The article is so terribly flawed that it is difficult to take seriously. I do not have time to write a full critique of the article, but every paragraph has at

The article is so terribly flawed that it is difficult to take seriously. I do not have time to write a full critique of the article, but every paragraph has at least one sentence that needs to be criticized. For instance: "The policy is designed to push investors and money managers into putting their money into the stock market" Low rates are suppose to encourage investment, but not necessarily investment in the stock market. People may, for instance, want to invest in small software startups. Or maybe someone will decide to invest in a new restaurant, or perhaps they will invest in rehabilitating an old warehouse and turning it into luxury apartments. All of these activities count as investment. All of these activities are encouraged by low rates. The sentence above, that I'm critical of, seems to imply that all investing equals investment in the stock market. This is far from the truth. The opening sentence is especially bad: "The heart of the Federal Reserve's policy to extricate the nation from the lasting grip of a deep recession is in essence a variation of what's known as 'trickle down economics.' " This statement reveals a surprising lack of any historical awareness. The phrase 'trickle down economics' came in vogue during the early 1980s, to describe the policies of President Reagan. In particular, the big tax cuts of 1982 gave most of the benefits to the wealthy, but the positive effects of the tax cut, though given to the wealthy first, were suppose to eventually 'trickle down' to everyone else. Low rates from the Fed are completely different, and have been around since long before the 1980s. The Fed has used low rates to try to fight every recession since the Fed was created, but no one has ever suggested that these low rates form a kind of 'trickle down' economics. Paul Krugman recently wrote about what we might hope from quantitative easing from the Fed, and also the limits of the Fed power. I suggest reading this: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/monetary-base-and-short-term-debt-ultra-wonkish/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/monetary-base-an...