That's the logical hypothesis, but the article we're commenting on seems to show that it's more complicated.
FTA:
"The logical case for why the Fed’s activities cause wealth concentration is that low interest rates and high levels of QE tend to boost asset prices, such as stocks and real estate, which are primarily owned by the wealthy. By making homes and stocks more expensive and unaffordable, it widens the wealth gap between those who owned those assets before the Fed began its QE vs those who were not yet significant asset holders when this occurred. There are other more nuanced arguments, but let’s start with that one, because that’s the main one.
If that’s the case, and QE is indeed a powerful force for wealth concentration, we should see that the nations that have the lowest interest rates and that have performed the most QE relative to their GDP, have the highest levels of wealth inequality, right?
In reality, we find the opposite.
...
The regions that did the most QE relative to their GDP, and that have had lower interest rates for longer, have less wealth inequality, not more, as measured by the ratio of the mean wealth divided by the median wealth.
If the prior theory was true, we should have seen the opposite. More of a correlation, rather than an inverse correlation.
...
I’m not making the argument that QE reduces wealth concentration, because that’s not the case either. Instead the point is, it’s complicated. QE and interest rates by themselves are significantly uncorrelated (or even inversely correlated) variables vs how much wealth concentration a country has, when comparing between countries.
That is an uncommon view, but that’s simply how the math works out. Clearly we need to look at the nuances."