|
|
|
|
|
|
by throw0101a
1701 days ago
|
|
|
The Fed cannot do helicopter money. It is not connected to the "real" economy directly, only through the banks as middle-men. Helicopter money comes via fiscal policy. As for so-called "asset inflation", I like Cullen Roche's take: > In any case, I would argue that most of the asset price appreciation of the last 10+ years appears largely rational in the sense that it is supported by corporate fundamentals (record profits, record GDP, etc) and other robust economic data that is consistent with a growing economy. It isn’t just a fictitious boom as many “asset price inflation” narratives like to imply. > As for inequality – asset price inflation would tend to exacerbate inequality since it will disproportionately benefit those who own assets. This makes sense. But as I like to always point out, inequality is a policy failure, not a market failure. After all, a capitalist economy will always veer towards monopolistic behavior if we allow it to. The extent to which we allow that to happen is not a failure of capitalism, it is a failure of policy makers to contain capitalism. * https://www.pragcap.com/lets-talk-some-more-about-assflation... |
|
|
Exactly. All those people talking about money printing don't understand that money doesn't exist in a vaccum. Every dollar created is backed by one dollar of debt which ads up to a net worth of $0.
So the Fed cannot helicopter money for the obvious reason that they cannot ever pay that money back. The government can borrow and spend money into the economy because it can tax its citizens. The money will come back one day.