Sure, this is mostly what I was referring to. The overwhelming number of people in SF would never dream of choosing where to live based off public transit access. I cant speak to billionaires, but the upper middle class of NYC(imo these people are all wealthy but we can change that word if you like) are mostly happy or at least open to public transit. Its not a class thing until you get to billionaire level. Therefore the reason people don't use public transit isn't because it's associated with the underclass, it's because almost all of it in the US is objectively worse than other transportation options.

Yes, the economy expanded greatly over this period, but you have to separate inflation from many other causes such as innovation, increasing labor supply, better education, increases in the amount of investment. I think its pretty clear that the economy wouldve fared much better in the 1800-1950 period if the government was partaking in monetary policy that focused on small but positive inflation.

There are many other reasons a positive inflation rate is better than substantially near 0. One common complaint about inflation is that erodes real wages because nominal wages are sticky, but this is actually a good thing. It gives businesses room to breathe during downturns without cutting nominal wages or having to cut staff. Positive inflation also forces cash into productive uses which helps monetary policy because it keeps the actaul money supply more stable.

The UK also has a very broad definition of hate speech that many users here detest.