>This is where I think you err. Once a bank's minimum capital requirements are met, its managers are going to look for maximizing returns on the capital availab

>This is where I think you err. Once a bank's minimum capital requirements are met, its managers are going to look for maximizing returns on the capital available to them. To say that that will not have effects on the economy at large doesn't make sense to me. How did I err? Banks have unlimited capital available, borrowable at Fed rates. It does have an effect on the economy - it lets the economy grow at rates demanded by commerce instead of being constrained by too little capital or by being overflooded with capital. But the fact remains banks getting assets bought by the Fed has almost zero effect on loans, which was your claim. This is empirically true as I demonstrated, and have given the theoretical reasons for. >Here are my favorite comments from the economists in that poll: Yes, you can post-select the side you want to be true. Now take the entire post instead of cherry-picking the answer you believe. It's not worth providing evidence of complex things with nuance to someone who has chosen their side and post selects the parts they like. So stop being dishonest with the evidence. >Wages (real, median) have pretty much stagnated Wages are a tiny part of total remunereation or of cost to employ. Fortunately BLS tracks both those variables - then the fact is that total remuneration has increased due to perks and legal requirements (go check the data), and cost to employ has gone up (due again to legislation requireing more cost per employee that is now paid by employers yet benefits the employee). BLS tracks all these - wages is far too simplistic. Also, demographics have changed - a younger workforce is earlier in a career, and gets paid less, yet can still make more at each point in a career than previously. This is also a true effect and can be teased out of Census data. Also, median wages now includes women and minorities, who have seen tremendous growth in their median wages for decades. The only class that has lost some is white men, and even there the losses are not very large. So the "flat wages" is far from the truth on the quality of life gains people have seen. I doubt many would like to live at the equivalent wage in 1980 compared to now. >while housing (both a necessity and an asset) has inflated above historical norms (see Robert Shiller's chart from 1890-2005, and the Case-Shiller indexes.) Case-Schiller ignores (among other things) that the size of houses has increased. Not even factoring in quality increases like better insulated, lower cost to maintain, safer, when you simply factor in cost per square foot the values are remarkably flat for decades. [1] The increase in size is mostly because people want and can afford bigger houses than in the past. In short, your wage and housing views are too simplistic and ignore important nuances that reverse the evidence for the position you're taking. In both cases you're moving too many variables to make the claims you're making, and by holding important variables constant you get the opposite conclusions, ones which are the correct measurement regarding quality of life improvements. >Lastly, my favorite comment from the second pol: If you've chosen your answer the the point of not reading all new data with equivalent belief, then I see how you've reached your current world view. The comments you pick from so many while ignoring the totality or central points of the polls shows tremendous bias in your ability to absorb well sourced data. As such it's not worth it to continue if you treat this like climate deniers. Every complex system will have uncertainty - but the uncertainty is not the central feature of this one. >First, I note that the number of economists who strongly agree is outnumbered by the group who are uncertain or disagree. This precisely shows me you're dishonest. Why pick those categories while ignoring the "agree" one? To make the result not be what it is? For anyone reading this far, here are the results: Strongly agree 10%, Agree 49%, uncertain 13%, disagree 13%, strongly disagree 0%, no opinion 0%. That you cite those two cases while ignoring so many counter to what you want to be true is dishonest and misleading at best. With this level of intellectual dishonesty there is no reason to continue. It's not worth trying to deliver good evidence when you're clearly going to misread and selectively cite it. [1] https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/todays-new-homes-are-1000-square-feet-larger-than-in-1973-and-the-living-space-per-person-has-doubled-over-last-40-years/ https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/todays-new-homes-are-1000-squ...