The link i provided refer to that

so the while the case study of St lous federal reserve indicate that goverment spending had little to no effect

On the other hand, modern studies have found that the current link between government spending and inflation may be stronger.In particular, the 2022 inflation spike followed two major federalspending programs under two administrations. The first, the CARES Act, passed in March 2020, while the American Rescue Plan passed in March 2021.Collectively, these initiatives aimed to minimize the economicdevastation of Covid-19 by distributing three stimulus checks, expanding unemployment benefits and providing extra funds to state and local governments.While experts have credited these Acts with possibly preventing a recession, economists have also found that their passage correlates with an unusual spike in inflation. By providing extra capital to American households, economists note, consumers were able to go out and spend money they wouldn’t have had otherwise. In turn, this increased consumer demand, pulling up prices.However, a recent analysis from the San Francisco Federal Reservefound that government spending only contributed to about threepercentage points of today’s inflation. These findings corroborate an October 2021 paper that suggested stimulus checks made inflation slightly worse – but not to the extent we’re seeing now

basically if they are right goverment spending may affect inflation depending on how is been used but is not the cause the main reasons for the current inflation we are seeing

Also, some irony in a post from Forbes to support your argument. Particularly given that the contributor was Q.ai founded by Stephen Mathai-Davis who was undoubtedly part of the 1% being targeted in this post.

“Aggregate demand might increase because there is an increase in spending by consumers, businesses or government, or an increase in net exports. As a result, demand for goods and services will increase relative to their supply, providing scope for firms to increase prices (and their margins – which is their mark-up on costs). At the same time, firms will seek to employ more workers to meet this extra demand. With increased demand for labour, firms may have to offer higher wages to attract new staff and retain their existing employees. Firms may also increase the prices of their goods and services to cover their higher labour costs.[2] More jobs and higher wages increase household incomes and lead to a rise in consumer spending, further increasing aggregate demand and the scope for firms to increase the prices of their goods and services. When this happens across a large number of businesses and sectors, this leads to an increase in inflation.”

US just pumped a trillion dollars of spending into the economy. That’s not going to be a weak effect on inflation.

>what happens in the true meat of our nation

what did you mean by this?

https://www.rba.gov.au/education/resources/explainers/causes-of-inflation.html

Is more how the profit of our effort has been distributed than how much the goverment spent

And studies show that goverment spending has a weak effect on inflation

https://www.forbes.com/sites/qai/2022/08/25/does-government-spending-cause-inflation/

The issue with wealth inequality is that a very small percent of the population gets an even bigger increase of the cake and contributing less to the common wealth, ehile the middle classes and the poor see hardly any increase in wealth

like Uncle scrooge said, the hardest part is to make the first million

[removed]

Yeah, same. I’m good at getting my GF things I’ve heard her say she wants, but she’s waaay better at those special sentimental gifts that just make your heart melt.

Great comment. Your thoughts here made me take another look at the graph and it looks a lot like what I would imagine a grading distribution on the A,B,C,D, F scale might look like. And I recon that Americans answering a question like this might rate themselves as 75 being a C or average. So this distribitution might be a bit less skewed than I thought at first.

If you draw graphs & base articles SOLEY on social security wages & an inequality article you’ve lost me. I think we need to be more intellectually honest and present all the variables based on a multitude of sources. The incentive to claim unemployment during Covid and/or switch to alternative income methods that are beyond tracking methods was at an all time high. The gap growth between the top 1% and the rest of us is true but what happens in the true meat of our nation is beyond what this garbage article wants to try to dive into. I’m so so tired of narrative based metrics derived from a single source to prove a point. It defeats goals we might commonly share & potentially turns intellectuals away from a cause.

Tax loss carry forwards allow this. If we eliminate that, we could lower taxes for the bottom 90%

Nah - be a fan of your team first, and a fan of football next. It’s fun to watch greatness and see records broken; cheer for that shit! It’s only fun if players can succeed quickly, teams can do the impossible, underdogs can win, on “any given Sunday”. Otherwise what are we watching for?

On this we agree. Excessive, reckless spending is driving this. How much did the US Gov just agree to spend? How many trillions of dollars? And for what? This won’t end well if we continue on this path.

That’s a nuanced argument that’s not welcome here. Totally agree.

Thomas Sowell has written some books on economics that cover stuff like this. Recommended reading.

That’s the issue with stats like this. They don’t tell the full story. Sure, it’s nice for driving a 1 dimensional ideological argument, but it doesn’t reveal the whole picture. More people working that weren’t previously, are going to feature in the bottom percentiles. Nobody comes out of long term unemployment, or starts a first job in the top 1%. Conversely, as economies grow and innovation thrives, people have the opportunity to elevate through the top percentiles. At the same time, people that were in the top 1% drop back as their circumstances change. It’s not like there’s a room of 1%ers that are sitting around for 40 years getting richer and richer. Further, what are the wages in each percentile and how do they relate to standard of living?

It’s not just as simple as rich = bad and they got there at the expense of the poor.

No, it doesn’t. It shows the percentages of wage earners. It makes no distinction as to the actual growth in workers in each percentile. Only the relative differences.

If more people are being lifted out of poverty over time, that’s a good thing. This doesn’t show the numbers of wage earners, it just shows the percentages of wage earners. If the numbers in each group is growing, there are more people in the top 1 % earning more money. Same applies for each percentile. Even in the lower percentiles, if there are more people earning, that’s a good thing for everybody.

You sure about that?

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/1976/ceremony-speech/

Economics doesn't have a Nobel Prize

I am a horrible gift giver. I tell everyone not to get me stuff, but they still do.

I just buy whatever I want for myself? Is that so bad? I know what I like! Why should I force someone else to like something just because it’s a gift.

Why not? As a Vikings fan I rooted for the '85 Bears. And never again since.

In certain ways, they are. In terms of owning a home, they are. In terms of supporting family on one income, they are. In terms of paying for goods, they are.

How would that be a good outcome? It’s all relative to population total, that’s how percentages work.

You should’ve added U.S. states if you’re gonna add a U.S. Territory to the mix.