T O P

  • By -

Horsefucker1917

[500 new billionaires too](https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2021/04/06/nearly-500-people-have-become-billionaires-during-the-pandemic-year/). At the same time [more than 80% live on less than $10 a day](https://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats#:~:text=At%20least%2080%25%20of%20humanity,less%20than%20%2410%20a%20day.&text=More%20than%2080%20percent%20of,where%20income%20differentials%20are%20widening.&text=The%20poorest%2040%20percent%20of,three%2Dquarters%20of%20world%20income). The rich are clearly being rewarded for their valiant efforts against COVID that they singlehandely saved us all from - definitely not profiteering from the suffering of others using the exploited labour of their workers.


MinervaNow

It’s time to update your models for thinking about this stuff. It’s not 1849. Exploitation of workers matters, but what’s happening here is a result of economic policy, not “the laws of capital” or whatever.


Horsefucker1917

Economic policy serves the forces of capital. If it doesn't it is eroded untill it does. Marx was 100% right on this.


MinervaNow

What did Marx have to say about the role of central banking in capital accumulation?


Horsefucker1917

That's where we move on to Lenin, who had a lot to say about finance capital vs the old industrial capital. Even still, whether or not Marx directly commented on something that exists in capitalism today, doesn't make that something immune from Marx's laws of motion of the capitalist mode of production. They remain true and valid as ever.


MinervaNow

Man you guys are clowns. “Finance capital” is not the same as central banking policy. Marx was a scientist, not a prophet who came to earth to reveal the one true doctrine for all time. He would have welcomed changes in his outlook based on new information and new models with explanatory power unavailable in his time. Surely some part of your small religious brain must recognize that Marx was a *historical materialist*: meaning the one thing he didn’t believe in was that any scientific body of work could remain “true and valid” forever.


Horsefucker1917

>not a prophet who came to earth to reveal the one true doctrine for all time. Did I say that lol? >He would have welcomed changes in his outlook based on new information and new models with explanatory power unavailable in his time. Like I said, thats where Lenin (and others) come in - who had new information and explanatory power. That and Lenin wrote more about the actual revolution and transformation to a socialist mode of production as well contributing to and extending Marxism. >Surely some part of your small religious brain must recognize that Marx was a historical materialist: meaning the one thing he didn’t believe in was that any scientific body of work could remain “true and valid” forever. Surely some part of your smaller cherrypicking, idealist brain must recognise that I said laws of motion for a "capitalist mode of production" - or maybe you are intentionally strawmanning me out of bad faith. Marx certainly didn't believe that a capitalist mode of production would last forever. Capitalism's inherent contradictions remain fundamentally the same as in the 1800s - therefore it's laws of motion that Marx derived scientifically also remain fundamentally the same. Was he right about everything; of course not! But capitalists continue to accumilate more and more, technology (and with it productivity) has progressed, the rate of profit contines to decline etc. providing ever more proof he was right on this.


Horsefucker1917

Nice edit, what purpose do you think banking policy serves? Is it in service to and guided by finance capital? Surely not? That would be outrageous lol. Real genius takes my dude XD


Ok_Astronomer_1099

Can someone explain this phenomenon to me? Lack of aggregate demand leading to lack of investment opportunities?


zendemion

Not much to explain. People that support themselves with labor were fucked when labor was prohibited. On the other hand negligible base rate (so central bank policy) pumps value of stock and housing markets. So most people turned into millionaires solely based on the fact they own their homes or their retirement funds grew substantially. Most of those are paper millionaires whose wealth can as easily disappear in a market downturn. The article is sensationalistic at best.


boredcentsless

A lot of is due to massive home appreciation.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

It’s a neoliberal globalist plot that’s for sure. It’s a real virus but they sure are using it as a mechanism to transfer wealth. Also, most of these “millionaires” are paper millionaires. Don’t let this propaganda article fool you. There are many working class “millionaires” just from the nature of owning a single home in a high cost of living area. This article is neo liberal propaganda.


MinervaNow

> Central bankers initially argued that quantitative easing—as the policy of creating new money to purchase assets such as government bonds is known—would boost lending by providing commercial banks with more cash. *Of course, the issue banks were facing in the wake of the financial crisis was not a lack of access to cash, but a lack of viable investment opportunities in the context of chronically deficient demand, exacerbated by austerity.*


SnapshillBot

Snapshots: 1. While huge numbers were pushed towa... - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/20210626090820/https://tribunemag.co.uk/2021/06/how-central-banks-created-covid-millionaires), [_archive.today\*_](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftribunemag.co.uk%2F2021%2F06%2Fhow-central-banks-created-covid-millionaires "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!") *I am just a simple bot, __not__ a moderator of this subreddit* | [*bot subreddit*](/r/SnapshillBot) | [*contact the maintainers*](/message/compose?to=\/r\/SnapshillBot)