And 3 million depend on food banks. Things are getting tough for lots of people and that's with extremely high levels of employment. Not sure this will go well if there is a recession that causes the jobless rate to increase.
"By design" seems like a bit much, but the upper class sure didn't let the crisis go to waste.
Spend $800B so the poors can eat? Hand-wringing and pearl clutching up and down the air waves. Just think of the inflation!
Spend $3000B to pump real estate values? Complete silence, relatively speaking.
This experience made it very clear who was in charge and who wasn't. These are US numbers, but I tend to suspect the same story repeated itself all around the world.
The money spent during COVID ($13tn of various money printing and government intervention) was largely spent into the economy owned by rich people - who do you think owns your mortgage and the banks and your debts and the super markets etc.
The poor still spent most of their money, the rich did not buy more yachts and expensive meals and attending "charity" galas etc. so what would usually be a circular flow became a direct increase in the wealth of the rich and direct decrease in the wealth of the poor. The inflation we see now is going to remain for a while but in the end prices over the next 3-5 years will nearly double and wages will remain the same.
The rich just increased their wealth and the working person got dramatically poorer. Poor people in the UK can't even afford food and Internet but at least the rich have never had it so good. Tax the rich.
Although small businesses didn't really shut down, at least that I could see. Pubs sold delivery beer, restaurants went full-on collection and delivery, coffee shops turned into walk-throughs.
Tougher time absolutely, but almost all the visible small businesses in my area survived lockdown.
Clearly a conspiracy, which is why all the assassins were objectively incompetent, only succeeded by sheer stupid luck, and both Germany and Austro-Hungary were itching and planning to start a war regardless.
Ferdinand's death didn't cause WW1, it just started it.
Employment metrics make less sense now that poorly-paid gig work is ubiquitous. Just because you "have a job" doesn't mean you'll be able to afford basic necessities.
The gig workers I know do it because they like the money, it's the best money available to them. So I don't know about the "poorly-paid" part, there's so much demand for gig work people complain they can't find enough of it.
So good things are a result of capitalism, and the bad concomitant outcomes are due to "globalization, AI" and "failure of government"? Perhaps there is a link between the cheap Walmart milk in your fridge, record Walmart profits, automation (self-checkout), hardball supplier negotiations and rising inequality as indicated by Walmart employees also being on SNAP.
> That rising inequality is leading to poverty is a failure of government, not corporations or capitalism. Why introduce a layer of indirection by blaming the rich or corporations, when the rules are made by government? Blame the government directly.
This implies that capitalism is not capable of self-regulation and therefore requires government intervention. It follows that this is a joint failure of capitalism and governments to reduce negative externalities that lead to high wealth inequality.
> Let reddit handle the economic ignorance.
Please don't include implicit ad hominem jabs at other posters. You could have omitted your first sentence with no loss to your argument.
Which country was first in space, and led space-related innovation?
Capitalism didn't invent or produce computers or milk. Workers did.
Capitalism is just a wealth distribution mechanism on top of innovation and labor that only concerns itself with how the wealth generated by workers is distributed.
We can choose other mechanisms of wealth distribution.
