5 ms·
Probably not that many, because that could result in massive inflation. Sure, QE has shown that we can print some more money and inflation isn't affected that
by magduf 7y ago
Probably not that many, because that could result in massive inflation. Sure, QE has shown that we can print some more money and inflation isn't affected that much, but there have to be some limits to that. You can't just give everyone $1,000,000,000 (1B) and not have some huge effect on the economy from that.
- tengbretson 7y agoIt's not as ridiculous as it sounds. $100k per US household would only cost ~$10 trillion, which seems to be within one order of magnitude of the $1.5 trillion we just dropped without batting an eye.
- magduf 7y agoYeah, but my point is, if you take this to a ridiculous extreme ($1B per person), this would surely cause a disaster. So somewhere between 0 and this extreme, it goes from having little effect to having a big one, and I suspect it may be non-linear.
- Twixes 7y agoThe $1.5 trillion was in basically short term loans (bond repurchase agreements) whose purpose is to increase liquidity of financial institutions that have assets generally in investments.