4 ms·
Agree it's QE. For those that say this isn't QE, it's understandable given the "original sin of QE" as Ricardo Reis put it: https://twitter.com/R2Rsquared/statu
by zzleeper 4y ago
Agree it's QE. For those that say this isn't QE, it's understandable given the "original sin of QE" as Ricardo Reis put it: https://twitter.com/R2Rsquared/status/1576164361898708998?t=dNAVo2qsc8XH1rv3ZI_xDA&s=19 https://twitter.com/R2Rsquared/status/1576164361898708998?t=... (this episode is QE type 3 in his taxonomy)
- HDThoreaun 4y agoTurning "QE" into a catchall for anything even sort of related to central banks holding more bonds isn't helpful. When words have too many meanings they have none, communication breaks down and people talk past each other, exactly as is happening here.
- tootie 4y agoThis is like the whole debate over whether or not there was a bailout. In the colloquial sense there absolutely was. In the traditional policy definition it really wasn't. It may seem academic but if you're interested in how this will affect the taxpayer then it makes a big difference. Both the Fed and FDIC are exercising the tools within their ordinary powers.