[anigbrowl]

And what about the large number of people who don't? It's nice to think that all economic growth since then was positive-sum wealth creation with no upward wealth transfer at all, but that seems rather unlikely, given all we know at how inflation and other economic phenomena work. There's some serious filter-bubble thinking going on in this discussion.

[gottorf]

The "net worth" of the mega-rich, at least in the US, is basically just the number of shares they hold in whatever company they founded multiplied by the price per share at any given moment. It's completely fake and has nothing to do with "economic growth". If you want to point fingers, blame the Fed for setting the stage for an epic asset inflation.

[anigbrowl]

Are shares assets that can be used as security in economic transactions? They sure are. Does that give such owners of shares massive economic leverage? It sure does. Do people without such assets find themselves worse off in economic transactions? Of course. I think you understand those things quite well.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

That's their fault? Anybody can buy in and share their victory no?

[anigbrowl]

No. Lots of people can't afford to buy shares, but do have to struggle with higher prices as consumers. This is the wealth transfer that grumpy socialists like myself find objectionable. I'm all for rewarding innovation, but things like changing packaging to include less product for the same price don't seem at all innovative to me.