Earlier quoted context omitted.
The lower class does suffer the most, but unfortunately it is the policies intended to help them which actually cause most of the problem. By giving money to people without producing more stuff - or even making it harder to produce the same - you MUST have inflation, rationing, or empty shelves - and often all three. The solution to allowing lower classes to have more stuff is to make it easier for everybody to produ…
>By giving money to people without producing more stuff - or even making it harder to produce the same - you MUST have inflation, rationing, or empty shelves - and often all three. Completely inaccurate. Giving people money that came from taxes does not increase the money supply. Giving people money that came from selling bonds does not increase the money supply. Only printing money increases the money supply.
Also, it's not just about the money supply. It's about who has the money and what they do with it.
Taking money from a rich person who might have had it tied up in stock, and giving it to a poor person who takes it to the grocery store - will not put anything more on the shelves in that grocery store. In the aggregate, it MUST do one of those three things. It may ALSO decrease the price of stock as it's sold by the rich people.
Clearly the economy is complicated, and it's hard to follow around the money. That's why I like to get back to fundamentals. Not even economics, but basically physics: We can't consume what isn't produced. Money is to some degree beside the point. If we want people (of any class) to have more stuff, then we must allow for that stuff to be produced.