Printing money functions like a tax, but it's not a tax. It was never proposed and debated by congress and then passed.
> If anything, it seems you're proposing the wealthy not be subject to taxes oriented towards to common good, which is what the op was (correctly imo) upset about.
I'm proposing the opposite. The money printing since 1971 has been one of the major drivers of inequality. If you own a lot of assets like stocks and real estate the last year and half of printing dollars has been tremendously good for you. If you work for a living and your income is mainly your salary, it hasn't. Your rent has gone up while your wages and opportunities have lagged.
If you own a lot of assets like stocks and real estate the last year and half of printing dollars has been tremendously good for you. If you work for a living and your income is mainly your salary, it hasn't. Your rent has gone up while your wages and opportunities have lagged.
This is true.
Yet somehow people expect bitcoin to change that rather than exacerbate this. It's pretty obvious that bitcoin is only going to help a select group of people. After all, if it catches on, people who own this asset will benefit and no one else will, obviously.
> If anything, it seems you're proposing the wealthy not be subject to taxes oriented towards to common good, which is what the op was (correctly imo) upset about.
I'm proposing the opposite. The money printing since 1971 has been one of the major drivers of inequality. If you own a lot of assets like stocks and real estate the last year and half of printing dollars has been tremendously good for you. If you work for a living and your income is mainly your salary, it hasn't. Your rent has gone up while your wages and opportunities have lagged.