4 ms·
This really is one of the most interesting and consequential economic questions of our time. And I do imagine we will get an answer, because there is no politic
by lend000 6y ago
This really is one of the most interesting and consequential economic questions of our time. And I do imagine we will get an answer, because there is no political will to cut spending anymore.
The reason that all this stimulus hasn't affected measured inflation all that much is because the mechanism of monetary policy tends to be top-heavy, creating low interest rates which obviously benefits the rich more than the poor (people with high credit who tend to borrow larger sums more frequently). The rich channel this wealth into assets like real estate and equities, which are underrepresented in the CPI, in my opinion. There should be more of a "Volume Weighted" approach to balancing where large sums of the global economic market cap are sitting.
And since the rich can apparently just hold wealth in index funds indefinitely and cash out what they need for expenses (don't worry, if a pandemic freezes the economy, the Fed will rescue your position and create a new bull market!), few of those dollars creep into the economy. The "buy, hold, and never sell the entire market" philosophy creates economic distortion that enables this type of policy, and is incentivized by lower long term capital gains tax rates.
So by using this regressive, but fast acting, method of money printing, we can stave off hyperinflation and prolonged bear markets at the expense of increased income inequality. A more progressive, but slower acting way to finance government spending is to print a universal stimulus check, tax it, and spend the tax. We do both, but lean heavier toward the open market operations approach.
The hidden variable, not mentioned in this post: social security. Social security, which is due to become insolvent sometime in the next two decades, will have consequences like the progressive stimulus checks, but on a much greater scale, if the Fed starts printing money to finance it. This is where the "everything bubble" will convert into plain old inflation, when millions of everyday people are getting and spending cash that was printed out of thin air, assuming there isn't some sort of reckoning before that.
- jackcosgrove 6y agoYou are correct that QE printed money while keeping inflation in check by using financial institutions as conduits of the new money. The new money mostly ended up inflating assets which aren't necessary to survive. (Rents inflated some, but house prices more.) However the recent stimulus payments have been more like direct payments to people. We are already seeing this shift from asset inflation to staples inflation, but yes when SS exhausts its savings the Fed will top up the difference with new money and we will see monetary inflation of staples.
- chii 6y ago> print a universal stimulus check, tax it, and spend the tax why go thru the trouble of printing money to give to people, only to tax it back by a bit? The money is created out of thin air in this case - the size of the pie hasn't changed yet, so it is a cause for inflation if it isn't met by a corresponding increase in productivity.
- lend000 6y agoBecause if they just print the money and add "money printed" to the Treasury's balance sheet, they are no longer pretending that the dollar is bound by some rules of legitimate currencies, which would surely send shockwaves through the financial system. Yes, there is deadweight loss and time wasted this way, but it prolongs the game of trying to appear to be a fiscally legitimate government, and it ensures that everyone gets something, not just the beneficiaries of existing government works.