Live data from Hacker News

Why Does Quantitative Easing Benefit the Rich?

fififinance.com

21–30 of 39 posts

Re: Why Does Quantitative Easing Benefit the Rich?

#21

QE may make "the rich" seem richer in nominal terms, but in reality they are generally poorer. Here is what I mean: If the house I paid $250,000 for ten years ago is now "worth" $1,000,000 due to asset inflation arising from quantitative easing, I still own the same house. I am not really richer in a real sense as long as I still hold the house. I have $750,000 more nominal dollars in assets, but the dollar is just a…

The Fed tracks inflation using the CPI, the price of things that are consumed. Food is an example of a consumed good. Housing is not, that is an investment. The portion of housing in the CPI is of the rent of the time that is now in the past you consumed on it.

Housing is increasing in value faster than food or cars. So yes, you are better off. Housing is increasing at equal rates with housing, but you can leverage, so you are better off.

You didn't pay $250k for that house, you paid $50k and another ~100k over that 10 years. When you sell, you realize that $750k profit, which yes you will be taxed on some of that, but you can now take that $500k and put it into a $2.5M home. That $2.5M home will be better than your $250k home.

Leverage is risk, yes. But in a QE environment, not leveraging is the ultimate risk.

Re: Why Does Quantitative Easing Benefit the Rich?

#22
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, QE is inflationary, and inflation relatively benefits assets, but that’s a minor effect. the major effect is that assets are the means of production, and those are inflation protected, since prices on the outputs of production will adjust accordingly. that doesn’t happen with wages, because the wealthy will use the opportunity, whether explicitly or implicitly, to squeeze profits out of their productive assets,…

For those who are into an inflation of inflationary quotes this a true gem: One frequently quoted passage from the work of John Maynard Keynes is that “the best way to destroy the capitalist system [is] to debauch the currency.” The passage, attributed to Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, appears in Keynes’ book The Economic Consequences of the Peace, which became an international bestseller when it was published in 1919.

i genuinely believe we should be clamping inflation to the sub-1% range (perhaps 0.1-0.3%), rather than 2-3%, so that gains would largely go to productive innovation rather than financialization. you’d still have slight pressure on capital to find productive uses, but not so much to relatively deflate labor income over a lifetime. rather than destroying capitalism, that would promote a more pure form of it (greed being redirected into the common good being a pillar of capitalism).

Re: Why Does Quantitative Easing Benefit the Rich?

#23
post #5

I didn't see this mentioned: when interest rates are at or near zero the tax burden on the rich almost entirely disappears. Why? Because you can borrow money for essentially nothing instead of realizing a gain or repatriating money from tax free havens. It has a name too: buy, borrow, die. Why die? Because beneficiaries inherit many things at a stepped up basis. Example: you buy a house in 1985 for $100,000. Now it's…

It's pretty funny, in a cosmic sense, that when you have enough money, states will loan you money at negative interest. The amount of effectively zombie business entities that have persisted due to this is probably staggering and it's clearly been letting them devour competition.

Re: Why Does Quantitative Easing Benefit the Rich?

#24
First, it's not at all clear that QE benefits the rich. The Fed insists that QE lowers interest rates, but the evidence of that is mixed. Here is a study: https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/files/KrishnamurthyV...

Basically they argue that in some fixed income markets, QE can lower rates because of "technical" reasons -- e.g. there is a captive market for the bonds. But not corporate bonds.

Moreover, QE results in a beautiful policy schizophrenia, where the same person can simultaneously believe all of the following:

* Raising interest rates benefits the rich who are coupon clippers and want hard money

* Lowering rates is good as it euthanizes the rentier and reduces immoral interest

* Lowering rates is bad as it hurts the poor with high house prices and helps the rich get richer from asset bubbles.

* Lowering rates is good because it causes inflation that helps debtors rather than creditors

* raising interest rates is good for the banks because they earn more interest on deposits

* lowering interest rates is bad for the banks because they are not able to earn much on the assets they purchase

Beyond the effect of interest rates, does QE do anything? I don't think so.

QE does not increase money in circulation. Money in circulation goes up when the policy rate is zero because there is little incentive to keep your money in a savings account when those pay basically nothing. This indifference on the part of households is not economic stimulus. People don't run out and start spending money as a result of QE.

But there may be another channel -- perhaps it freaks people out enough that they change their spending behavior as a result of being bothered by QE.

Thus being aware that almost no one understands what QE does may be the key to knowing how it works. It's dadaist monetary policy, where the public is thrown into fear and confusion.

The key, then, is to control the confusion.

* If you want people to spend a lot of money on consumption, then play up how QE is "money printing" that will cause massive inflation.

* If you want people to spend money on investment, then promise asset bubbles and capital gains.

* If you want QE to discourage investment, then play up how the long durations make investments highly sensitive to very distant returns and so probably everything is mispriced and too volatile. Stay away from the asset markets!

Whatever you need, QE is the answer.

Re: Why Does Quantitative Easing Benefit the Rich?

#25
post #5

I didn't see this mentioned: when interest rates are at or near zero the tax burden on the rich almost entirely disappears. Why? Because you can borrow money for essentially nothing instead of realizing a gain or repatriating money from tax free havens. It has a name too: buy, borrow, die. Why die? Because beneficiaries inherit many things at a stepped up basis. Example: you buy a house in 1985 for $100,000. Now it's…

Adjustment: You would typically pay capital gains on only around $2M of that. You’d likely qualify for the $250K per person exclusion on a primary residence and have several hundred thousand dollars of capital improvements that you’d made over that 35 year period.

Thank you for saying this! As a Realtor, I am constantly talking with people who are scared to sell a house because they are so sure they are going to be taxed to death, all while completely ignoring the big wad of cash that they will receive when they sell. People have an absolutely irrational fear of taxes to the point they do crazy things. Yes, I'm sure there are markets where if someone has lived in a house for decades they might have to be vaguely aware of capital gains, but in my market, practically speaking, nobody is lucky enough to have this as a problem.

Re: Why Does Quantitative Easing Benefit the Rich?

#26
post #5

I didn't see this mentioned: when interest rates are at or near zero the tax burden on the rich almost entirely disappears. Why? Because you can borrow money for essentially nothing instead of realizing a gain or repatriating money from tax free havens. It has a name too: buy, borrow, die. Why die? Because beneficiaries inherit many things at a stepped up basis. Example: you buy a house in 1985 for $100,000. Now it's…

It's pretty funny, in a cosmic sense, that when you have enough money, states will loan you money at negative interest. The amount of effectively zombie business entities that have persisted due to this is probably staggering and it's clearly been letting them devour competition.

Devour competition by offering higher wages? It doesn't sound like something that has been happening for the last 10 years.

Re: Why Does Quantitative Easing Benefit the Rich?

#27
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those who are into an inflation of inflationary quotes this a true gem: One frequently quoted passage from the work of John Maynard Keynes is that “the best way to destroy the capitalist system [is] to debauch the currency.” The passage, attributed to Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, appears in Keynes’ book The Economic Consequences of the Peace, which became an international bestseller when it was published in 1919.

i genuinely believe we should be clamping inflation to the sub-1% range (perhaps 0.1-0.3%), rather than 2-3%, so that gains would largely go to productive innovation rather than financialization. you’d still have slight pressure on capital to find productive uses, but not so much to relatively deflate labor income over a lifetime. rather than destroying capitalism, that would promote a more pure form of it (greed bei…

How are you going to introduce negative interest rates?

Re: Why Does Quantitative Easing Benefit the Rich?

#28
post #5

I didn't see this mentioned: when interest rates are at or near zero the tax burden on the rich almost entirely disappears. Why? Because you can borrow money for essentially nothing instead of realizing a gain or repatriating money from tax free havens. It has a name too: buy, borrow, die. Why die? Because beneficiaries inherit many things at a stepped up basis. Example: you buy a house in 1985 for $100,000. Now it's…

> Why we're giving such massive tax breaks to the wealthy is beyond me.

Is this not obvious? In a mostly unregulated capitalist economy, wealthy have the keys to the kingdom.

Re: Why Does Quantitative Easing Benefit the Rich?

#29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i genuinely believe we should be clamping inflation to the sub-1% range (perhaps 0.1-0.3%), rather than 2-3%, so that gains would largely go to productive innovation rather than financialization. you’d still have slight pressure on capital to find productive uses, but not so much to relatively deflate labor income over a lifetime. rather than destroying capitalism, that would promote a more pure form of it (greed bei…

How are you going to introduce negative interest rates?

are you implying that the (imputed) risk-free rate (which ideally the inflation rate would track exactly) is naturally higher than the fed rates would imply, so then we need set fed rates negative to induce a lower than 'natural' inflation rate? or is it just ambiguity around the use of dashes, which look like minus signs?

Re: Why Does Quantitative Easing Benefit the Rich?

#30
post #9

Here's a nice related FT opinion article, "The rich get richer and rates get lower": https://archive.is/rMTnV It explains a sort of feedback loop taking place here (with regards to excess of money looking where to invest => "This pushes rates down directly, when those savings are invested, driving asset prices up and yields down; and indirectly, by sapping aggregate demand.")

The article doesn't explain why those savings aren't used for investments and why yields on investments are going down.

Quite frankly, it's because population growth is slowing down. Children used to be an exponentially growing consumer market.

Post reply on HN