"So we are now relying upon market predictions to normalise wealth inequality. And that's because "once-in-a-generation favourable movements in capital markets,
which benefited those who were prudent enough to have saved and invested
."Not relying on market movements, just using them to explain the slight rise in inequality in recent years (as one would intuitively expect).
And that should those market movements go the other way in the future, inequality would,
ceteris paribus, adjust accordingly. Nothing too intellectually tricky or convoluted about that.
"Why MUST a bear market lead to a reduction in wealth inequality (wrt the 1%) ?"Paraphrasing your question:
"If asset prices decline, why will the people who own those assets have their wealth reduced relative to people who don't own those assets?"
Really? That's what you are asking?
"...could this QE experiment not produce an exacerbation of same? That's a big call beyond either of our scope. "And its not a call I am making, expressly or implicitly.
So why you raise it in the context of the preceding discussion is somewhat perplexing.
"As QE unwinds/bear market(if) ensues it may be that the plutocrats once again find refuge and the over-indebted main-street is left with the hot potato."Lesson: Don't get over-indebted
(Gets back to my financial literacy philosophy, innit?)
PS. For the third or fourth time:
Those tax cuts you claimed are coming for high income earners... and chance of providing any details about them?
.
