|
|
|
|
|
|
by nine_zeros
1482 days ago
|
|
|
> Is it a law of nature that whenever workers do well, the Fed has to curb it? That seems like a deliberate policy choice made not with the average person's interests at heart. It is a less-spoken about flaw of the economic system we live in. In a resource-constrained planet, we just cannot have too many people demanding too many resources. Under the current system, most people cannot consume above average resources except a few successful capitalists and systematic holders of power. The fed is merely trying to reduce inflation but the society is structured in a way such that only the common man suffers inordinate costs to their lives. The select few people have entrenched their positions in society, thus they will never suffer extreme consequences in a fed induced downturn. This systematic disproportionate affect is what causes unrest in society. If the wealthy lost money proportionate to their gamble and literally fell on the streets, shoulder to shoulder with the commoner, most people wouldn't have a problem with a fed downturn. |
|
|
Isn't that exactly what happens when the stock values go down? That most don't end up on the street isn't a result of any magic tricks, but of diversifying investments. So if Amazon goes to shit during an upcoming recession/depression, I would assume that Bezos has more than enough money parked in real estate or other assets.