STILL the poor get poorer. After 40 years, studies comparing then with now find that the gap between the rich and the poor has only gotten wider. Are you surprised?
Labour (substitute Democrats if you're a US citizen) would have you believe that they are looking out for the little guy (that's YOU that is). They're punishing the rich for, well just for being rich, which is of course a carnal sin in and of itself. Oh yes, almost forgot the other bit, they're punishing the rich in order to rob them and give it to YOU, the poor. The poor who have a vote. Boy, they're better than Robin Hood eh? That sure deserves my unquestioning vote to keep them in power. Naht.
The truth of the matter is Labour (Democrats) are the complete opposite. They will placate you with headline nonsense like minimum wages, subsidised home insulation schemes, working tax credits to help poor working families, subsidies for childcare for working families, never ending dole money for the truly work-shy among us, and all kinds of other social welfare mechanisms coming out the wazzoo.
But the effects of all of these things put together is still never enough to compensate for their wild monetary inflation -- which is an unavoidable prerequisite for their schemes, because they don't actually have any money to pay for any of it. The working man doesn't benefit from this monetary inflation, he only experiences the downside of it -- ever-rising prices of the things he needs to buy, prices that rise faster than the tax breaks and subsidies that he "enjoys" (a mathematical necessity). This is the same social welfare scheme that Mugabe instituted in Zimbabwe, only he got a bit ahead of himself and the citizens cottoned on to what was happening and the inflation really did get out of hand. That is the only difference at this point between there and us now though, most people don't have any idea of what is happening.
No, the only people who benefit from monetary inflation are the people who get first dibs on the new money. And they my friends, are without exception "the rich". They get the money while it is still worth the same as all the other money already in circulation, before people realise there is more money and the prices of stuff goes up commensurately. They can buy stuff at yesterday's low price and they can sell it to the poor at tomorrow's higher price. Better still, these people can borrow the money for free ahead of it's creation, so they can buy today's stuff at yesterday's prices, with tomorrow's money and pay it back with next week's even cheaper money. In fact, it gets better still -- next week they borrow even cheaper still money to repay the loan, to be repaid a month later ("rolling over their debt"). This money a month (or more) later will be even cheaper still to pay off, the longer they can put off paying back this nominal amount of money, the cheaper it is for them in real terms. The reality is they will put off repaying the money almost indefinitely, by continually rolling the debt over. Is this a great scheme, or what? This is how Britain financed the expansion of it's empire back in the day, until the printing press was taken away after we were bankrupted by war. The same is in process of happening to the US now after they have similarly bankrupted themselves but they have done it with wars on terror in distant lands, and by massively over doing the debt leverage as people took too much advantage of the inflationary scheme described above once they understood it. If I was allowed to get my hands on this free money too, you can bet that I would do the same and I know you would too since you're a real smart guy. But we're not invited to take part I'm afraid. Sorry. We'll have to pay the much larger retail suckers rate to borrow any money. Bummer.
It's very simple, but you are now one of the 1 in 100,000 people that understands it. Congratulations! (If you didn't understand it, go back and re-read the previous paragraph more slowly until you can follow it, because it is now a fundamental life-skill since 1971.)
Why isn't everyone taught this in schools? It's very simple I think, a 5 year old could understand it when it is explained to them, right? The truth is that back in the day when only "the rich" went to school, because only they could afford it, they DID teach it. Go to the right schools today (ie: "if you are rich, or at least have enough monthly income to make you believe you are rich") and you will probably be taught it still. But go to a state school and you sure won't be. Funny that, isn't it?
If you and I weren't paying a shitload of taxes to send everyone else's kids to our local state schools, we would be able to afford to send our kids to a private school, where they might actually learn something important and some of them might grow up and make a difference in this world. Instead we will have mediocre kids taught to the lowest common denominator to have basic literacy (ie: to become a useful employee for someone) and an unquestioning nature, accepting as true all facts as presented. Since we are prevented from being able to scrape together the wherewithall to enter the realm of the rich, because more than half our money is taken from us in one tax or another and if we are lucky enough to be able to save something at the end of the month then that money will be depreciated when they print more and more and more every day, just like that good old boy Karl Marx instructed, we have to instead put in yet more hard graft, personally augmenting the state school education of our kids with the real-life skills that will make a big difference in their outlook on life. The most significant part of this extra-curricular education we will have to provide our kids, is to unlearn the unquestioning, sheep-like nature that is being drummed into them at the school, and to encourage them to naturally want to question and properly understand things for themselves. Baaaaaaaa.