There is a world of difference between his professed intent and what I believe is his actual intent. Professed intent: -Be more transparent, open, communicative about future policy Actual intent: -Manage market psychology in an effort to prevent the asset bubble / asset price inflation from going up to fast in order to buy time for the easy credit, easy money policies to filter into the real economy
He didn't say that the Fed's monetary policy was too restrictive. He said that fiscal policy -- that is, the U.S. government's spending -- is "quite restrictive", and cited that as a reason for loose monetary policy. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/ben-bernanke-says-us-fed-stimulus-still-needed/1140483/ http://in.reuters.com/video/2013/07...policy-for?videoId=243929927&videoChannel=104
How can $1 TRILLION/year in deficit spending be "quite restrictive??" Only an idiot dumb-fuck with his head-up-his-ass (or a Libtard sheep) would believe that.
There's no way the Fed can unwind, because the Fed is the biggest buyer. Who would be stupid enough to take the Feds position when it unwinds?
He was referring to the sequester, apparently. At any rate, regardless of what you think about his statement, it wasn't a contradiction of his earlier remarks regarding monetary policy, which is what many people seemed to think it was.
It was a contradiction, because it proved that in fact the Fed is not going to reign in QE, which is what he suggested earlier.
I don't have time right now to read over his remarks or watch the video again, but as I recall he was just talking about being loose with interest rates. I don't think he said anything about QE that could be interpreted as backtracking.
Sequester? HORSESHIT! Cut spending by a fraction of a percent and call it "quite restrictive". How stupid do you think the thinkers of this country are? (We already know how stupid the takers/parasites are.)