[roenxi]

There has been a big leap in technology over my lifetime. "Not impaired" isn't the target, if all the wealth gains weren't being directed to asset owners by asset price inflation then the people who were working to create them would be getting a bigger share.

I've done the obvious thing and bought assets, but it keeps getting harder and at some point maybe all the people who are working hard might notice that they are doing all the work and people with assets are getting all the benefits. The government should be more neutral on whether asset owners or workers get the benefits of work - the market is naturally slanted enough without it being further tipped towards asset owners.

You might be happy in stasis. But this is an age of wonders and the people who do the work to bring it about should be compensated roughly in line with their contribution. As would be happening if the government didn't keep leaning in with monetary policy to prop up asset prices relative to wages.

As a bonus, if the government did leave the market alone, people would probably work harder and there'd be more stuff to go around, even ignoring the fact that more of it would be distributed to the sort of people who work hard.

[staticman2]

65.8 percent of americans own a home according to an internet search. (An asset). If you want to discuss wealth inequality, I don't think a term like "asset inflation" is necessarily the right way to go about it. Can't we just use terms like home affordability?

I just think reinventing the term inflation encourages sloppy fringe conspiracy thinking.

It's my understanding if the government didn't intervene in markets we'd get events like the great depression returning periodically, which probably are in nobody's interest.

We should really be discussing the right government policies or the wrong one, but I doubt the answer to the problems of our time is zero policy.