and are better at doing so, so stocks are flooded with dollars because thats the only place you can't loose money with inflation at its current rate. Also, numbers can be artistically reported depending on how inflation, or GDP, or interest, or CPI is calculated. Focus on the access of goods those in top income brackets have, then those at the bottom. Poor people access planes, internet, phones, cars, etc. No rich person had those in most of history, but because entrepreneurs competed and property rights were enforced, supply and demand allocated those resources in a very effective manner.