I believe that we can learn a lot about the impact of monetary policy on the economy by studying how monetary policy interacts with the distribution of income and wealth. Today I have focused primarily on the question of what distributional effects the expansionary monetary policy conducted by the Riksbank and other central banks  10 I have discussed the factors behind this downturn, what it means for households and companies and the  consequences for monetary policy in an earlier speech, see Ohlsson (2016). 11 [14]  may have had. The debate has so far mainly focused on the effect of rising asset prices. I have tried to nuance this picture and pointed out the importance of actually looking at the total effect of monetary policy on the economy, as well as using the correct point of comparison. My point can be summarised roughly as: without the expansionary monetary policy, growth and employment would have been lower and unemployment would have been higher. This would hardly have benefitted any group in society, and especially not those with the lowest incomes. Assessments of the distributional effects of the expansionary monetary policy should be regarded in the light of this. It is also important to note that no group would have benefitted from a decline in confidence in the inflation target. The whole idea behind the inflation target was that stable prices create good conditions for economic growth and high employment, as it was formulated in the Riksbank's press release in 1993.
4 9 1392 3      3 7 7   7  $   4 77   3 8 7 454 7 4214 54874 544   577  = >77  487  6 6 0976 07 92 2276 6976 3026 6 6 2 7 62 61 6172  62791 26 6 6 2 91 61 9 6 6172 95 651 667 07 62791 95 651 6 651 95 651  7917 9 3 69236 9196 6976  1 466 1679  0 022012 6 6 3 9 6 6 9 05 59   678 90 78 678     8 319 0  83  38 8       0   !  38   #9 1280