Among the current voters it's pretty clearly Fisher, Plosser and Kocherlakota. There's obviously others among the non-voters, e.g. Hoenig, Lacker, Lockhart and maybe Bullard. Generally, it's pretty clearly divided along the "saltwater" coastal doves vs the "freshwater" inland hawks. Obviously, their expressed views don't necessarily indicate how they'd vote if push comes to shove, but I'm just pointing out that there's quite a bit of opposition.
You're really on top of this sh*t, Martin. My compliments. Think negative employment would change some minds?
Part of job description, I'm afraid, achilles... And yes, sure, things are fluid and minds might change, but it's quite interesting that the objections that are put forth by the hawks are of the right sort. Specifically, they are pointing out that the cost/benefit analysis of QE suggests that it's just not worthwhile in a deleveraging economy such as the US. It's interesting how the whole idea of a "balance sheet recession" filters through the establishment.
Don Kohn is out saying QE is "very serious consideration." Done deal. The Bernank is probably eyeing muni bonds to make sure they don't fall off a cliff given how Teh Stupid disease is spreading - Teh Stupid is the idea that you can cut spending in a weak economy and expect growth. Markets on rally mode.
What is really QE? It is really replenishing money that has gone overseas due to trade deficit, wars and outsourcing. If you add the numbers, they do add up. It is also punishment of opportunistic regimes like that of China who think they will artificially create huge imbalances with another country through exchange rate manipulation and then lend the money back for more imbalances.
Maybe... The point that all the dissenters are making is that it's ineffective in achieving whatever the goals it sets out to achieve.
QE1,2,3,etc. All they do is add to the money supply. Corporations and multinationals are sitting on mountains of cash but they aren't hiring. In fact they are still firing people left and right. Why? Because they can keep artificially propping up their profit margins even though it appears that none of this is from actual growth. The global economy is on the verge of a decade long japan style stagflation scenario. The various governments with sovereign debt issues will keep printing their troubles away, meanwhile the lack of any job creation and continous layoffs from both private and government sectors will make sure that growth sits dead in the water. The big players know this is coming and hence why they are just sitting on their cash piles and not making any sizable investments, capital or hr wise.
Havn't seen you post any facts to counter what he said. Not sure about you but I always feel more confident when I get free money with no strings attached.
The reasons they argue that are mainly politically motivated. QE prevented massive bank default. It was basically a scheme for re-capitalizing banks. The velocity of money is still falling and that means that more QE is needed to bring banks to a point that they can lend or, alternatively, the money can be diverted directly to corporations by buying corporate paper. This will certainly increase employment. This is the next step. This is what I would do while, at the same time, getting preferred stock in those companies as collateral. Banks have received a very strong blow and it is questionable whether traditional money market operations can lead the economies of US and Europe out of the turmoil. Money has to go directly to corporations IMO.