Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> I think he doesn't mean money itself but the monopoly of money definition and creation by a small set of people (state or central bank).

He's not wrong in thinking that in practice people who are close to the money supply do better than those who are not, in the USA. That is not necessarily true, elsewhere. The real questions are, IMHO: 1. should proximity to the money supply be a (the) basis for social mobility? and 2. are the requirements of getting close to the money supply fair?

The supply of money is a separate issue from the fairness of distribution; central banks are not inherently unfair or a cause of inequality – they can in fact contribute to reduction of inequality by employing monetary policies that reduce the cost of borrowing (and simultaneously reducing the returns of lenders), which favours workers over savers.



Wait, can't a worker also be a saver? That seems like a false dichotomy to me, and what you're really suggesting is that monetary policy should encourage the accumulation of debt(spending) rather than careful insulation from chance(saving).


> That seems like a false dichotomy to me, and what you're really suggesting is that monetary policy should encourage the accumulation of debt(spending) rather than careful insulation from chance(saving).

I do not believe my statements suggest monetary policy should encourage anything. At least they were not meant to.

Lowering interest rates is bad for those with savings, but good for those with ongoing income. I understand this is a widely accepted observable economic phenomenon.

Does that clarify?




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: