I'm no economist, but my understanding is that QE subsidizes capital for banks (by lowering interest rates) with the intent to lower interest rates set by those

I'm no economist, but my understanding is that QE subsidizes capital for banks (by lowering interest rates) with the intent to lower interest rates set by those banks and encourage investment. This first most benefits banks, which are obviously not staffed by the poorest Americans, and secondarily benefits those who will take out loans against those (mostly commercial) banks, namely large businesses (the "corporations" in common discourse, though I hate misusing that term). Eventually I suppose these lower interest rates will trickle down to other banks, allowing middle and upper class Americans to take advantage of loans poor Americans usually can't -- refinancing mortgages and home equity loans, for example. The argument that this helps the poor seems to rest in the conclusion that eventually QE will speed up recovery for everyone, but even if they do "benefit" from QE down the line, they will now be paying for QE the same way the rest of Americans do -- through their taxes (at some point down the line anyway). Also, > And isn't QE ultimately beneficial to the poor, in that it's funding labor that would otherwise go unused during a recession (for example)? In the case of commercial loans I guess this is possible, but that's certainly not the point of QE, which is to stop businesses and people from pulling out or the markets at a time when that would have catastrophic events for the economy at large. I would assume that whatever portion of QE eventually trickles down to the lowest income brackets is largely offset by the corresponding inflation QE has caused, which is another way of saying that in real terms QE really helps the rich get richer, while the poor do not all that much better. I suppose plans like the various stimulus packages that were proposed over the years would have had the opposite effect though (if they were effective).