I believe the data shows A && q, but !A && !q is much less clear and A && q is larger than many people might expect, that's all. A && q does not mean !(!A && !q) as you point out.
Around half of !q is owned by foreigners, mostly foreign central banks, so there's that. The distribution of the remainder of !q is unclear.
Also, note the difference between "benefits" vs. "own" which are not the same. Buying bonds has a variety of effects. Buying a bond from someone benefits the former owner immediately but raising the price of bonds lowers bond yields making buying all new bonds less profitable. It also lowers the cost of financing all government debt, benefiting all taxpayers. But reducing bond yields tends to increase the demand for other assets, such as stocks, increasing the paper value of stocks. Similar story for pushing dollars abroad to foreign bond holders, sending dollars abroad makes the dollar cheaper, boosting exports and hurting imports but reducing market bond yields should do the opposite. But if the market expects inflation from quantitative easing it should reduce the future value of money, increasing bond yields again, but tends to depress stocks but not value stocks as much...
Simply put, the claim that buying bonds helps the wealthy is an idea that needs a lot more support than thoughtless one-liners that twang the emotional strings of power and betrayal.
None of those is really logical negation (it's set complement), hence my confusion.
"I believe the data shows A && q, but !A && !q is much less clear."
I agree. I don't believe the data shows the claim you label "!A && !q" - I do believe it admits it.
Your later point - that effects outside bonds probably dominate effects confined to bond prices - I think is correct.
"Simply put, the claim that buying bonds helps the wealthy is an idea that needs a lot more support than thoughtless one-liners that twang the emotional strings of power and betrayal."
!A = 52% of the debt
q = not owned by the wealthy or foreigners
!q = owned by wealthy or foreigners
I believe the data shows A && q, but !A && !q is much less clear and A && q is larger than many people might expect, that's all. A && q does not mean !(!A && !q) as you point out.
Around half of !q is owned by foreigners, mostly foreign central banks, so there's that. The distribution of the remainder of !q is unclear.
Also, note the difference between "benefits" vs. "own" which are not the same. Buying bonds has a variety of effects. Buying a bond from someone benefits the former owner immediately but raising the price of bonds lowers bond yields making buying all new bonds less profitable. It also lowers the cost of financing all government debt, benefiting all taxpayers. But reducing bond yields tends to increase the demand for other assets, such as stocks, increasing the paper value of stocks. Similar story for pushing dollars abroad to foreign bond holders, sending dollars abroad makes the dollar cheaper, boosting exports and hurting imports but reducing market bond yields should do the opposite. But if the market expects inflation from quantitative easing it should reduce the future value of money, increasing bond yields again, but tends to depress stocks but not value stocks as much...
Simply put, the claim that buying bonds helps the wealthy is an idea that needs a lot more support than thoughtless one-liners that twang the emotional strings of power and betrayal.