[autoexec]

I can't argue that government spending isn't a problem. It really is. In particular it's where the money is going, how it's being accounted for, and how much benefit the average American sees from that which is way out of whack.

The pandemic had the government printing a ton of money and handing it out to some very rich people, but does giving more money to a person who already had enough money to afford whatever they want really drive up the prices on a gallon of milk?

[Rury]

It does. Think for example, if you had worked hard 30 years to acquire a $250,000 house, and the government just gave everyone $500k overnight. Would you think it's fair they could pay $250k for your house for not having worked for 30 years, while you had to? Probably not. Instead you'd likely raise the selling price of your house to protect the value of your hard work. Same goes for companies that produce milk.

Obviously an oversimplified example, as again not everyone is benefitting the same amongst other reasons, but that's basically the principle behind it.

[arcticbull]

People don't save money, they save value. I don't know anyone who would recommend saving up $250K to make a down payment entirely as cash, because of course you're losing money to inflation. Given the huge run-up in equities over the last 30 years chances are you'd only have had to save up a small fraction of that had you invested it. And the more fiscal stimulus that went out, the more stocks went up.

[Rury]

I never mentioned about saving up $250k to buy a house entirely in cash. I said working 30 years to acquire a $250k house. It's about protecting value of your hard work - your equity. And regardless, it was hyperbole to show why prices rise when money is freely given out.