Guest Post: The State Causes The Poverty It Later Claims To Solve

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Andreas Marquart of The Ludwig von Mises Institute,

If one looks at the current paper money system and its negative social and social-political effects, the question must arise: where are the protests by the supporters and protectors of social justice? Why don’t we hear calls to protest from politicians and social commentators, from the heads of social welfare agencies and leading religious leaders, who all promote the general welfare as their mission?

Presumably, the answer is that many have only a weak understanding of the role of money in an economy with a division of labor, and for that reason, the consequences of today’s paper money system are being widely overlooked.

The current system of fractional reserve banking and central banking stands in stark opposition to a market economy monetary regime in which the market participants could decide themselves, without state pressure or coercion, what money they want to use, and in which it would not be possible for anyone to expand the money supply because they simply choose to do so.

The expansion of the money supply, made possible through central banks and fractional reserve banking, is in reality what allows inflation, and thus, declining income in real terms. In The Theory of Money and Credit Ludwig von Mises wrote:

The most important of the causes of a diminution in the value of money of which we have to take account is an increase in the stock of money while the demand for it remains the same, or falls off, or, if it increases, at least increases less than the stock. ... A lower subjective valuation of money is then passed on from person to person because those who come into possession of an additional quantity of money are inclined to consent to pay higher prices than before.

When there are price increases caused by an expansion of the money supply, the prices of various goods and services do not rise to the same degree, and do not rise at the same time. Mises explains the effects:

While the process is under way, some people enjoy the benefit of higher prices for the goods or services they sell, while the prices of the things they buy have not yet risen or have not risen to the same extent. On the other hand, there are people who are in the unhappy situation of selling commodities and services whose prices have not yet risen or not in the same degree as the prices of the goods they must buy for their daily consumption.

Indeed, in the case of the price of a worker’s labor (i.e., his or her wages) increasing at a slower rate than the price of bread or rent, we see how this shift in the relationship between income and assets can impoverish many workers and consumers.

An inflationary money supply can cause impoverishment and income inequality in a variety of ways:


1. The Cantillon Effect

The uneven distribution of price inflation is known as the Cantillon effect. Those who receive the newly created money first (primarily the state and the banks, but also some large companies) are the beneficiaries of easy money. They can make purchases with the new money at goods prices that are still unchanged. Those who obtain the newly created money only later, or do not receive any of it, are harmed (wage-earners and salaried employees, retirees). They can only buy goods at prices which have, in the meantime, risen.

2. Asset Price Inflation

Investors with greater assets can better spread their investments and assets and are thus in a position to invest in tangible assets such as stocks, real estate, and precious metals. When the prices of those assets rise due to an expansion of the money supply, the holders of those assets may benefit as their assets gain in value. Those holding assets become more wealthy while people with fewer assets or no assets either profit little or cannot profit at all from the price increases.


3. The Credit Market Amplifies the Effects

The effects of asset price inflation can be amplified by the credit market. Those who have a higher income can carry higher credit in contrast to those with lower income, by acquiring real estate, for example, or other assets. If real estate prices rise due to an expansion of the money supply, they may profit from those price increases and the gap between rich and poor grows even faster.

4. Boom and Bust Cycles Create Unemployment

The direct cause of unemployment is the inflexibility of the labor market, caused by state interference and labor union pressures. An indirect cause of unemployment is the expansion of the paper money supply, which can lead to illusory economic booms that in turn lead to malinvestment. Especially in inflexible labor markets, when these malinvestments become evident in a down economy, it ultimately leads to higher and more lasting unemployment that is often most severely felt among the lowest-income households.

The State Continues to Expand

Once the gap in income distribution and asset distribution has been opened, the supporters and protectors of social justice will more and more speak out, not knowing (or not saying) that it is the state itself with its monopolistic monetary system that is responsible for the conditions described.

It’s a perfidious “business model” in which the state creates social inequality through its monopolistic monetary system, splits society into poor and rich, and makes people dependent on welfare. It then intervenes in a regulatory and distributive manner, in order to justify its existence. The economist Roland Baader observed:

The political caste must prove its right to exist, by doing something. However, because everything it does, it does much worse, it has to constantly carry out reforms, i.e., it has to do something, because it did something already. It would not have to do something, had it not already done something. If only one knew what one could do to stop it from doing things.

The state even exploits the uncertainty in the population about the true reasons for the growing gap in income and asset distribution. For example, The Fourth Poverty and Wealth Report of the German Federal Government states that since 2002, there has been a clear majority among the German people in favor of carrying out measures to reduce differences in income.



The reigning paper money system is at the center of the growing income inequality and expanding poverty rates we find in many countries today. Nevertheless, states continue to grow in power in the name of taming the market system that has supposedly caused the impoverishment actually caused by the state and its allies.

If those who claim to speak for social justice do nothing to protest this, their silence can only have two possible reasons. They either don’t understand how our monetary system functions, in which case, they should do their research and learn about it; or they do understand it and are cynically ignoring a major source of poverty because they may in fact be benefiting from the paper money system themselves.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
LetThemEatRand's picture

"The direct cause of unemployment is the inflexibility of the labor market, caused by state interference and labor union pressures."

Yes, those ever increasing wages of the middle class in the U.S. and ever stronger labor unions in the U.S. are the root cause of the problem.    Germany is a good example of how paying workers less will create a strong economy as preached by the Mises Institute of Oligarch Propaganda.TM  Careful, though, you need to read this article backwards or in a mirror to get the pro-oligarch version preached by the Ministry of Mises.

"In 2010, Germany produced more than 5.5 million automobiles; the U.S produced 2.7 million. At the same time, the average auto worker in Germany made $67.14 per hour in salary in benefits; the average one in the U.S. made $33.77 per hour. Yet Germany’s big three car companies—BMW, Daimler (Mercedes-Benz ), and Volkswagen—are very profitable."



NoDebt's picture

Wait... what?

I have no idea the point you're trying to make.  I've lost track of the serious comments vs. the sarcasm.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Let me break it down for you.

Unions in the U.S. have massively shrunk over the last few decades.

Middle class income in the U.S. has massively decreased over the last few decades.

U.S. corporations already have ready access to cheap "elastic" labor in a deregulated environment where they can pollute to their hearts' content, house workers in dorms with "safety nets" to keep them from committing suicide, where they can hide their income and avoid taxation, etc (see China).  It doesn't work for the economy, though it works great for the CEOs of said corporations.  

The increase in wealth at the top does not trickle down.  It stays at the top and the workers get poorer.

Germany has a strong union workforce and pays it workers twice as much as their American counterparts, and it is a model of prosperity.

The Mises Institute is pushing for a solution that has already been tried and failed.  It is simply mind boggling that anyone who has lived through the last 40 years (I'm guessing you are not one) can read a statement like the one I quoted in the top post and not just laugh out loud at how ridiculous it is.  Mises is shilling for oligarchs, trying to convince mindless sheep to give the oligarchs more power and workers less.

lewy14's picture

Tried and failed?

Detroit is a post-industrial wasteland because the UAW wasn't strong enough?

LetThemEatRand's picture

Detroit is a post-industrial wasteland because elastic labor came along and replaced the workers, the solution posed by the Mises Shillstitute.  And unions were corrupt and management decided to build shitty cars so people would need to replace them every few years and a lot of other reasons that have nothing to do with paying workers too much or allowing workers to bargain collectively.

Barking Spaniel's picture

Does this mean that the New Deal ended the Great Depression and LBJ solved the poverty problem? And why are you on this forum? Health needs you.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Does this mean that you will continue to change the subject every time you don't have an answer to what I say?

LetThemEatRand's picture

Hey, if it's all you've got, go with it.  I've banged my head against the wall of ideology long enough.  Carry on.

lewy14's picture

It doesn't much matter anymore, LTER.

There is some truth in what you say.

And a great deal of mythic, heroic narrative. A tale of dastardly deeds and righteous victims. Everybody's got a narrative. It's just mildly irritating to me that you glom so uncritically onto yours. I'll get over it.

Like I said, it doesn't matter. Capital is no longer so dependent on labor.

Of course the joke is on Capital, because Naked Power is no longer so dependent on Capital.

economics9698's picture

Let make this simple for Rand.  The rich have a private counterfeiting bank (Federal Reserve) that they use to finance whatever they want through the counterfeiting money process. 

It does not matter what the union wages are or minimum wage.  That is simply a distraction the bankers throw out there for the feeble minded who cannot figure out the con game.

It, minimum wage, union wage could be $100 per hour and it would matter little because the rich can have their private bank print up enough money so the elites can make $1,000 per hour or whatever the hell they want.

Living standards are determined by what your money buys, not your nominal wage.  Germans make 33% less than Americans. 

Germany exports so much in the EU because they were allowed to essentially devalue their currency 40% when they joined the EU.  Well fuck yea they were going to be the export leader with that kind of price advantage, and they make some good stuff.

What von Mises has repeatedly said time and time again is workers need to be paid in money, gold, that bankers and the elites cannot devalue as they please.

100% fractional reserve banking, gold, private currencies backed by gold.  Simple as 1, 2, 3.

LetThemEatRand's picture

That is not all that Mises is pushing.  I agree we need to end the Fed.   I voted for RP because he wanted to end the Fed, the MIC (which exists because of the Fed), and many other things I agree with.  But that's where my agreement with Mises ends.  It is simply not a solution to put all the power in the hands of the giant corporations by completely deregulating them and eliminating worker protection laws, which is the other paradigm that Mises advocates.    As usual when these debates surface on ZH, it seems that everyone must go into an all or nothing camp, or assume that anyone who disagrees with them is in the "other" camp.  That type of binary thinking is exactly what is wrong with the world today and why these guys remain in power.  No one can agree to meet in the middle on anything.

How about this.  Let's end the Fed.  First order of business.  Then, after the Fed is gone, let's debate what to do with the issue of globalist corporations and the right of workers to bargain collectively.  But if we can only agree to End the Fed if it means everything else Mises is pushing, we'll never get there and we'll be ... here.  Right where they want us.

economics9698's picture

Regulations favor the big corporations.  The best way for workers to protect themselves is to have their day in a court of law.  The second one I have witnessed firsthand in construction over three decades.  Regulations are ignored, million dollar law suits change behavior.

oldschool's picture

I agree with everything you've said on this issue up to this point, but million dollar lawsuits generally go pretty well for corporations fighting workers.  Moreover, contrasting lawsuits to regulations, as if they were alternatives, is fallacious.  WIthout the regulations on which to base a complaint, there is no lawsuit.

jimmytorpedo's picture

Ditch the concept of corporation.

Make everybody responsible for every decision they make.

You would be amazed at how responsible Jamie Diamond becomes when HE has to pay a billion dollar fine.

zhandax's picture

Finally someone gets it.  Limitation of  liability is the cornerstone of the economic ills of today.  There is far different behavior from companies when it's their personal money on the line.

JR's picture

Right on all three counts. The question is, how long will Americans allow the multinational corporations to force them to compete against workers willing to do the same job in a different country for a fraction of the cost? America did not grow from the use of slave labor under the whip of global exploiters; it grew by recognizing the value of labor and paying a fair wage.

GM in 2007 began replacing its high-paid work force (earning $78.21 in wages and benefits – about $162,676 annually ) with low-paid non-core, non-assembly line new hires (costing $25.65 in combined wages and benefits), in a contract negotiated in 2006 – after the straw broke the camel’s back.  The article “United Auto Workers (UAW) Sellout at GM and Chrysler” by Sephen Lendman on Global Research (October 22, 2007) gave the details of the UAW sellout. How much government interference was involved in forcing the companies to bow to former Union demands is unclear, or later in acquiescing to globalist pressures for low wages. As for the cars GM was producing, my dad bought his last American made car in 1976 and was afraid to lean too heavily on it for fear it would dent.

Somewhat contradicting Forbes, an article by Justin Hyde of Yahoo Motoramic on December 19, 2011, reports Germany autoworkers were earning $40 an hour. It is not clear if this wage included benefits as did Forbes’ quote of $67.14 in 2010.

Wrote Hyde: “Autoworker wages in the United States run from $30/hour for long-time UAW employees at Detroit plants to $14 for an entry-level worker at some U.S. automakers and the Kia plant in Georgia. (Contractors and suppliers who work inside plants get that $9/hour wage). In Germany, wages run about $40 an hour. In Japan, they're closer to the $28 a senior UAW employee earns here. In both countries, governments provide the health care and retirement benefits paid for by the automakers here. “In Mexico, autoworkers average roughly $3.50 an hour -- and even that wage was under pressure, as some suppliers sought wage cuts to compete with work moving to China where wages can run $5 a day…”

Will Americans rebel before the globalists level all men - including America's private sector middle class - to the lowest common denominator?

All Germans, however, may not fare as well as German autoworkers. PY-129-20, from Germany, wrote on ZH in March of 2013: The average person in Italy or Spain is now richer than the average German.

On 01/28/2012, PY-129-20 wrote:

"….We Germans exported very well before the EURO experiment started. You think it is because of the Euro that we export so much? Nope. It's because of the cheap labour in my country. Unlike our European neighbours we do not have a minimum wage. There are people out there in Germany that work for 1 Euro per hour. Can you top that? I guess slavery is the next hip thing here… More and more Germans are waking up every morning knowing that they will never be able to retire…"


Capitalism involves the private ownership of the means of production. It does not mean stealing the means of production which describes where this banker-controlled world is headed.

adr's picture

Capitalism requires private ownership is the most important part. Allowing others not associated with a company in any way, other than handing over money for shares, distorts the economy. The purpose of a company is no longer to produce a quality product, but to produce whatever will increase the value of those shares. The quickest way to increase share value is through fraud. 

We now have corporations bypassing the useful product stage, starting out as fraud in order to go straight to the riches received through selling shares.

You rid the world of the stock market and you fix most of the problems.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Agreed.  The corporate form is one of those things that everyone takes for granted as a necessary evil.  It is not.   What the Mises Institute of Globalist Policy completely fails to recognize is that the same guys who are corrupting the government are the ones who will run things in their desired system.  The idea that the consumer will not buy a product produced by slave labor in China, thus protecting workers via the free market, is demonstrably false.  We already know that because it's already happening.  What Mises pushes is a race to the bottom for the vast majority of people who do not own the capital, which is the same thing Rand teaches.  If you are lucky enough to be an oligarch that system works great.  

venturen's picture

You miss so much of the capitalistic system. I agree the bank system in the USA is a criminal mafia. But according to many of the people on this site we should still be making customer cars with artisans. The UAW workers were WAY over paid for what they did at the peak. If the UAW spent more time improving the quality of the work and improving the workers....American cars would be in demand. Who wants a GM or Product made in 70's, 80's or 90's. Their product was crap....and the union and management made it that way. Capitalism workers unless you get an dumb oligrachy like the US Auto or banker slitting their own throats. The US banks should have been allowed to fail! Instead we have a 1970 era of the internal power demanding more money for themselves....while the product get worse and worse. How about the 90% of hedgefund managers take 2+20% that can't match the S&P avg increase. The importation of illegals is very destructive as well. 

ronaldawg's picture

+1.  LETTHEMEATRAND is a union troll ballwasher.

ronaldawg's picture

How much do the UAW workers make per hour including benefits?   It ain't $34 per hour. 


NickVegas's picture

Herny Ford doubled the going wage of his workers. Ford claimed he gained 1000 new customers for every dollar he dropped the price of his product. It was ~$800 to build a Model T, and five years later was ~$400. Ford was a modern genius, but carry on with the drivel, it was Mises vs. the worker, something like that, or maybe certain people didn't like other people like Ford, running his business in ways that forced them to compete. Detroit may be their example to people getting all uppity and changing the status quo, impowering people. The slave training goes deep in all societies.

A Nanny Moose's picture

Strawman arguments. Mind the currency detruction.

If corporations exist, and/or money is debased by a central authority for fairness in counterfeiting, then markets ARE NOT DEREGULATED.


Four chan's picture

the money issue is the only issue i agree. end the fed

Wyatt Junker's picture

"Unions in the U.S. have massively shrunk over the last few decades."



Not public sector unions.  They've grown astronomically over the last few decades and they're bleeding out both federal and state budgets, blowing holes through pension gaps and destabilizing the muni bond markets.  Look at TSA as just one example.  A year after Bush knights those fuckers into every airport across the country, they... wait for it... unionize.

So, the very people that should unionize can't because of cheap labor from China competing against them and the ones that never should have, are.  Got it.  If you take the fact that every teacher is now a union thug parasite using state violence through property tax confiscation to pad their pension scam, AND, giving you less and less reason via test scores to support such an abusive system and then you throw in cops, firemen, judges, librarians, postal workers and all the other B2B that lever to govt. you can reliably say that we're probably at 50% of the entire American workforce is unionized to some extent or another due to some connection, either direct or indirectly, to the public sector.



Walt D.'s picture

"A year after Bush knights those fuckers into every airport across the country, they... wait for it... unionize."

Tom Daschle took GW to the cleaners with this one. Remember his slogan -"We have to postalize to professionalize" - in other words, only federal employees are capable of doing a professional job. All he wanted was to get the union in there and funnel campaign contributions to the Democrat party.

UGrev's picture

1. Unions are a type of oligarch. They take YOUR money and claim to be able to protect you all the while the UNION leaders are rolling with nice gear. 

2. Unions are the very thing that prevents prosperity by STEALING IT from the very workers it says it is trying to protect. How? by virtually guaranteeing that they cannot be impacted by poor workmanship. This, in turn, negatively affects that ability of the company to make money and thus pay its employees. The UNION is the entity that eventually and parasitically, sucks the life out of a company. 

3. The heavy hand of government regulation has produced a void of plausible and viable busniess growth by making it too restrictive to actually, you know.. make stuff. This has forced companies to decide or die. Those that decide to leave the shark pit offer prosperity to other countries and leave our workers without jobs. THIS.. it is THIS that weakens our middle class the most. 

4. Idiots who want 15.00/hr minimum are being replaced because they are too fucking stupid to understand that their demands are not market bearing. They have just priced themselves out of the market.. They just gave their job to the tablet maker who probably employs people in one of those buildings with nets that you talk about. 

In the corner of the round room.. there is a clue..  go find it. 


Doña K's picture

You were very close in saying it but you just implied it. Protection money, mafia squeeze tactics, political donations to legitimize their tactics and using the union fees as a hedge fund. They can't loose.

Organized crime (Mafia), organized religions and insurance companies capitalize on human fear.

We do not submit, our beliefs are private and we are self insured.


LetThemEatRand's picture

So because unions became corrupt, we should not allow workers to bargain collectively?  It's not a black and white issue.  Unions were part of the problem, no doubt.   But like any corruption, Union corruption can be addressed and the problem fixed.   Before laws were passed protecting the rights of workers, corporations simply fired anyone who dared breathe the word "union," or they would use violence on union organizers, which how this author would like to see the world.  

fonzannoon's picture

You know what the ultimate problem is LTER. It's that the private sector and the public sector have been successfully put at war with each other. While the private sector has been getting destroyed the last however many years the public sector has turned a blind eye and just watched while their promises were not endangered. So now that we are about to get to the point where the Detroit's start popping up and the pensioners with free healthcare get served a shit sandwich they will look around and watch the private sector shrug and say "it's about time".

That's where this is going. I am not saying it's right. But it's been planned this way.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Spot on.  And the best part is that the private sector gets mad at the public sector workers who still have quaint little things like pensions, rather than getting mad at the oligarchs who have sold the idea that you should work 'till you drop unless you are one of the few who can save enough individually to be prepared to live to 100.  I'll bet once the public sector workers get fleeced, they will get mad at the few remaining private sector workers who still have decent pay, and so on until the sheep have slaughtered each other.  And all the while Jamie Dimon will remind us that this is why he has more money than we do.

ronaldawg's picture

Your phoney moral equivalence makes me sick.

LetThemEatRand's picture

So seeing shades of gray is moral equivalence?  All in or all out?    Let me clue you in on something.  Seeing only black and white means you are an idiot and/or simple-minded.  But I don't have to tell you that.  You have all the answers.

fiftybagger's picture

"U.S. corporations already have ready access to cheap "elastic" labor in a deregulated environment where they can pollute to their hearts' content, house workers in dorms with "safety nets" to keep them from committing suicide, where they can hide their income and avoid taxation, etc (see China).  It doesn't work for the economy, though it works great for the CEOs of said corporations."

So China overall is getting poorer right? Oops.  Now go over in the corner, shut up, and put on the dunce cap.

LetThemEatRand's picture

At least someone finally came out and said that China is the model that the Mises Institute is pushing.   Thanks for the clarification, but no thanks.

NidStyles's picture

You show once again that you have an agenda to advocate Socialism and attack anyone that is critical of you political agenda.

I think it should be obvious to anyone that actually understands the material to see that you are completely ignorant on anything that came from Mises or the Institute.

Barking Spaniel's picture

Agreed! LTER throws the words "oligarch" and "corporatist" at everything possible. I know the Mises Institute well and LTER has no clue.

the 300000000th percent's picture

"Trickle down" sounds like what Obama is doing, funny how they only blame Regan for that, Obama is the biggest trickle down supporter yet. Your probably one of those Idiot Marksist people that are always blabbing about "Neoliberalism" as if its some sort of Republican phenomenon, while all along Democrats are just as guilty when they are in power. Once again fighting the wrong enemy, wasting your time and ours. I am non-partisan and you should be too if you have a brain and are a true patriot!

LetThemEatRand's picture

If you read my posts, I was quite clear that the model I am against has been tried over the last 40 years, which includes Clinton and Zero.  Hell, Clinton was arguably the worst of the bunch with NAFTA.  But it's always more fun to change the subject and make it about Red Team/Blue Team rather than actually debating why trickle down doesn't work, which it doesn't.  

NidStyles's picture

That does not mean you are not advocating the same progressivist neoliberal nonsense here.

ronaldawg's picture

He advocating the 1917 model that was tried and FAILED in Russia.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Yes, I'm a Marxist because I don't agree with you.

PGR88's picture

Neither the article, nor Mises, says nothing about "paying workers less."   WTF are you babbling about?

The article is simply asserting the nearly obvious truth - a fiat money system hurts workers, pensioners and the poor and middle class the hardest.   When the FED does QE or Gov't bond monetization, that money printing goes through Government, their cronies and Wall Street first.   They get their cut and get to pump asset prices with it.   Wages will never grow as quickly as inflation, so the "Progressive" Federal Reserve and all the various social engineering project funded by printed money and debt actually wind-up hurting workers in the end.   

Can that get through your slogan-addled brain?


LetThemEatRand's picture

What the fuck do you think the author means by the words I quoted?  Pay them more?  Get rid of unions because they demand lower wages and we need a non-unionized work force who will work less for more?  Take off the ideology glasses and either defend the proposition or admit you have no answer other than to cloud the debate by trying to retract what he said.

Monetary policy is a different issue, and your idea that the bankers who profit from it are "progressive" is absurd.  Unless by progressive you mean oligarchs who like to fuck the poor, in which case you'd be right.  Hadn't see that definition before.   Of course the Fed was and still is sold as being good for the little guy.  They lied.  If I tell you I'm conservative and I want to start a war we don't need and build a military to enrich my buddies at Halliburton, can we agree that conservatives are all free spending crony driven thieves of taxpayer money?

ronaldawg's picture

Take off the ideology glasses and either defend the proposition or admit you have no answer other than to cloud the debate by trying to retract what he said.

Project much????

Is this guy an Alinskyite or what.

LetThemEatRand's picture

I'm glad you added that important idea to the debate.  Thanks for helping us understand the problem with your insight.

Wyatt Junker's picture

 "If I tell you I'm conservative and I want to start a war we don't need and build a military to enrich my buddies at Halliburton, can we agree that conservatives are all free spending crony driven thieves of taxpayer money?"


That's a kid's meal.  The real meat of corruption is when the 535 govt. fuckwipes run for election every year on a bribery patronage system, by duping a braindead electorate with free shit.  Whether it was a 'chicken in every pot' or a McMansion on every lot or, Obama, 'free condoms' because he cares about chicks, man.  Whatever.  

A war.  A cool $4 trillion later.  We can eat that and move on.  What will kill us all, THE REAL WAR, is the institutionalized 100 year welfare state incorporated into the ballot box.  We've spent over $40 trillion on fighting a 'war on poverty' through FDR and LBJ legacy programs and another unfunded $200 trillion staring us in the face ahead.  And its made people poorer because they've been reduced to undiginified beggars reliant on state hand outs.  IOW they have been purposely TRAINED to be wards of the state in order for a few in Washington to moat in power by purchasing their votes.  

The real irony, as this article does a terrible job in communicating, is that these polis, with Obama as their latest snakehead, promises free shit to dumbasses to buy a vote, but then pumps up the money supply right after in order to rape those very poor people of their life savings.  The problem is then, the electorate.  They are too uneducated to know that the moment a politician promises them free shit, they are being directly robbed through a decrease in purchasing power.  It is the ancient saying there are no such thing as free lunches, but hidden through inflation.  

Oldwood's picture


one hundred thousand

It is what it is.