<p>Just found this - answer is "the rich"</p>

<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/aug/23/britains-richest-gained-quantative-easing-bank" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/aug/23/britains-richest-gained-quantative-easing-bank</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-12T16:27:37.117Z
Apparently,  explotation of matthew effect : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect
mootmoot
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-12T15:59:58.260Z
2016-12-12T15:59:58.260Z
Mick
<p><a href="https://www.bundesbank.de/Redaktion/EN/Downloads/Publications/Monthly_Report_Articles/2016/2016_09_effects.pdf?__blob=publicationFile" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.bundesbank.de/Redaktion/EN/Downloads/Publications/Monthly_Report_Articles/2016/2016_09_effects.pdf?__blob=publicationFile</a></p>

<p>That should fit your question. </p>

<p>Imho we have never seen these kind of interest rates, and It will be very entertaining to see how this works out. </p>

<p>Could lead to another black swan event, which is nothing you can calculate/prepare for.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-03T20:22:56.147Z
Entertaining? Perhaps you meant interesting, but the meaning is very different.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-19T21:57:32.113Z
I actually meant entertaining. These kind of low interest rates could accelerate drastic cultural/political/societal change.
Reinhard Defoe 
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-19T22:37:00.637Z
Some people just want to watch the world burn.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-03T18:36:12.963Z
2016-12-03T18:36:12.963Z
Reinhard Defoe 
<p>I just heard Andy Haldane, chief economist at the Bank of England make the following statement about the bank's ultra low interest rate policy and accusations that it disproportionately benefited the rich:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"on average those that have debts tend to be poorer than those that
  have savings which has meant that our monetary policy actions with
  interest rates have if anything shrunk the the degree of inequality in
  incomes between rich and poor."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This struck me as being wrong because its the rich home-owners that may borrow four or five times annual income, whereas the poor (non-home owners) would be hard pressed to ever borrow more than half a years wages.</p>

<p>Is there any published analysis that would justify (or refute) the Bank of England's claim?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-04T01:35:28.770Z
It is complicated by many factors, including age. At any point in the income distribution there is a wide distribution in financial wealth, and on average the wealthiest age groups seems to be the about-to-retire and the recently retired (but they do not have similar incomes), so aged around 55 to 75.  [An IFS study](https://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/r71.pdf) seems to suggest in Figure 3.3 that on average those in the top 10% of incomes have the highest average financial wealth, which is not really a surprise
Henry
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-05T14:56:30.400Z
Related: http://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/12477/conventional-monetary-policy-and-income-inequality/12581#12581
Kitsune Cavalry
<monetary-policy>
Low interest rates - who benefits, rich or poor?
Mick
# Low interest rates - who benefits, rich or poor?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-12-03)

I just heard Andy Haldane, chief economist at the Bank of England make the following statement about the bank's ultra low interest rate policy and accusations that it disproportionately benefited the rich:

> "on average those that have debts tend to be poorer than those that
> have savings which has meant that our monetary policy actions with
> interest rates have if anything shrunk the the degree of inequality in
> incomes between rich and poor."

This struck me as being wrong because its the rich home-owners that may borrow four or five times annual income, whereas the poor (non-home owners) would be hard pressed to ever borrow more than half a years wages.

Is there any published analysis that would justify (or refute) the Bank of England's claim?

**Tags:** monetary-policy
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: It is complicated by many factors, including age. At any point in the income distribution there is a wide distribution in financial wealth, and on average the wealthiest age groups seems to be the about-to-retire and the recently retired (but they do not have similar incomes), so aged around 55 to 75.  [An IFS study](https://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/r71.pdf) seems to suggest in Figure 3.3 that on average those in the top 10% of incomes have the highest average financial wealth, which is not really a surprise  
> **username_2**: Related: http://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/12477/conventional-monetary-policy-and-income-inequality/12581#12581  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_0 on 2016-12-12. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

Just found this - answer is "the rich"

<https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/aug/23/britains-richest-gained-quantative-easing-bank>

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: Apparently,  explotation of matthew effect : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2016-12-03. Score: 2

<https://www.bundesbank.de/Redaktion/EN/Downloads/Publications/Monthly_Report_Articles/2016/2016_09_effects.pdf?__blob=publicationFile>

That should fit your question.

Imho we have never seen these kind of interest rates, and It will be very entertaining to see how this works out.

Could lead to another black swan event, which is nothing you can calculate/prepare for.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: Entertaining? Perhaps you meant interesting, but the meaning is very different.  
> **username_4**: I actually meant entertaining. These kind of low interest rates could accelerate drastic cultural/political/societal change.  
> **username_5**: Some people just want to watch the world burn.  

---

