Huh? Surely, having seen my posts, you would have to conclude that I have quite a bit to contribute. What's more, I actually take the time to do it. Whether you disagree with the views expressed in my posts is another matter altogether. Would you like me to specifically address the factual/logical errors in your post? That way you might actually decide I am contributing...
GG, you asked a simple direct question...the fact that nobody offered you a direct answer must be revealling. Check out a recent paper published by the NY Fed this past may...see Seth B. Carpenter and Selva Demiralp, "Money, Reserves, and the Transmission of Monetary Policy: Does the Money Multiplier Exist?" Federal Reserve Bank of New York, publication 2010-41, published this past May as a staff working paper in the Finance and Economics Discussion Series. I am sure you can find it by going to the NY York Fed web site and searcing publications. This paper uses real econometrics and regression analysis to show that there is no transmission effect in monetary policy between reserves, money supply and bank lending that actually effect the price change indexes in the way accepted monetary policy predicts. If you like that paper, let me know, and I can direct you to other papers and books.
See Ed Breen's post, right above this one. He and I come to different conclusions from that data, but it's still a good one.
printing debt money is naked shorting the dollar = QE actual printing is actual printing = what happened in zimbabwe the first one leads to the dollar gaining value when the naked shorting isnt possible anymore (the carry trade unwinds = example Japan) The second one leads to USA losing number 1 spot in the world, valueless dollar, hyperinflation etc. Basically its a choice between depression, or hyperinflation and depression.
You do realise there is a whole subject based on the maths of macroeconomics called econometrics. There is a good book by David Romer called Advanced Macroeconomics. This might help but may be too advanced for a beginner, perhaps macroeconomic theory and practice by branson.
Yep, I realize it... However, IMHO, modern macroeconomics is hardly a mathematically sophisticated exact science. Hence my comment.