> Doesn't end up in the real economy yet. Give it time, money doesn't stay where you spend it.

The bailout money from 2008ff still hasn't "trickled down" to the people, over a decade later.

Trickle down only works when the amount of layers between the initial receivers of money and the intended recipients is as close to 1 as possible. Hiring a construction firm to build a road and mandating a decent wage for employees in the tender is the most efficient way for that.

Wealth inequality is disproportionately skewed to the top. And one thing the wealthy are known to do is save and invest rather than spend. The owners of securities traded today are individuals or institutional investors with a strong lack of propensity to consume. In comparison the middle class owns hardly any tradable assets or securities and the poor none whatsoever. [1][2]

Whats the mechanism you think will somehow transfer enough, and we're talking a substantial quantity of funds here, to have an impact that's felt?

I've seen arguments on govt spending and QE. Those who point to multi-trillion dollar spending bills seem to not realize that the spending plan over a decade and thus are tepid. QE has limited impact on the real economy but not asset prices, the past decade is evidence of that.

If anything we are on the precipice of yet another deflationary cycle, where wages and consumable prices stagnate, while asset prices keep growing.

[1] https://ritholtz.com/2020/01/stock-ownership/ [2] https://news.gallup.com/poll/211052/stock-ownership-down-amo...