> Late in the article the author discusses the way QE has been regressive, disproportionately impacting the rich. What makes anyone so confident that other form

> Late in the article the author discusses the way QE has been regressive, disproportionately impacting the rich. What makes anyone so confident that other forms of injecting money into the economy won't get siphoned the same way? What the hell are you talking about? This isn't nearly as complicated as you think. It's been readily demonstrated that the consumption multiplier effect on unemployment transfers and bottom-up stimulus generally is far stronger than what can be accomplished with alternatives. This is intuitively obvious: give dollars to people who place the highest value on a marginal dollar (because they're using it for essentials) and you'll maximize consumption; give it to people at the other end and you'll maximize hoarding and wealth extraction.