Expanded Child Tax Policy Slashed Child Poverty

> Just the view of someone whose family is from Argentina, and who lived there during two bouts of severe inflation of >50%. To me, it's never "solved" and one thing I really fear is that the US is starting to look more and more like Argentina in both its populist political rhetoric and its abuse of institutions to produce short-term political gains at the expense of longer-term prosperity.

That is a consequence of bad decisions, not economics. In fact, economics does every well: It predicts the outcome of the bad decision. And you call it a bad decision because it prioritizes politics over reality, i.e., the economics.

If the doctor says, 'take this pill or you will have a heart attack', and you don't take the pill and have a heart attack, then the problem is you, not the doctor, who actually did very well (unfortunately).

> Inflation is a funnel that sucks money from the poor to the wealthy.

That's a separate question, but that's not really true either afaik:

Argentina's inflation level and the current US inflation level are on entirely different magnitudes; the US has never had hyperinflation (what you describe in Argentina), at least since the advent of modern economics around WWII. US inflation is well under 10% (last I checked), an order of magnitude less than the 50%+ you are discussing. It's like comparing a scraped knee to an severed femoral artery.

Also, the inflation is from entirely different causes. US inflation is due largely to supply chain issues caused by the pandemic.

For poorer people, inflation's effect depends on whether your wages and, if you have savings, whether the interest rate the bank pays on your deposit are inflating at a similar rate. Note that most Americans have no meaningful savings: One recent study said that something like 60% didn't have even $500 saved for an emergency.

Generally, inflation helps those in debt, including poor people, by inflating away the value of their debt. It hurts those who own and lend money - mostly the wealthy. If you have a billion saved and it's

That's why the American reactionaries are so up in arms about it - I agree about the irony, but reactionary policies almost always to favor the wealthy. 'Populists' are about manipulating the populace, not serving them. (They also are making a big deal about it because, 1) they function by creating crises - imagine them not being outraged; 2) it is a way to attack non-reactionaries. Both of those are the reasons for their existence.)

> So you're saying that if we did live under perfect capitalism, these problems wouldn't exist

Nope. But going back to my OP, I think this is a sound rationale for someone of a capitalist mindset to support welfare. It's fair to say that a capitalist society with perfectly rational actors does not exist. Its also quite possible that there are rational counterpoints within the capitalist frame that completely invalidate my argument - but I haven't seen that yet in this thread.

> Today I handed out survival kits at a homeless encampment. People are cold, tired and hungry. Child poverty, homelessness....this system is not working.

I agree.

Disclaimer: I think that unchecked capitalism is wrong, not just because humans are irrational actors, but that it's immoral for humans to serve an economy instead of the economy serving humans. The latter requires broad geopolitical intervention and the global will of people to hold their governments to account. But we always must remember that economies are human constructs, and one that can be changed with enough motivation.