4 ms·
> You're quoting a Federal Open Markets Committee (FOMC) statement You're pretending not to see the scale and exceptional nature of that historical event. Cha
by topspin 8y ago
> You're quoting a Federal Open Markets Committee (FOMC) statement
You're pretending not to see the scale and exceptional nature of that historical event. Characterizing that maneuver as routine is disingenuous and indicative of precisely the sort of thinking that creates the slippery slopes. Will this be the sort of bad guidance our leaders will use to rationalize future decisions? We'll see.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> Characterizing that maneuver as routine is disingenuous and indicative of precisely the sort of thinking that creates the slippery slopes It wasn't routine. It was unusually-large FOMC activity directed by Ben Bernanke's study of the Great Depression. (It appears to have worked at keeping the money supply stable.) But all of that is not QE. If you don't know the difference between QE an the FOMC, mightn't the nuances of monetary policy be similarly escaping you?
- topspin 8y ago> But all of that is not QE It's a distinction without a difference. QE recipients used QE funds to heal their balance sheets by buying deficit funding Treasury bonds as directed by the Fed. So we have both Fed created money funding deficit spending indirectly through QE and Fed created money funding deficit spending through direct monetization. Dwelling on this minutia misses the point entire, and I suspect that's deliberate. The hazard is that -- as a result of these events -- we are now a nation with a propensity to print staggering amounts of money to deal with economic pressures. The question is; will we control that impulse or not?