How will Joe Biden GOVERN? General Biden Administration F**kery Thread

King Kreole

natural blondie like goku
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
14,851
Reputation
4,393
Daps
41,739
consider the fed funds rate is at zero, what other policies can the fed do which could be labeled as “aggressive monetary policy”?

So yes, for all intensive purposes “aggressive monetary expansion” = QE.
...but Yellen is being named Treasury Sec, not Fed Chair. She's not going to be in charge of Monetary policy, so why would you take her pro-expansionary statements to be indicative of QE policy as opposed to fiscal stimulus policies? Her quote was "This is not a good time to have fiscal policy switch from being accommodative to creating a drag."

@ second bolded .... Jesus :dead:. So just cause I’m stating that QE, which doesn’t actually print money in the everyday economy, exacerbates the wealth gap I must be for more strict economic policies both on the monetary/fiscal. :mjlol:
I think we're speaking past each other because you took Yellen's pro-stimulus statements to be indicative of only QE, whereas I was looking at her being "team money printer go burrr" in the respect of the job she will actually have, Treasury Secretary. She'll be advising Biden on what size stimulus to request from Congress, that's a more relevant context for her statements and it would have a constricting effect on the wealth gap.

If anything, the last ~6 months have shown that direct fiscal >>> monetary in terms on immediate gains in the economy. With that, we have had our highest CPI prints & currency devaluation since the 00’s - so that’s the trade off.

In contrast, we have QE, which increase the reserves at the local bank which increase the leverage you can loan against.... 1$ of collateral -> $10 loan, turns in a $100 loan. Wonder who the primarily benefits. Not to mention the effect it has on treasury yields, thereby pushing people into more riskier Assets....

It’s funny though, I can actually quote you saying that expansionary monetary policies constrict the wealth gap. I’ll wait for that white paper:coffee:
QE didn't work as well here when it comes to wealth inequality because the "middle class" isn't in position to take advantage of the influx w/r/t assets allocation. You can turn the spigot on, but if only one side has a bucket the other side is just going to get wet. But here's that white paper you were asking for:

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecb.wp2190.en.pdf

The paper finds that the QE in the euro area has diminished income inequality, mostly via the earnings heterogeneity channela sizeable reduction in the unemployment rate for the poorer part of the populationand to a lesser extent via wage increases by the employed. The Gini coecient for gross household income drops from 43.1 to 42.9, one year after the QE announcement. ECB's asset purchases have also contributed to reduce net wealth inequality, albeit to an almost negligible extent. This is explained by the fact that QE has a positive impact on housing wealth, a component of the net wealth, which is quite homogeneously distributed across the distribution.

The big caveat here being homogenous distribution of assets/housing.

But again, Yellen isn't being nominated for Fed Chair again, she's being nominated for Treasury Secretary. So I don't know why you're bringing up QE/Monetary policy, as opposed to fiscal policy, and any negative income inequality effects of her making pro-stimulus statements when QE isn't under her purview. In fact, I would wager that if a Treasury Secretary takes more fiscally aggressive actions designed to alter the underlying structure of asset allocation (higher wealth taxes or student debt cancellation leading to increased middle-class home ownership, for example) then QE would do more to close the wealth inequality gap.
 
Last edited:
Top