[xmcqdpt2]

One approach, which tends to be unpopular around these parts, is to print money and hand it to people in the form of universal programs, UBI, etc. This increases inflation which makes past capital depreciate (effectively what brought down SVB) and so level the playing field for those who are currently not holding much capital, which is most people.

One of the reason it isn't very popular is that the traditional way of injecting money in the economy is by adjusting interest rates which makes it relatively neutral for capital (because they can get more interest) at the cost of the working class. As Piketty points out in his book though [1], the times where inflation was very high because of large scale government programs (like in the post WWII reconstruction era) were booming times for the middle class. The current covid recovery had unemployment rates at all times lows, well up to the point where governments decided tackling inflation was worth killing jobs.

Of course, reducing unemployment to improve returns was never popular so it's being sold to everyone by pushing a scary inflation narrative. Personally, I'd rather pay more for my boxes of cereals than being laid off.

[1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_...

[s1artibartfast]

I hope you realize that the majority of federal and state funding works as you describe with the exception that the benefits are not Universal and targeted at the poor. Wealth transfers from the rich to the poor are at an all-time high.

[xmcqdpt2]

Inequality is also high (when compared to the post war era anyway) so clearly there is plenty of room for more transferring.

[s1artibartfast]

The interesting aspect to me is that the lower inequality wasn't because there were more transfers then.