Sorry for the delay on this! Obviously today is no longer the day you sent this message. School is crazy.
Anyway, to be honest, I just don’t know enough to give you a solid answer on this one — though I definitely sympathize with both the frustration with the damage monetary policy/economic intervention produces and the desire to help the low-income people these policies often hurt most.
And I’m not sure that there exists a solid answer to be had, because it’s never going to be possible to concretely measure the results of the various factors you’ve mentioned and figure out in a mathematical sense which option is objectively better.
Personally, I lean toward an (admittedly simplistic) “two wrongs don’t make a right” sort of response — as in, the economy is already quite distorted by the Fed and other government interventions, as you noted, but adding further distortion isn’t going to negate the original distortion.
But again, I tend to think it’s not possible to make this sort of calculation you’ve described, where we say, “Government Intervention B will compensate for the negative effects of Government Intervention A.” Plus, it’s not as if Government Intervention B comes without its own unwanted side effects…
Anyone with more economics skillz than I, by all means reblog and add your thoughts.