| It would be a good idea to site your facts rather than relying on instinct, because I suspect you write be surprised. For instance this [1] is the US monetary supply. If we only dump money on the economy when "bad things are happening" then it must be assumed that really bad things are always happening, and at a rapidly accelerating rate. And similarly Wiki has a passable section on the history of wealth inequality in the US [2] : "In the late 18th century, “incomes were more equally distributed in colonial America than in any other place that can be measured,” according to Peter Lindert and Jeffrey Williamson. The richest 1 percent of households held only 8.5% of total income in the late 18th century... In 1860, the top 1 percent collected almost one-third of property incomes, as compared to 13.7% in 1774. There was a great deal of competition for land in the cities and non-frontier areas during this time period, with those who had already acquired land becoming richer than everyone else. The newly burgeoning financial sector also greatly rewarded the already-wealthy, as they were the only ones financially sound enough to invest.[19]" And once again many of the problems with our current system are already highly visible, completely quantified, and have clear causal backings. [1] - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_Unite... |
> And similarly Wiki has a passable section on the history of wealth inequality in the US [2] : "In the late 18th century
I'm not going back to the economy of literally 1774 to find proof that the gold standard works. "Are banks a good idea" is something you'll have to take up with Hamilton, not me.
> And once again many of the problems with our current system are already highly visible, completely quantified, and have clear causal backings.
Again feel free to post any evidence here, or respond to any of my questions (also with evidence).
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=eTtE