The article left a lot unsaid (granted, readability would've been sacrificed to cover everything sufficiently). Here are some thoughts on a few of those missing

The article left a lot unsaid (granted, readability would've been sacrificed to cover everything sufficiently). Here are some thoughts on a few of those missing things... In real terms, the investments quoted actually had a negative return during 2009 (nominal interest rates mean little outside of an apples-to-apples comparison). With the unadjusted CPI rising 2.7%, those dollars can now buy less than they could one year ago. The negative return actually suggests a lot about the economy (see Japan's lost decade -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decade_%28Japan%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decade_%28Japan%29). Here are a few of the conclusions one might draw: - There is considerable fear remaining among investors. - The government is encouraging risk taking and investment, while discouraging savings. - US treasuries represent the risk-free rate in many traditional financial models; the traditional models are either changing OR returns that seem sub-optimal when compared with yields from 3 years ago actually have significant amounts of risk embedded in them. - Banks & local governments can borrow at very low rates, thereby strengthening their balance sheets, making for a potentially attractive investment opportunity (this is, of course, dependent on how wisely you expect them to allocate the capital they borrow). - The implications are far reaching. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Take away: Look for inefficiencies and exploit them.