4 ms·

The problem being, of course, that those risky investments were considered "risky" for a reason. A fair assessment, in the absence of forced incentives, would s

The problem being, of course, that those risky investments were considered "risky" for a reason. A fair assessment, in the absence of forced incentives, would say they're more of a net liability than a net asset. Better than having your funds confiscated, perhaps, but otherwise not worth considering. When they fail (as many of them inevitably will) those failed investments result in waste and economic decline, not growth. And as usual the less-sophisticated investors will bear the lion's share of the losses.

bradleyjg 5y ago
I wouldn’t say that people are entitled to a safe investment option that offers a decent yield, but on the other hand I’m also skeptical of more than a decade of what was supposed to be extraordinary intervention.
- nybble41 5y ago
  I also wouldn't say that anyone is entitled to a safe investment option, but they are entitled to non-interference—which includes the various rules and regulations which keep people (and especially those with less resources) tied to the US Dollar even as it's diluted at an ever-increasing pace. And without those rules and regulations anything remotely like QE would be a quick route to economic (and political) suicide, rather than the slow-but-inevitable decline we see today.
- hackingforfun 5y ago
  I think it would be great if cash was a safe option. I.e. the rates offered would be higher than inflation, so that the value of cash is not eroded. QE leads to people investing in riskier assets, treating stocks like a savings account, which to me does not seem right.
hackingforfun 5y ago
I agree and think the QE from March 2020 only lead people to believe that stocks are safe assets. Then again if The Fed keeps printing, maybe it all just keeps going.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  The QE from multiple times in previous decades should also work to help believe stocks are safe assets. And why wouldn’t it? As long as USA is relatively stable compared to other countries, and USD is desirable relative to other currencies, then I think it is reasonable to consider low cost broad market index funds to be inflation protected savings accounts on a 3+ year investment horizon.

bradleyjg 5y ago

I wouldn’t say that people are entitled to a safe investment option that offers a decent yield, but on the other hand I’m also skeptical of more than a decade of what was supposed to be extraordinary intervention.

nybble41 5y ago
I also wouldn't say that anyone is entitled to a safe investment option, but they are entitled to non-interference—which includes the various rules and regulations which keep people (and especially those with less resources) tied to the US Dollar even as it's diluted at an ever-increasing pace. And without those rules and regulations anything remotely like QE would be a quick route to economic (and political) suicide, rather than the slow-but-inevitable decline we see today.
hackingforfun 5y ago
I think it would be great if cash was a safe option. I.e. the rates offered would be higher than inflation, so that the value of cash is not eroded. QE leads to people investing in riskier assets, treating stocks like a savings account, which to me does not seem right.

hackingforfun 5y ago

I agree and think the QE from March 2020 only lead people to believe that stocks are safe assets. Then again if The Fed keeps printing, maybe it all just keeps going.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
The QE from multiple times in previous decades should also work to help believe stocks are safe assets. And why wouldn’t it? As long as USA is relatively stable compared to other countries, and USD is desirable relative to other currencies, then I think it is reasonable to consider low cost broad market index funds to be inflation protected savings accounts on a 3+ year investment horizon.