You are equating the "wealth-effect" with "trickle down" - they are not the same.
The Fed described the wealth effect of stable home prices because people, at the time, were re-financing their homes and taking home-equity loans, which created spending.
Another "wealth-effect" are the stimulus checks. Are you suggesting those too are "trickle down".
The reality is that having more money stimulates spending. Trickle down specifically means only giving the RICH more money (traditionally in the form of tax breaks).
You comment completely conflates these two different notions.
It is a mathematical certainty that deliberately raising asset prices gives much more money to the rich than to the general public (many of whom get nothing or indeed go backwards by taking on massive debt to keep up).
It’s no different to a massive tax break or any other way of giving wealthy people loads of money in the hope that some of it “trickles down”. And it fails to boost the real economy for the same reason - Bezos can only get so many haircuts, read so many books, eat so many meals.
They do?? Do you have a source for this?
It’s quite incredible that the Left have not made the connection between the Fed openly aiming to increase wealth inequality (which is what this is) while also keeping a watchful eye out for any wage inflation (which is the only way the common person can keep up).
https://digitalcommons.trinity.edu/econ_faculty/31/
Search for Bernanke wealth effect or any variation you like. The BIS and other central banks talk about it openly as well.
The central banks are the biggest engines of wealth inequality in the world, and it’s all done in the open with barely any pushback.
Also, the stimulus checks are also a "wealth effect" mechanism, but no one would confuse that for "trickle down".
The title makes a false comparison.
Also, the stimulus checks are a fiscal measure and have absolutely nothing to do with the wealth effect induced by loose monetary policy.