You need to stop viewing money in amounts and start viewing it as % of total available money in existence.

In our contrived example, now the middle class person owns a bigger slice of the pie after the pie doubled in size due to their leverage.

Your contrived example very conveniently excludes what inflation buys (Infrastructure, public spending)[1], and also who pays for the majority of it (The lender - who happens to be neither of the two people in your example.)

So yes, if we have an incorrect contrived example that doesn't even attempt to serve as a proxy the ground facts, and we ignore half the consequences of it, yes, of course, we can draw whatever conclusion you want.

Still not with you.

[1] Yes, obviously, its possible for a government to spend that money on stupid shit. It's a good incentive to elect ones that spend it on useful things.

     >our contrived example very conveniently excludes what inflation buys

Yes I did this on purpose because you seemed to misunderstand some very basics of economics. That poor folks holding cash has wealth indirectly transferred to debtors who are leveraged into assets is not a controversial economic theory. It's fucking basic math.

So once the contrived example made sense to you your first response is to move the goalpost completely and talk about something unrelated?

We're not talking about the necessities of monetary policy we're talking about the effects, please focus on the relevant parts of a debate instead of jumping around to avoid conceding a (very basic) issue.

As an aside, you picked infrastructure as your main deflection point? Do you have any idea what % of US revenue is spent on infrastructure compared to everything else?

You also seem to misunderstand per capita vs. aggregate. Do you think if poor people have as much money in aggregate as one rich person that means they're rich? In the same way, comparing all outstanding consumer debt (of which the vast majority of mortgages) is not helping your argument, you'll have to show me a breakdown that shows on average a poor person is more often a net debtor.

You also need to distinguish debt into assets vs. depreciating assets. Using leverage on stock is not the same as buying nikes with a high interest credit card.

You're still missing the part where its not poor folks who hold cash. The bottom quartile owns next to zero cash. All that an average person in that position owns is the clothes on their back, their personal effects, and maybe a shitty beater car.

The rest of your argument unravels, because you've based it on this fundamentally flawed assumption.

You seem to be all over the place, I picked $500 cash because YOU used that as an example. Do you remember? Scroll up a bit.

   >The rest of your argument unravels, because you've based it on this fundamentally flawed assumption. 

No, it's not flawed, it's not my argument, it's logic and economic theory that anyone without some weird learning disability can follow.

If there are two groups of people and you give them both newly created money, but one group more money, the group that got less is worse off. Just because number go up doesn't mean they're better off.