It's far more complicated than that. At a first pass, the drop in interest rates helped debtors who were on variable rates or able to refinance, and creditors who held fixed-rate assets. Conversely, fixed-rate debtors and variable rate creditors got hurt.
The drop in rates arguably raised asset prices, which helps e.g. people who currently own houses. This comes at the expense of people who need to purchase houses in the future. So there are generational implications there.
However, it can also be argued that the drop in rates catalysed an economic recovery, without which there would be fewer jobs for the younger generation.
All of this is arguable. But to say that the fed is robbing widows through artificially low rates and money printing is just emphatically wrong.
>The drop in rates arguably raised asset prices, which helps e.g. people who currently own houses. This comes at the expense of people who need to purchase houses in the future.
>However, it can also be argued that the drop in rates catalysed an economic recovery, without which there would be fewer jobs for the younger generation.
The drop in rates arguably raised asset prices, which helps e.g. people who currently own houses. This comes at the expense of people who need to purchase houses in the future. So there are generational implications there.
However, it can also be argued that the drop in rates catalysed an economic recovery, without which there would be fewer jobs for the younger generation.
All of this is arguable. But to say that the fed is robbing widows through artificially low rates and money printing is just emphatically wrong.