Scott Sumner has a post about pouring of money - i.e. effects of expanding money supply. He disagrees with the metaphor that money pours into certain asset classes. While I agree with the principles behind Scott Sumner's post, I find most of times the metaphors send better signals for interpretation. But my main point is about prices and wages.
Prices and wages are embodiment of information - historical, present and future. If they change too quickly then the historical aspect is lost. For better or worse, our scale of value are anchored to the past. It does get influenced by present and to a less degree by expectations of future. But if we lose our anchor point or the reference scale then our mental models collapse and we lose our sense of reality. Thus, if we get paid $30,000 in year 1, $3,000 in year 2 and $3million in the next year, we will develop a sense of confusion.
Then comes the question of pouring. What pouring refers to is change in the relative value of asset classes. Imagine a spread of assets along a value spectrum, sort of a hierarchy (with sometimes assets jointly occupying a hierarchal position).
If money increase does not modify the hierarchy then it does not impact much. If it does then it creates gainers and losers just because money is created. For example, if a really thirsty person would rather be just under the tap than away where water will eventually get to him.
The argument therefore is whether the government or central bankers be allowed to create such distortion that has no grounding of productivity or real value creation.
One can argue that over long term the asset hierarchy goes back to a certain mean. But during the time a distortion is set in motion and the time we get back to time-tested mean we can extract advantage. Finance is prepping to do just that.