Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because it DOESN'T GO INTO CIRCULATION. How many times that that have to be explained. It's simply an ASSET SWAP.
That is a FACT.
That's WHY it hasn't led to any significant inflation. That $80 billion/month (now already down to roughly half that) never gets into circulation (EVER) - it simply goes into vaults having no major affect except to drive interest rates down - THAT'S IT. This is where all those wingnuts thinking it will lead to inflation go wrong - and why there has been no major inflation as a result. The money NEVER goes into circulation.
Ken
They are printing money to buy up treasuries, and then treasuries are spent, which is indeed money going into circulation..
This pumps money into the U.S. economy and reduces long-term interest rates further. When long-term interest rates go down, investors have more incentive to spend their money now. In theory.
so if the Fed does nothing, all that money it had injected into the economy will eventually get sucked back out again.) This was known as “QE2.”
First, it injects more cash into banks, allowing them to lend more
Still clinging to the silly trickle-down theory I see.
Too bad your federal reserve comments don't back you up. Look at the bottom of page 2 and the top of page 3 OF YOUR LINK where Bernanke says outright: "The program of MBS purchases should increase the downward pressure on long-term interest rates more generally, but also on mortgage rates, specifically, which should provide further support for the housing sector by encouraging home purchases and refinancing." That is HARDLY "trickle down" (no matter WHO thinks so). Trickle down affects the TOP and it "trickles down" to the BOTTOM. Mortgage rates affect CONSUMERS DIRECTLY - not through giving money or tax breaks to the rich the way REAL "trickle down" works, but giving lower rates directly to CONSUMERS. That's NOT "trickle down", that DIRECT AFFECT.
I don't care WHO calls it "trickle down", it's NOT "trickle down" if it affects the consumer directly. And QE's main purpose - as said OUTRIGHT BY BERNANKE - is to drive interest rates down - and interest rates affect YOU and ME DIRECTLY. It affects us EVERY TIME we make ANY major purchase but ESPECIALLY if we BUY or REFINANCE A HOUSE.
And as I said, go ahead and credit Obama if you want to - you're wrong (the credit goes to Bernanke because the President has no power or control over the Fed Chief), but that's cool if you want to credit Obama. The fact is, QE has done good.
Ken
-Bernanke didn't start QE Trickle Down until after having met with Obama after the 2008 election and Bernanke's term was set to expire in less than a year - so he wanted to keep Obama happy.
-Bernanke did massive QE Trickle Down and pledged to start NEW and even bigger QE Trickle Down. Then Obama renominated him in 2009, where Bernanke defended QE and new and bigger QE programs in his confirmation hearings and described how the benefits would trickle down. Obama could have pulled his nomination.
-Obama in 2013 then picked another QE supporter, Yellen, to replace his 1st QE supporter. During her confirmation hearings, she vocalized support for QE to keep the stock markets up. If Obama didn't like what he heard, like with Bernanke, he could have withdrawn his nomination.
-Obama by fact supports QE, by choosing to keep the Fed run by those who support QE.
To deny this, is to either admit that Obama has an extremely low IQ to the point where he can't understand simple cause and effect OR to basically throw away your integrity by lying to cover up for Obama.
Yes, you selected quote is describing the trickle down, buy securities and watch the trickle.
-Bernanke didn't start QE Trickle Down until after having met with Obama after the 2008 election and Bernanke's term was set to expire in less than a year - so he wanted to keep Obama happy.
-Bernanke did massive QE Trickle Down and pledged to start NEW and even bigger QE Trickle Down. Then Obama renominated him in 2009, where Bernanke defended QE and new and bigger QE programs in his confirmation hearings and described how the benefits would trickle down. Obama could have pulled his nomination.
-Obama in 2013 then picked another QE supporter, Yellen, to replace his 1st QE supporter. During her confirmation hearings, she vocalized support for QE to keep the stock markets up. If Obama didn't like what he heard, like with Bernanke, he could have withdrawn his nomination.
-Obama by fact supports QE, by choosing to keep the Fed run by those who support QE.
To deny this, is to either admit that Obama has an extremely low IQ to the point where he can't understand simple cause and effect OR to basically throw away your integrity by lying to cover up for Obama.
Yes, you selected quote is describing the trickle down, buy securities and watch the trickle.
Oh, and so you KNOW for a FACT that Bernanke wasn't already planning QE before he met with Obama (who has no control over what Bernanke does) - because, well, I guess you were in the room with them eh?
And you KNOW for a FACT that it was Obama's idea to institute QE (which he - like most people - had probably never even heard of before - but that didn't stop him from "thinking of it". And you know that because - again - you were in the room with them eh?
And you KNOW for a FACT that Bernanke implimented QE because Obama told him to do so if he wanted to keep his job, because - yet again - you were in the room with them eh?
It's amazing how you folks just make stuff up and convince yourselves it's true.
Sort'a like the way you make your own definitions for terms like "trickle down". Sounds like by your loose standards ANYTHING is "trickle down".
And BTW WHY WOULDN'T Obama pick Yellen if she was proposing to continue down a path that seems to be working?
And once again, feel free to "pin" QE on Obama - especially since QE certainly seems to be working - with the economy continuing it's slow but steady climb out of the deep hole it was in in January of 2009. A while back I stated that I expect the u-3 UE rate to be below 6% come the end of the year - and that's looking like that's EXACTLY what's going to happen.
Oh, and so you KNOW for a FACT that Bernanke wasn't already planning QE before he met with Obama (who has no control over what Bernanke does) - because, well, I guess you were in the room with them eh?
No control? Really? Guess who appoints the Fed Chairman?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
And you KNOW for a FACT that it was Obama's idea to institute QE (which he - like most people - had probably never even heard of before - but that didn't stop him from "thinking of it". And you know that because - again - you were in the room with them eh?
And you KNOW for a FACT that Bernanke implimented QE because Obama told him to do so if he wanted to keep his job, because - yet again - you were in the room with them eh?
Guess who appoints the Fed Chairman?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
It's amazing how you folks just make stuff up and convince yourselves it's true.
That perfectly describes most of your posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
Sort'a like the way you make your own definitions for terms like "trickle down". Sounds like by your loose standards ANYTHING is "trickle down".
And BTW WHY WOULDN'T Obama pick Yellen if she was proposing to continue down a path that seems to be working?
Like you, Yellen knows little about economics. Like you, she had no clue the worst economic times since the Great Depression was going to hit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
And once again, feel free to "pin" QE on Obama - especially since QE certainly seems to be working - with the economy continuing it's slow but steady climb out of the deep hole it was in in January of 2009. A while back I stated that I expect the u-3 UE rate to be below 6% come the end of the year - and that's looking like that's EXACTLY what's going to happen.
Ken
QE isn't working. The economy isn't getting better as Obama has prolonged the bad times. Prices are rising while the average family income has stayed stagnant.
Ken aka "LordBalfor",
Are you really willing to throw out your entire credibility to try and defend this president on a point that only a low IQ Obama pawn would believe you on?
QE didn't start until Obama won.
Obama chose to renew Bernanke's term as Fed Chairman - and the biggest policy that he was doing was QE and he was pledging to do more of it.
If Obama didn't like the biggest Fed policy - he could have replaced Bernanke with someone that was opposed to massive QE.
Obama then in 2013 replaced a retiring Bernanke with another person pledged to QE.
Obama supports QE, because he fills the FED with people who promise to enact QE. QE is the single biggest FED policy.
The Democrat President picked the chairman and then the Democrat controlled Senate confirmed.
The Democrats have chosen to make the Fed run by people pledged to do QE - the biggest Fed policy at the moment. The Democrats approve of QE Trickle Down.
The Democrat President picked the chairman and then the Democrat controlled Senate confirmed.
56-26. 11 of those voting to confirm were Republican. Sorry but the Senate decided this.
Quote:
The Democrats have chosen to make the Fed run by people pledged to do QE - the biggest Fed policy at the moment. The Democrats approve of QE Trickle Down.
The fed has ALWAYS been ran by the money people.....you do know how it works right?
And please, trying to add "trickle down" to QE is a nice way to try and conflate one policy with a long failed Republican policy, thats so precious.
Interestingly enough though, Yellen has been tapering QE off...... So how does that spin for you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
