>>106035573
>why do you need to "beat" them?
because if the amount of goods and services remains the same but people around you continue to earn more and more money than you, your income is getting comparatively lower. even if you can increase your net worth, you may actually be becoming poorer in relation to your wealth last year or whatever.

let's say you have 100 dollars, which is 1% of all dollars in this fictional example. in the following year, you invest wisely and make 50 dollars, but in the meantime the fed prints an extra 10,000 dollars. you now have 0.75% of all dollars despite having 50% more than last year. you essentially became poorer. this is an exaggerated example but you get the idea.

>inflation is also not direct theft
it pretty much is. if you have a 100 dollars in your bank account and it buys you 100 apples, but then the fed prints an extra 5 trillion to shove into the S&P500 so the line can go up, and your 100 dollars are now worth 50 apples, doesn't that feel like stealing?

>>106035581
>1) the risk free rate has been close to zero for the past 15 years and not much higher for the past 20.
huh?

>2) the people putting money into the snp500 are mostly the middle class, not "rich people."
a huge chunk of americans' retirement portfolios are in S&P500. the average boomer has a net worth of 1.6mil. you do the math. to be perfectly honest, i don't think a few gigabillionaires have as much of a negative effect on the economy as a 60 million boomer millionaires. they don't actually work or provide anything of value to the economy but their net worths continue to grow in comparison to the rest of the population. i don't think that's very good for providing people an incentive to work. zoomers can intuitively surmise it's not worth working and it's better to mooch off their parents