<p>In the US, broad debt monetization would produce the following losers:  owners of cash, bonds or equivalent fixed income securities- notably, China, Japan, and the other foreign US creditors, and entitlement holders such as pensioners.  The winners would be:  anyone who owns a real asset on a leveraged basis, such as property owners who have a mortgage, corporations who have borrowed a lot versus their cash flows.  This isn't really rich->poor, it's lender-> borrower.   This seems like an attractive policy for the US, although there's a very strong argument that the US dollar will permanently lose its reputation as a store of value if it were ever implemented.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-01T13:31:35.350Z
2018-08-01T13:31:35.350Z
dm63
<p>I'm reading Ray Dalio's <em>"How the Economic Machine Works"</em>, and he says that there are four factors contributing to deleveragings in economies:</p>

<p>1) Debt Reduction</p>

<p>2) Austerity</p>

<p>3) Transferring wealth from the haves to have-nots</p>

<p>4) Debt Monetization</p>

<p>However, to me it seems like debt monetization is equivalent to transferring wealth from the haves to have-nots -- am I correct in my assumption?</p>

<p>Debt monetization leads to inflation which means that cash and Accounts Receivable get cheaper. That would mean that cash holders and creditors would get punished. Since creditors are wealthy people, aren't we basically reducing the dollars received by wealthy people and giving that money back to poor people through job creation?</p>

<p>Just want to make sure I'm understanding correctly.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-31T19:26:10.610Z
A lot of poor people either cannot or do not borrow.  Suppose you proposed transferring wealth from renters to those with mortgages?
Henry
<debt><unemployment>
Is Debt Monetization Equivalent to transferring money from rich to poor?
bugsyb
# Is Debt Monetization Equivalent to transferring money from rich to poor?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-07-31)

I'm reading Ray Dalio's *"How the Economic Machine Works"*, and he says that there are four factors contributing to deleveragings in economies:

1) Debt Reduction

2) Austerity

3) Transferring wealth from the haves to have-nots

4) Debt Monetization

However, to me it seems like debt monetization is equivalent to transferring wealth from the haves to have-nots -- am I correct in my assumption?

Debt monetization leads to inflation which means that cash and Accounts Receivable get cheaper. That would mean that cash holders and creditors would get punished. Since creditors are wealthy people, aren't we basically reducing the dollars received by wealthy people and giving that money back to poor people through job creation?

Just want to make sure I'm understanding correctly.

Thanks!

**Tags:** debt, unemployment
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: A lot of poor people either cannot or do not borrow.  Suppose you proposed transferring wealth from renters to those with mortgages?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2018-08-01. Score: 1

In the US, broad debt monetization would produce the following losers: owners of cash, bonds or equivalent fixed income securities- notably, China, Japan, and the other foreign US creditors, and entitlement holders such as pensioners. The winners would be: anyone who owns a real asset on a leveraged basis, such as property owners who have a mortgage, corporations who have borrowed a lot versus their cash flows. This isn't really rich->poor, it's lender-> borrower. This seems like an attractive policy for the US, although there's a very strong argument that the US dollar will permanently lose its reputation as a store of value if it were ever implemented.


---

