Interestingly, this is an idea popularized by textbook economic theory, that some think is quite wrong. Soros is one who thinks it is wrong. [see the Soros lectures at the Central European University, Amazon.]
well I tend to agree with Soros too, in that reflexivity doesn't always affect the markets. I think they try to find equilibrium, but never achieve it. You can see it better in volume profile, where markets gravitate towards previous value areas. It just seems that right now debt is way out of balance and has been for a long long time. Discouraging people from putting their money in the bank won't necessarily correct that problem, to the extent that savings are opposite debt.
what's good for me isn't neccessarily good for the economy. If everybody lived like me we would be in a worldwide depression. I'm debt free and you just can't hardly get me to buy anything. I trimmed my trading acccount way down in 2016 and that money is just sitting in cash. And no matter how negative rates go they just can't make me do anything with that money.
It can be forced on the central bank through fiscal policy, true, or it can enable the government to spend more through taking on more debt at a much lower interest rate. The latter is what we have. Additionally, you and I have argued whether this is "printing" before, and I've shown you that Bernanke himself has admitted to the fact that the Fed was printing money. But you somehow think you are more accurate than the former head of the Federal Reserve. Actually, there are plenty examples. It's more the rule than the exception. This is the first I've ever seen you lay the blame for the 2008 crisis at the feet of the Federal Reserve. Maybe there is hope for you yet.
I've asked you to show this before and you dodged as well. The government has no right to determine winners and losers in the business world. Allowing GM to fail would have resulted in lost jobs, but a more efficient company down the line. It is well established that the labor union support was the reason the government stood behind GM. As for the "numerous studies" that show how the Fed can directly influence unemployment, please show me one that you feel states your case, and let's debate it. There is a very good reason why the Fed influencing employment is referred to as "pushing on a string", and why it is one of the only central banks in the world with the mandate to consider full employment while other stated charters for large banks looks only at price stability. I'm sure you're aware of when Congress decided to pawn the responsibility for employment on the Fed so they didn't have to be responsible for it.
If I recall correctly, Berbanke said, "in effect", or "esentially", "yes". In other words there was a qualifier there. I would rather put it this way: Bernanke knows as much as I do about this topic. We are on the same wavelength in regard to the difference between actual printing and QE. Had he the opportunity, he would, I'm sure, want to change is vocabulary slightly, so as not to mislead you.
I have steadfastly maintained this position and there are numerous posts of mine to back me up. But of course Greenspan had help from Wall Street and the Mortgage Industry.
The topic was whether QE as worthwhile. Your personal philosophy I find to not be very sensible. My previous post regarding how the government raised money without putting upward pressure on rates, via QE, and how the money raised was used for such things as stimulus and TARP, was sufficiently clear to most. For anyone to claim that QE did not accomplish anything is silly.
That's a cute way of looking at it...More to the point is whether QE was anything more than an immediate and desperate fix for a system that was coming apart at the seams...So it bought us a few more years at an enormous cost to future generations...Of course you are perfectly ok with this as are all the liberal baby-boomer's who feel that it is their God given right to enjoy permanent asset inflation.