Federal Reserve Says Robin Hood Not Compatible With Viagra Capitalism

Daniel Drew,  6/30/2015


   

Robin Hood

Have you been stimulated? Do you have a Bernanke Boner? Have you had an episode of liquidity that lasted longer than 4 hours? Call the Fed Chairman for assistance. The Federal Reserve is the authority on stimulation, and they can determine whether you have been properly stimulated or not. According to them, getting a check from the 1% is not stimulating enough; it may just give you a semi.

Over the last seven years, the Federal Reserve has developed an obsession for stimulation. They have unloaded several rounds of quantitative easing into the economy, and yet this has not stimulated it quite as much as they had hoped for. The central bank insists that, despite their best efforts, we are the ones who have deflation problems. Nonetheless, they are considering various stimulation alternatives, and all options are on the table.

One possibility that has been floated is based on the legend of Robin Hood, a skilled archer and hero of the people who, along with his merry men, robbed the rich to give to the poor. If we tax the rich and give the money to the poor, they will be able to buy goods and services, which will create economic activity. However, the Federal Reserve has determined through sophisticated fortune-telling that giving money to the poor wouldn't be stimulating enough for them. Allow me to offer up the following charts for the central bank's consumption.

The percentage of the American population on food stamps is higher than it has ever been.



The homeless population is skyrocketing.



However, according to the Federal Reserve, the poor are not poor enough. Burning through savings, selling assets, and going into debt are not signs of financial distress. It is merely evidence that one is not yet poor enough to merit consideration for redistributive policies. Writing from their comfortable office chairs, the Fed economists said,
For redistributive policies to have a stimulative effect, the bulk of households on the receiving end must have limited access to credit and limited savings to cover their spending in case of a loss of income ... The fact that households at the low end of the income distribution can consume substantially more than they earn may also suggest that they have more access to credit than is apparent.
Isn't all of this immoral? Yes, says the Federal Reserve, but the official policy of the central bank is as follows: We don't care. They said,
This kind of redistribution sounds desirable out of a sense of fairness. However, economists often judge a policy less on whether it is fair, and more in terms of whether it is efficient or inefficient, as well as whether it stimulates or slows economic activity.
Fairness? That's not Federal Reserve policy. This certainly explains a lot of the activity that has gone on in the last seven years. Ethics are too trivial to deal with. It's all about efficiency - efficiently creating a 1% paradise and efficiently wiping out the middle class.

Economic policy is not about fairness; it's about stimulation. First, there is cocktease capitalism, where market liquidity slowly reels you in and then withdraws at the last moment. Afterwards, viagra capitalism takes charge, and the central bank will unload every round of quantitative easing they can to stimulate you - unless you're poor.