Printing money is, by definition inflation. Printing money in to the hands of people who spend it is stealing from savers. Effectively discouraging responsible financial decisions in favour of lending.
You are technically correct, but if the printed money doesn't cause a noticeable change in the price of household commodity goods, it's not what the average person calls "inflation" and it likely won't budge the Consumer Price Index (the official metric for inflation in the USA).
The CPI doesn't include the following items {large health care services, university tuition, stock prices, fine art, collector cars}, all of which have actually inflated quickly for at least 10 years, but were not captured in the CPI.
> Printing money in to the hands of people who spend it is stealing from savers
People spending is the foundation of our consumer economy. In times like this the type of spending that is being supported by direct emergency payment measures to people isn't profligate. Regular people aren't taking the money to go to the casino - they're using it to pay for basics like food and shelter. Even if they're using it to pay for video games or movie streaming, at least it keeps some money flowing through the economy. In contrast, a savings glut leads directly to underinvestment in the economy, contributing to economic stagnation and even income inequality in consumer based economies [1].
Printing money to buy bonds from corporations, however necessary in the short term, should come with serious strings attached, like a public stake in the ownership of these corporations. Sadly, that appears to be blocked at the moment on various political and legal fronts.
Also, your savings are indifferentiable from someone else's borrowing if they are in cash at a bank or invested in securities like stocks. If it is cash at the bank account, it's backed by the FDIC up to 250k. If it's invested in securities, you get to deduct losses from your taxes.
If you really want savings that cannot be used for lending at all, you need to buy land outright, sit on it, and be content with zero to negative returns.
I disagree. Increase in prices and decrease in purchasing power is inflation.
Classical models of economics argue that increasing the money supply (i.e. printing money) causes inflation. The modern day paradox is that it hasn't caused consumer price inflation in US and Japanese economies.
Why is that? Maybe all the money has flown into assets, causing asset inflation. Maybe the decrease in purchasing power is offset by the increased demand in US and Japanese reserve currencies. Maybe consumer good production (supply) has grown, offsetting inflation.
A recession causes deflation, which costs people jobs and quality of life. When the Fed prints money, it's counteracting the deflation. When the balance sheet is trillions or dollars, there is no worry of inflation. The Fed can easily vanish that money supply by selling assets and unwinding bonds.
As you've pointed out, savers lose. In a recession without money-printing, their savings would've been worth much more. As it turns out, preventing job loss and lower quality of life is more politically appealing to decision makers than helping responsible savers.
there will be no inflation because the money is not being spent. It is being invested. As for savings, no sane person would put their money into a savings account. Why lend your money to the bank (if you even have any to spare)?!
You are technically correct, but if the printed money doesn't cause a noticeable change in the price of household commodity goods, it's not what the average person calls "inflation" and it likely won't budge the Consumer Price Index (the official metric for inflation in the USA).
The CPI doesn't include the following items {large health care services, university tuition, stock prices, fine art, collector cars}, all of which have actually inflated quickly for at least 10 years, but were not captured in the CPI.