But about those savings: nothing about our economy is about rewarding savers, every single aspect of monetary and fiscal policy is to promote transactions in the economy
If not to another person for consumptive reasons, they want savings to go into assets
If you want to save in its currency the governments will tax you the most, up to 55% if you’re self employed anywhere Americans have a 1/3rd chance of living
If you do what the government is pointing at with big blaring neon signs, you’ll often get taxed 0% and be paid a tax rebate for doing do.
Because saving is not stuffing money under a mattress, it is investing it for a presumed return. And many major voting blocks benefit by hitting the presumed returns, which happens by promoting transactions.
I mean even as recently as last month you have politicians on the right saying that people are even now "hoarding" stimulus checks, or are still living large on them.
$3,600. In 2020. That's a generous definition of hoarding. And an extremely generous definition of "living large".
the PPP loans along side amplified unemployment benefits were far longer running
in California, Covid unemployment was $450/week with an additional $600/week on top, and it lasted 18 months statewide
the reality isn't as political as it masquerades as, there are and were capital misallocations as a result of these broad programs
this is something I found weird about how inflation was politicized.
One group said “its corporations being greedy, exclusively!” another group said “its the stimulus money in everyone’s hands, exclusively!”, centrists would say “supply chain disruptions!”
but…. capital misallocations are expected in any economic school of thinking? this means all of those politicized scapegoats are expected factors?
the part nobody wants to hear is that if you still begrudgingly bought overpriced necessities instead of starving to death in the street, then yes, you contributed to inflation. congratulations.
if corporations raised their prices and profits stayed the same, that would be the most equalized outcome.
if profits went down then there would be a case for attempting greed and failing, and if it was for withholding a necessity that would be a real case worth scrutiny!
but since they raised prices and profits went up, despite that combination being what really pissed people off the most, it means that the buyers … had more money… from… somewhere. hmmm….