4 ms·

This doesn't refute my claim that buying treasuries disproportionately benefits the wealthy.

• nerfhammer 13y ago
  if you add up all of the taxpayer funded entities and pension funds and savings bonds I get about 48%
  • dllthomas 13y ago
    If 48% is distributed over 100% of the population, and 52% is distributed over 1% of the population, that sounds pretty disproportionate to me.
    • nerfhammer 13y ago
      If A then q does not imply if !A then !q
      • dllthomas 13y ago
        Logically true, of course, but I really don't see how you can assign A and q in any way that makes that relevant. My statement was in support of "This doesn't refute my claim that buying treasuries disproportionately benefits the wealthy.". If there's a plausible situation that's consistent with the data, for which the claim is clearly true, the data does not refute the claim (it may still be some evidence against the claim, if alternate claims are more strongly supported, but "refute" reads substantially stronger). Note that this is quite distinct from my supporting "buying treasuries disproportionately benefits the wealthy" - I am not convinced enough to hold a real opinion on that either way. Reading back further, I see the original claim was in fact "Only the wealthiest Americans (and foreigners for that matter) own the assets the Fed is bidding on", which claim the data certainly contradicts.
        • nerfhammer 13y ago
          A = 48% of the debt !A = 52% of the debt q = not owned by the wealthy or foreigners !q = owned by wealthy or foreigners I believe the data shows A && q, but !A && !q is much less clear and A && q is larger than many people might expect, that's all. A && q does not mean !(!A && !q) as you point out. Around half of !q is owned by foreigners, mostly foreign central banks, so there's that. The distribution of the remainder of !q is unclear. Also, note the difference between "benefits" vs. "own" which are not the same. Buying bonds has a variety of effects. Buying a bond from someone benefits the former owner immediately but raising the price of bonds lowers bond yields making buying all new bonds less profitable. It also lowers the cost of financing all government debt, benefiting all taxpayers. But reducing bond yields tends to increase the demand for other assets, such as stocks, increasing the paper value of stocks. Similar story for pushing dollars abroad to foreign bond holders, sending dollars abroad makes the dollar cheaper, boosting exports and hurting imports but reducing market bond yields should do the opposite. But if the market expects inflation from quantitative easing it should reduce the future value of money, increasing bond yields again, but tends to depress stocks but not value stocks as much... Simply put, the claim that buying bonds helps the wealthy is an idea that needs a lot more support than thoughtless one-liners that twang the emotional strings of power and betrayal.
          • dllthomas 13y ago
            "A = 48% of the debt !A = 52% of the debt q = not owned by the wealthy or foreigners !q = owned by wealthy or foreigners" None of those is really logical negation (it's set complement), hence my confusion. "I believe the data shows A && q, but !A && !q is much less clear." I agree. I don't believe the data shows the claim you label "!A && !q" - I do believe it admits it. Your later point - that effects outside bonds probably dominate effects confined to bond prices - I think is correct. "Simply put, the claim that buying bonds helps the wealthy is an idea that needs a lot more support than thoughtless one-liners that twang the emotional strings of power and betrayal." Certainly the case.