STICHWORTE: • • • • • •von

Die Rolle der “Reichen” bei der Inflation

Die FINANCIAL TIMES (FT) kommt mit einem kritischen Blick auf die Rolle der “Reichen” im Umfeld der gestiegenen Inflation. Ich fand es bemerkenswert:

  • “To the extent that the wealthy in the US are not yet cutting back on spending, they may be an important and under-explored factor driving the inflation felt by all.” – bto: Weil die Reichen mehr kaufen, steigt die Inflation. Man könnte es auch umkehren: Reiche Bürger wie auch die Schweizer könnten es sich eher leisten, aber ist das wirklich ein Problem?
  • “The top two-fifths of income distribution in the US accounts for 60 per cent of consumer spending, while the bottom two-fifths accounts for a mere 22 per cent, according to 2020 BLS statistics.” – bto: Ist das überraschend? Ist es ein Problem? Ich denke nicht.
  • “Income inequality is not the same as wealth inequality. But the two can go hand in hand. People who make higher incomes tend to receive a greater percentage of compensation in stock. They also have vastly more home equity (which tends to encourage more consumption spending, according to IMF research).” – bto: Das gilt ebenso bei uns. Hinzu kommt, dass hier auch mehr Erbschaften anfallen.
  • “The American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think-tank, estimated in February that the wealth effect of both asset gains and cash extraction from the refinancing of property (which hasn’t corrected yet, like stocks) represented $900bn, with a consumption impact that started last year and will continue through 2022.” – bto: Das ist doch nur das neu geschaffene Geld: Chantillon-Effekt.
  • “(…) when the top quintile of Americans as a whole enjoy 80 per cent of the wealth effect from rising stock and home values (the AEI’s estimate), I suspect it starts to have a real impact on inflation, and on the overall structure of our economy, which over the course of the past 30 years of real falling interest rates has become highly financialised.” – bto: Das stimmt, und es lohnt sich zu prüfen, wer die Verantwortung dafür trägt.
  • “Gavekal founder Charles Gave explained the underlying dynamics of all this in a recent piece for clients. ‘If the market rate [of interest] is too low versus the natural rate, then financial engineering pays off . . . borrowing to capture the spread will lead to a rise in the value of those assets which yield more than the market rate, but also to a rise in indebtedness.’” – bto: Deshalb fördert die Geldpolitik Ungleichheit.
  • “The issue is that fewer new assets will be created — why invest in a factory or workforce training when you can buy back stock? One practical result of this unfortunate Wall Street-Main Street arbitrage is lower productivity. Falling productivity and artificially low rates often equal inflationary recovery periods — just as in the 1970s.” – bto: Es ist einfach so, dass das billige Geld den Marktmechanismus kaputt gemacht hat.
  • “The only way out is through the pain of higher interest rates. The market cost of capital must be normalised to reduce financialisation, and the unproductive allocation of resources and inequality that comes with it. Unfortunately, the pain of that paradigm shift (like the benefits of the previous one) won’t be shared equally. Rising rates hit the poor hardest, raising the cost of non-expendable items such as food, housing and payment of credit cards and other loans. The rich can keep spending, while others have to make tougher economic choices.” – bto: Und das bedeutet was?
  • “Higher interest rates will eventually bring down artificially inflated asset values. Meanwhile, the Biden White House is doing what it can to buffer inflationary pain for working people. It has been releasing strategic petroleum reserves in a partly successful effort to lower prices at the pump, extending pandemic-era caps on some student loan payments and pushing for antitrust action in areas where corporate concentration (which has grown hand in hand with financialisation) may be responsible for some inflationary pressure.” – bto: Den Zinsanstieg können wir uns nicht wünschen, aber mehr Wettbewerb durchaus. Leider sehe ich das aber nicht.
  • “But more changes are needed. The success of corporate lobbyists in overturning efforts to roll back carried interest loopholes are shameful. Student debt forgiveness — no matter how generous it is — will not change the fact that the cost of four years of private university in the US (an elastic cost that can be bid up indefinitely by the global rich) is nearly double the median family income. Housing markets continue to cry out for major reform. I suspect it will take a younger generation to push through these sorts of systemic changes.” – bto: welche Art von systemischen Veränderungen genau? Ich finde den Artikel inhaltlich schwach, aber er ist ein guter Indikator. Er passt in die Rubrik derjenigen, die immer alle Probleme bei den Reichen sehen.

→ ft.com (Anmeldung erforderlich): „Everyone pays the cost as the rich keep spending“, 29. August 2022