By Mike Dolan

LONDON, Oct 2 (Reuters)Central banks may not be out of ammunition just yet but parts of their strategic policy rethinks related to inequality and fairness raise questions about the extent they should use it.

Ever since the last financial crisis 12 years ago, investors have fretted about a moment when central banks – having floored borrowing rates to zero or below and ballooned their balance sheets – would simply run out of ways to support increasingly indebted economies and panic-prone markets.

The massive monetary response to this year’s pandemic shock to date showed there’s plenty still in the armoury. Policymakers insist they have more firepower if needed and both the Federal Reserve and European Central Bank are now loosening long-term inflation or employment goals as additional policy guidance.

But with borrowing rates already so low, and with a reluctance to go deeply negative for fear of undermining banking systems, ever-more purchases of government bonds and other assets is the only practical tool left to meet the rising list of increasingly more vague goals in any fresh downturn.

While that’s still useful to cap interest bills on exploding government debt or to support credit markets, it also risks exaggerating wealth inequality – something economists partly blame for putting central banks in this cul-de-sac to start off with.

The emphasis last month in the Fed’s strategic policy review on monitoring inequality in its pursuit of an enhanced full employment goal is getting more attention as a result.

Bastien Drut, strategist at Amundi-owned CPR Asset Management, argues that working to reduce inequality aims to give the Fed more policy room over time by helping re-establish better relationships between employment, wages and inflation.

“One of the problems posed by rising inequalities is that it contributes to the fall

Caroline Moss is an author and host of the podcast “Gee Thanks, Just Bought It,” which helps people find the products they need to make life easier, better and more productive. Now with this column, “Asking for a Friend,” she’s helping people with the advice they need to make life easier, better and more productive. To submit a question, email us at [email protected]

My husband and I got married when neither of us had a lot of money and, over the last five years, both of us have started to make a little more; enough to live comfortably and happily within our means. We both agreed that we’d likely stay in the same range of income for the foreseeable future. Neither of us “come from” money and while our families have always done fine, it wasn’t like we never had to worry about finances. Most people do.

Then …

My husband’s mother recently won a major medical settlement and was awarded an extremely life changing amount of money. Like, lotto-winning life changing. She wants to give us a lot of that money. My husband is an only child so we’re not even splitting it with anyone. Now my husband is looking at houses and boats and cars and his mom is SO happy to be “providing” these material things should we want them, and I feel extremely uncomfortable both with the money part of it and the obvious strings attached part. This wasn’t how we as a couple talked or thought about money before, but now it seems his opinions have changed knowing that he’s essentially “set.” He has even mentioned quitting his job to start a business using some of the money as capital. To me, all of this is crazy.

I know what money like this can