QE punished savers for nothing.

August 12, 2013, 3:43 PM

Economists at the San Francisco Fed Bank released a paper on Monday estimating that asset purchases, also known as quantitative easing, add only “a moderate boost” to economic growth.

QE2 would only have added 0.04 percentage point to growth, the economists found.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capito...sign-that-fed-is-falling-out-of-love-with-qe/

 

why for nothing?

have you heard JPM had zero negative trading days in the last six months
and overall banks make record profits and now largest S&P sector again

and it's all financed by savers

 

that's the plan, savers will be left with nothing

 

Few benefit at the expense of many.......:eek:

 

Yup .... for 10000 years, since we have chosen the toughest, smartest and most capable as leaders. Time for a change perhaps?

 

The Fed's primary function is to save/backstop the banks... regardless of rhetoric.... regardless of who gets screwed in the process.

 

Why are people so surprised?

Through out all human history the elite (what ever it calls itself) always takes advantage of the rest of population.

When they get too greedy or careless, revolutions happen, and then the whole cycle starts again.

The difference now is that it is a bit easier to join their ranks than it was in past centuries.

Nothing is new under the sun.

 

How does this reconcile with the widely held ET belief that we are in a phantom economy held up by QE alone?

 

the belief on ET, same as on main street, backed by propaganda from the Fed is that QE saved the economy from a depression.

 

Very insightful question, I would think. I suppose your question suggests that someone is perhaps wrong. Is it the author(s) of the San Francisco Fed paper, or is it the ET crowd? Or is there another possibility still? Are we, having not read the paper, just, as often enough happens here in ET's hallowed forums, uniformed.

Could it be that relative to where the economy could have been, easy to say, or would have been, hard to say, that the economy is exhibiting a couple of percentage points stronger growth? Is there a misunderstanding because the goalposts aren't where we assume they are? Are we looking at relative measures, but interpreting them is if they were absolute? Where are those goal posts? Are the goal post in motion? And where is Einstein when we need him?