If the cantillon effect exists then it would apply to all monopolies including geographic monopolies. Why do people then single out "money printing" which is a fully decentralised process done by commercial banks? If you can found a new bank you get to do your own "money printing".
If anything I would be more worried about the cantillon effect of income taxes because they are collected decentrally but spent centrally leading to geographic redistribution of funds. Geographic concentration of money in say NYC and SF also has its own cantillon effect.
Monopolies like Visa or MasterCard take a cut that is basically the same as a tax because it is so widespread and they spend it centrally which also has its own cantillon effect. You don't need "money printing" for a cantillon effect and since central banks don't "print money" they are completely irrelevant for the cantillon effect. This makes me think the whole thing is always argued in bad faith and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Edit: Today's mainstream economics is neoclassical economics since the 70s, exactly when wealth inequality started skyrocketing in his fancy charts. Keynesian economics hasn't been mainstream for decades. The article is in fact written in bad faith.
You don't seem to understand what Cantillon effect is.
Since the Fed has been printing more money than every in history, the effect is very strong - Wall Street and elites who can "play big" on Wall Street and Business are at the entry point of that printed money. It's FAR MORE than either income tax or credit cars - by ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE!
Neoliberal Economics IS Keynesian Economics. Printing money to solve problems IS Keynesian Economcis.
Neoliberal economics is commonly correlated to monetarism, which came as a response against the implementation of Keynesian economics before it. Reducing Keynesian economics solely to printing money also seems overly reductionist.
I'd say the Fed is more interested in propping up growth rates regardless of the fundamental instability or the unfair effects of a more unfettered capitalism.
If anything I would be more worried about the cantillon effect of income taxes because they are collected decentrally but spent centrally leading to geographic redistribution of funds. Geographic concentration of money in say NYC and SF also has its own cantillon effect.
Monopolies like Visa or MasterCard take a cut that is basically the same as a tax because it is so widespread and they spend it centrally which also has its own cantillon effect. You don't need "money printing" for a cantillon effect and since central banks don't "print money" they are completely irrelevant for the cantillon effect. This makes me think the whole thing is always argued in bad faith and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Edit: Today's mainstream economics is neoclassical economics since the 70s, exactly when wealth inequality started skyrocketing in his fancy charts. Keynesian economics hasn't been mainstream for decades. The article is in fact written in bad faith.