ProfSteveKeen | Amplified inequality. @ProfSteveKeen | Uploaded July 2024 | Updated October 2024, 11 seconds ago.
Quantitative easing has amplified inequality.
It drives up share prices, benefiting those who own the majority of shares—the wealthy.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of Americans, who own a trivial amount, see no benefit.
This policy has deepened the divide, not bridged it.
Let's break this down.
Mainstream economists often tout quantitative easing as a magic bullet for economic woes.
They claim it stimulates the economy by increasing liquidity.
But here's the catch: it primarily benefits those who already have assets.
Imagine a giant balloon.
Quantitative easing pumps air into it, but only those holding onto the balloon feel the lift.
The rest of us? We're left on the ground, watching it float away.
Take the stock market, for instance.
When central banks inject money into the economy, it often ends up inflating stock prices.
Who owns most of these stocks? The top 10% of households.
The bottom 90%? They own a measly fraction.
So, while the wealthy see their portfolios swell, the average person sees little to no improvement in their financial situation.
This isn't just theory.
Look at the data.
Since the 2008 financial crisis, the wealth gap has widened significantly.
The rich have gotten richer, while the middle and lower classes have struggled to keep up.
Quantitative easing has played a significant role in this disparity.
What's the alternative?
Instead of pumping money into financial markets, we should focus on direct fiscal policies.
Invest in infrastructure, education, and healthcare.
These measures have a more equitable impact, benefiting a broader swath of the population.
In essence, quantitative easing is like giving a booster shot to the already healthy, while the sick remain untreated.
It's time to rethink our approach.
We need policies that lift everyone, not just the privileged few.
Quantitative easing has amplified inequality.
It drives up share prices, benefiting those who own the majority of shares—the wealthy.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of Americans, who own a trivial amount, see no benefit.
This policy has deepened the divide, not bridged it.
Let's break this down.
Mainstream economists often tout quantitative easing as a magic bullet for economic woes.
They claim it stimulates the economy by increasing liquidity.
But here's the catch: it primarily benefits those who already have assets.
Imagine a giant balloon.
Quantitative easing pumps air into it, but only those holding onto the balloon feel the lift.
The rest of us? We're left on the ground, watching it float away.
Take the stock market, for instance.
When central banks inject money into the economy, it often ends up inflating stock prices.
Who owns most of these stocks? The top 10% of households.
The bottom 90%? They own a measly fraction.
So, while the wealthy see their portfolios swell, the average person sees little to no improvement in their financial situation.
This isn't just theory.
Look at the data.
Since the 2008 financial crisis, the wealth gap has widened significantly.
The rich have gotten richer, while the middle and lower classes have struggled to keep up.
Quantitative easing has played a significant role in this disparity.
What's the alternative?
Instead of pumping money into financial markets, we should focus on direct fiscal policies.
Invest in infrastructure, education, and healthcare.
These measures have a more equitable impact, benefiting a broader swath of the population.
In essence, quantitative easing is like giving a booster shot to the already healthy, while the sick remain untreated.
It's time to rethink our approach.
We need policies that lift everyone, not just the privileged few.
