Cheap Money Is Here to Stay, So Why Are There Still So Many Poor People?



Sigh, always with this Bezos guy. He famously works for peanuts, something like 80K a year. The entirely of his wealth is from his ownership that of something that has increased in value because it is so ridiculously useful. Your argument would be so much stronger if you highlighted the inbred parasites that are the multi-generational inheritors of wealth. At least they really did nothing for the money.


@1 Stronger at what?

Seems like Bezos is a perfect illustration of the dynamic Reich and Mudede are talking about - his work has destroyed tens of thousands of middle class incomes, transformed them into wage slave warehouse drones and shoved the difference into the pockets of shareholders.


It's all artificial non-taxation of wealth, allowing people who are millionaires to pay 8% in total federal and state taxes, while everyone else loses their work tunics (we've decided shirts are out, to force you to buy new clothes).

Oh, and a loss of barely more than 1 % is better than being a rentier with 40-80% vacancies.



@1 you know much of the big chain grocery store work used to be unionized wages with healthcare and retirement benefits.

Not anymore. Where do you think Bezels s wealth comes from? Do you honestly think that “convenience” earns a dude hundreds of billions? No. All that money that USED to go into the pockets of everyday labor is off-shored, slashed, and siphoned off into the pockets of a smaller and smaller cadre of billionaire “disrupters.”

Why the fuck do you think Amazon distribution centers are always with in a couple miles of RV and KOA campgrounds? The vast majority of those workers are permanently contingent, low wage, low to no benefits, and can’t even afford rent.


"Convenience costs."

If it's cheap or easy to you, then it is "expensive" in terms of the waste is causes, or the labor or natural resources it exploits. Always.


I think it's somewhat curious that Keynes and other economists thought that "low interest rate" money would deliver class-equalization -- somehow. Missing the point that most cash in circulation is literally created by banks[1]... and banks are distributing cash specifically in order to charge interest on it for their own profit. As long as such private-profit interests are creating around 90-95% of all circulating currency[2], how would this pro-social revolution happen?, according to Keynes.

If the Federal Gov used ~their~ ability to create new money and offered citizens interest-free loans, thereby "disrupting" the banks' power over us, then maybe. But never otherwise.

Indeed, the very mechanism of "interest" as fees on cash being put into circulation is essentially the root form of "profit-extraction" which in turn drives an economy's requirement for "growth" and ever-increasing profits,,, or else we suffer a punishing recession.

Positive-interest currency itself is based on and requires exploitation of something/someone in order to maintain that growth. SOMEone has to fail for the others to succeed at all -- where else is the money for those interest-fees to come from? Either through bankruptcy, foreclosure, cheap products, natural resource extraction, and wage- or literal slavery.

I assert that the politics of capitalism derive from the profit-extraction demands of the currency itself. Not the other way around.

Of course, Keynes was never going to even imagine what another money-savvy person has proposed. Bernard Lietaer, the fellow who designed the ECU (which later become the Euro) went on to advocate --and create-- non-interest-bearing currencies as a way to withstand the tumult of the global economy's systemic instabilities[2]. "Mutual-credit" currencies also allow people to trade, -locally-, without profiting off one another. A critical pro-social detail that Keynes completely missed.


[2] "Money Diversity" B. Lietaer --