[UncleEntity]

> It's certainly possible I'm overlooking some larger aggregate effect because I'm not taking a far enough step back.

Inflation has a large aggregate effect, the people who first get the newly minted dollars can spend them at the current dollar value before their distribution dilutes the value of the dollar as a whole.

The effect of each newly created dollar may be immeasurably small but over time may result in things like, perhaps, growing wealth inequity and the "destruction" of the middle class.

[ComradeTaco]

High inflation benefits those who have high debts and little savings. Low inflation benefits wealthy people with minimal debt and large savings.

The federal reserve driving limited inflation has occurred for around 100 years, and the time in America with the least income inequality fell squarely in the middle during the 1950s and 1960s.

The Federal Reserve and it's monterary policies aren't the issue.

[UncleEntity]

I can actually use that exact same argument to claim the opposite.

The federal reserve driving high monetary inflation (ie low interest rates) has fallen squarely in the times of the most income inequality, the 1920's and today.

The Federal Reserve and its monetary policies can not be ruled out as the issue.

[dragonwriter]

> The federal reserve driving high monetary inflation (ie low interest rates) has fallen squarely in the times of the most income inequality

[...]

> The Federal Reserve and its monetary policies can not be ruled out as the issue.

The current easy-money policy postdates the trend of rising inequality by around four decades; it can unequivocally, therefore, be ruled out as the cause of that trend, unless one accepts retrocausality as plausible.