Your post is full of assertions, but empty of evidence. I disagree with almost every hyberbolic point you make: -There is NOT consensus that the Fed's creation

Your post is full of assertions, but empty of evidence. I disagree with almost every hyberbolic point you make: -There is NOT consensus that the Fed's creation of money caused the last two crashes. In fact, market monetarists argue the last recession was exacerbated by how LITTLE the Fed did. http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?page_id=3443 http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?page_id=3443 -Inflation is not 3%-4%. It has been very low since 2008. http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1&year1=2008&year2=2013 http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1&year1=2008&ye... -Stock market gains have not been due to pure PE expansion. This is demonstrably untrue. http://www.multpl.com/ http://www.multpl.com/ -Inflation does not, by itself, hurt savings rates. A world with 1% inflation and 1% interest should be identical to a world with 2% inflation and 2% interest (this is not strictly true, but the simple toy model is a good thought experiment to see where your reasoning fails.) -American oil production has almost NO impact on global prices. In fact, causation works the other way around. High oil prices make more American oil fields profitable, and drives production. (Even OPEC has very little market power. Saudi Arabia arguably has the most market power.) -The Fed was more aggressive than the central banks of most countries in the last recession (compare to BoE or ECB or whoever). The USA has recovered better than most other countries with passive central banks. There's not consensus, but many economists believe there is a causal connection. Your theory does not fit these data.