????劫富濟貧？還不至于。

????美聯(lián)儲（Feb）是不是幫了窮人一把呢？

????量化寬松（quantitative easing）是美聯(lián)儲用來刺激經濟的措施。仔細推敲一番后，人們通常會發(fā)現情況剛好相反：這項旨在降低利率的政策主要對有錢人有利。美國前財政部長拉里?薩默斯就對量化寬松提出過這樣的批評。有一陣子，白宮似乎馬上任命薩默斯為美聯(lián)儲主席了，但他最終還是落選了。薩默斯認為，量化寬松拉大了貧富差距。

????本周早些時候，《華爾街日報》（Wall Street Journal）旗幟鮮明地拋出了相反的觀點。這家報紙刊登的一篇文章認為，從量化寬松中得到最多好處的是年輕人和窮人。這篇文章的邏輯很簡單，或者說過于簡單，那就是年輕人和窮人負債最多。因此，他們是利率下降的最大受益者。富人擁有大量銀行存款，得到的好處沒有那么大。

????這樣的效果是量化寬松的一部分嗎？這項大政方針的目的是通過增加企業(yè)投資、促進個人消費和改善金融行業(yè)狀況來提高經濟增長率嗎？還是說這樣的效果只是非常規(guī)措施帶來的蹩腳而又意外的財富再分配？

????讓《華爾街日報》產生上述疑問的正是這篇文章中的觀點，而這個觀點本身也存在很多問題，其中最大的一個問題和股票有關。這篇文章幾乎沒有談到股市，而其他關于美聯(lián)儲政策的文章都探討過“資產價格”，而《華爾街日報》的文章對股市只是一帶而過。其他文章不僅會寫到股票，還會提及債券和房地產，以及各式各樣的投資。也就是說，《華爾街日報》的這篇文章本打算說明量化寬松對美國人的財富造成了影響，但它卻把占據美國人財富大頭的因素拋到了九霄云外。

????你們知道誰的股票比較多嗎？富人，而且他們的股票比窮人多得多（股市不就是這么回事嗎？）。所以，如果相信量化寬松給窮人帶來的好處多于富人，就只能得出這樣的結論：要么過去幾年股市一直在下跌——但實際情況并非如此（股市一直在上漲，而且漲幅巨大），要么量化寬松對股市沒有任何影響。

????最近，麥肯錫（McKinsey）在一篇報告中提出了后一種觀點，看來這是《華爾街日報》發(fā)表上述文章的動力。簡單的邏輯——讓我再說一次，異常簡單的邏輯——就能說明麥肯錫這篇報告錯了，那就是量化寬松的規(guī)模已經非常大，股市已經大幅上揚，因此量化寬松在推動股市上漲。

????但這篇發(fā)表于去年11月份的報告稍稍做了一些深度分析。它指出，如果量化寬松在影響股市，那么有關量化寬松的任何官方聲明都應該造成股市上漲或下跌。這份報告的作者稱，股市對于和量化寬松有關的消息一直反應溫和，而且都是短期反應。報告舉例說，6月中旬，美聯(lián)儲在官方公告中表示，它正在考慮壓縮債券購買規(guī)模，但股市幾乎沒有下跌，而且很快就開始再次上漲。11月中旬，美聯(lián)儲宣布推遲對購債規(guī)模的壓縮，股市的表現也是如此，只是順序相反。

????不過，這篇報告選錯了時間節(jié)點。伯南克首次對壓縮債券購買規(guī)模作出暗示是在5月22日。從2013年初到5月22日，股市上漲了17%。從那一天到9月18日，也就是美聯(lián)儲宣布推遲削減購債規(guī)模的前一天，股市的漲幅只有3%。9月18日至今，股市又上漲了8%，但其中只有3個百分點的漲幅是出現在12月18日，也就是美聯(lián)儲真正開始壓縮購債規(guī)模之后。

????Robin Hood? Not quite

????Did the Fed do the poor a solid?

????A common knock on quantitative easing, the Federal Reserve stimulus program, suggests just the opposite: The interest rate lowering program mostly benefited the rich. That was one complaint made by Larry Summers, the former Treasury Secretary who the White House seemed close to appointing as head of the Fed before he dropped out of the race. He said QE likely made inequality worse.

????Earlier this week, though, the Wall Street Journal staked out the contrary ground. The article said that the individuals who benefited the most from QE were the young and the poor. The article's simple logic -- too simple -- was that the young and the poor are the most in debt. So lower interest rates benefits them the most. Rich people with lots of money stashed in the bank, not so much.

????Were these effects part of a grand design to stimulate the economy through more corporate investment, household spending and a healthier financial sector, or a clumsy and unintended redistribution of wealth caused by extraordinary measures?

????There are a number of problems with the argument that leads the Journal to this dubious question, but the biggest one is this: Stocks. The article says almost nothing about the stock market, only making a passing reference to the fact that other articles about the Fed's policies have talked about "asset prices." And not just stocks, but also bonds and houses, and investments in general. In other words, an article that was trying to draw a conclusion about how QE affected Americans' wealth completely ignored the very thing that contains the bulk of Americans' wealth.

????And you know who holds more stocks than anyone else? The rich. A lot more than the poor. (That's how these things work.) So to believe that QE benefited the poor more than the rich, you have to conclude that stocks over the past few years have gone down, which they have not (they've gone up, by a lot) or that QE has had no impact on the market.

????The latter notion was argued in a recent McKinsey report, which appears to be the impetus for the WSJ article. Simple -- again, too simple -- logic would suggest the McKinsey report is wrong: We have had a lot of QE. Stocks have gone up a lot. QE made stocks go up.

????But the McKinsey report, which was published in November, dives a little deeper. If QE has been driving stocks, then any announcements about QE would cause stocks to jump or fall. They say the stock market reactions to news about QE have been mild, and temporary. For example, the report says the market barely dropped when the Fed made it official in mid-June that they were considering pulling back on bond purchases. The market quickly began to rise again. Same thing but in reverse in mid-September, when the Fed put off the taper.

????But the report is looking at the wrong dates. Bernanke first hinted about the taper on May 22. From the beginning of the year until then, the stock market was up 17%. From that time until September 18, the day before Fed put off the taper, the market rose just 3%. Since then, the market is up another 8%, of which just 3% of that return has occurred since December 18, when the Fed actually began to cut its bond purchases.