[jkhdigital]

This would make sense if the Fed's newly-created money went directly to households that need it due to economic shutdowns. But it doesn't, it mostly goes to financial institutions. You're confusing the Fed's ability to monetize assets with the Treasury's ability to spend money on whatever it wants.

Also, your statement that our economy has the capacity to provide a decent standard of living to everyone is an article of faith, not some falsifiable statement supported by facts. We don't know if that is true or not.

[thomashobohm]

Uh, actually, the notion that the economy has the capacity to provide enough for everyone is a falsifiable statement supported by facts. You can analyze the total amount of resources and the amount of work required to produce them, and figure out how they could be distributed differently. We've known for a long time that, in the US at least, there is enough food, shelter, and healthcare for everyone.

[Suncho]

> You're confusing the Fed's ability to monetize assets with the Treasury's ability to spend money on whatever it wants.

They're related. There's both fiscal stimulus and monetary stimulus going on here. The monetary stimulus only makes its way to consumers indirectly. On the fiscal side, as you say, Treasury can spend money on whatever they want. And when they do, they transform some of the financial sector's money into assets (treasuries). If the Fed wants to maintain its accommodative monetary policy, they're going to want to re-monetize those assets.

> your statement that our economy has the capacity to provide a decent standard of living to everyone is an article of faith

"decent standard of living" was not crucial to my point.

There's some part of our economy's productive capacity that we have consciously decided not to shut down because we've deemed "essential" to consumers. My point is that it would be a mistake for us not to provide consumers with the means (money) to access that capacity.