The covid QE response purchases securities at a rate of ~1.5 trillion per year.
So this isn't just the creation of paper money but rather issuance of new money that mostly lives in imaginary numbers inside 'accounts' of various types.
> The problem is that there is no such thing as "money printing" except printing of physical cash
I think this is your confusion.
> Nobody is worried that if people withdraw money or bank notes are damaged that the Fed must print physical bank notes.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m0
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m1
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m2
M0 is the printed money. Paper and coin. Call it about $6 trillion.
M1 is all the usual things. Bank accounts, money orders, cheques, and everything included in M1. So roughly $20 trillion in money. This is the money that could go buy something from a store.
M2 is all of M1 and M0, but also tacking on some very plausibly going to be money stuff. Roughly $1 trillion difference but it's there anyway. It's measured but not a big factor here.
The replacement of damaged notes will have no impact at all on any of these numbers. You literally can't see it there. Looking at 2009 is interesting, but lets keep to covid.
What we can see happen during covid is actual printed money increased bigtime. There's 3 trillion new $ running around. Basically 100% increase. So they absolutely did print new money in the physical sense.
We can also see from a bank account point of view. Going from $5 trillion to $21 trillion. So it's not just currency of bills. This can't be ignored. This is 'printed money' when people say they printed money. They absolutely did to an insane degree.
>This colloquial language really drives me nuts every time I see it. When you randomly choose the meaning of printing money there are surely some situations where it is obvious that it is benefiting the rich but is that really what people are talking about? I honestly don't know or can't know.
The total $ of the american people was increased over 400%. Poor people and even middle class are crying bloody murder... they sure didn't get any of the new $16 trillion. That's roughly $53,000 per person in the USA. If the poor didn't get it... who did? They got even more money?
>If you are really dense, you can consider lending to be money printing and lending definitively benefits the rich as the rich have most of the assets, including bonds and money in their bank account.
Not sure about density here but yes absolutely that's exactly right.
>Since interest is paid based on how much you own, paying more interest obviously benefits the rich because rich means more money which means more interest. So, if the rich save more, the bank must lower interest rates, or lend out more money to earn more interest.
"the rich" is not the jeff bezos. It's retirees. Retirees just gave themselves $16 trillion.
> The money that is being borrowed is always "fresh" money.
Freshly printed money.
I don't know why people use the phrase "printing money", when people use this word I honestly don't know what they mean. It could literally mean anything, this isn't sarcasm. The problem is that there is no such thing as "money printing" except printing of physical cash and that isn't what people are talking about. Nobody is worried that if people withdraw money or bank notes are damaged that the Fed must print physical bank notes.
This colloquial language really drives me nuts every time I see it. When you randomly choose the meaning of printing money there are surely some situations where it is obvious that it is benefiting the rich but is that really what people are talking about? I honestly don't know or can't know.
If you are really dense, you can consider lending to be money printing and lending definitively benefits the rich as the rich have most of the assets, including bonds and money in their bank account. Since interest is paid based on how much you own, paying more interest obviously benefits the rich because rich means more money which means more interest. So, if the rich save more, the bank must lower interest rates, or lend out more money to earn more interest. Once you reach 0% interest, the interest rate cannot be lowered anymore so the only option left is to lend out all money even when it is illogical and the economy doesn't need more debt. In that sense, you can argue that the government is borrowing money to keep interest rates above 0%. When you don't do that you get Germany where interest rates have become negative. Negative interest rates obviously don't benefit the rich because they are signaling that the rich have too much money and nothing to invest it on which means that money must disappear at some point. You lose more if you have more and there is a $100k exemption on most bank accounts.
By the way, there is no direct relationship between your dollars and the lent out dollars. Even when you get a certificate of deposit and your money is illiquid, the bank still doesn't move that money, your balance is the same no matter how much of it is lent out. The money that is being borrowed is always "fresh" money. The special case is when you keep that money in demand deposits, your money is metaphorically lent out yet you can also spend it at any time! So liquidity actually increases.