As Warren Mosler has often said, there are winners and losers in the use of monetary policy by central banks, since interest rate changes favor either borrowers or savers. Well, now savers are rising up angry. BTW, I have been hearing this anecdotally recently from friends' complaints.
Monetary policy does not seek to redistribute, but cannot avoid it.
If society feels the need to compensate some of the current elderly population for the side-effects of QE, that is a matter for government. We could increase national insurance (not paid by pensioners) to raise pension levels for example or change annuitisation rules.
And if you still worry about the redistributive effects of the Bank’s recourse to QE, you should call for the end of independent monetary policy.Read it at The Financial Times | Money Supply
Monetary policy and redistribution
by Chris Giles
"And if you still worry about the redistributive effects of the Bank’s recourse to QE, you should call for the end of independent monetary policy." This is exactly what MMT does, showing how its replacement by fiscal policy is a more efficient course of action and more effective in meeting public purpose, as well as more democratic and equitable.
Monetary policy under the control of politically independent central banks is both anti-democratic, since it involves redistribution without representation. It is also anti-capitalistic in that it involves a command system of price setting in which a government's monopoly power over currency is transferred to a small group of technocrats that are also "interested men" in Tom Paine's sense. Just how does this make sense economically, politically, and socially?