>>24105517
>not really
>fiatanon is too triggered to THINK about what i'm saying
>if a loaf of bread costs 1¢ and you get paid 1¢/hr at your job
>how is that any different than if
>a loaf of bread costs $1million and you get paid $1million/hr?
>THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE
>the ONLY relevant yardstick is how is your labor is valued in terms of what your wages can buy
>the "dollar value" is utterly irrelevant
Anon, I entirely agree with the substane of your point here.
However, I believe you have missed the other half of may claim.
And I do suspect that many miss it (even if some "clued in" anons really get it).
If wages/payment rise commensurate with inflation, their is no problem.
(More typically, they lag, and that is a VERY REAL problem for most real people… but that is not my point righ now.)
The bigger point is that the ULTRARICH do not live off of income.
They have THEORETICAL wealth in the form of stocks and stuff like that.
But they actually have BILLS to pay for parties and yachts and stuff like that.
They don't want to sell their stocks since they think they will keep going up in value.
SO THEY GET LOANS, with the collateral being their stocks.
They use the money from the loans to pay the limo driver who takes them to the airport to catch the Lolita Express.
BUT BUT BUT… with inflation, it becomes EASIER over time to repay the loans.
So basically inflation FUCKS the vast majority, but it BENEFITS the ultrarich
(And I didn't even mention fractional reserve banking….)