Questionable headline at Fiscal Times via Yahoo!.
For the trillions already doled out to the financial sector via those “quantitative easing” asset purchases, every family in America could have been on the receiving end of $56,000.
The result, the authors contend, would be an economic boost fueled not by re-inflating the housing market but by consumer spending, which accounts for nearly 70 percent of America's GDP.
What qualified financial assets would households have been able to offer in exchange for these USD balances from the Fed? Oh yeah, I forgot, the government is the same as a household...
More sub-par commentary provided by the mainstream as usual.
7 comments:
Yes, but then Middle Class incomes would be "out of control" ... instead of CEO pay. :(
More semantics. Who's control?
As Bill Clinton infamously didn't say (publicly): "define Control."
But Roger the ceo's don't provide qualified financial assets to the Fed either in exchange for their compensation... whether deemed "too high" or not...
This article gives the false impression that "the Fed gave the banks free money!" implying that they could have "given the money" to households instead... which is all false...
rsp,
Justin you could run circles around all of these people.... rsp,
If they gave Americans the securities and put them in their "Social Security Accounts" or in the Social Security Trust Fund it would boost confidence in the social security system and wouldn't really do a hell of a lot different than sitting on the balance sheet of the fed. Problem is that monetary folks want to be able to sell them back into the market..
Hey Justin, get this quote from the Fed yesterday:
" Fiscal policy is restraining economic growth, although the extent of restraint is diminishing."
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20140917a.htm
The Fed THEMSELVES are creating fiscal drag by removing the interest they "earn" on what is now an over $4T portfolio.... probably over 100B annual!
And fiscal looks like it will not reach last FY's total at this point so couple this with the Fed STILL INCREASING its portfolio size where the hell do they come up with the word "diminishing"?
rsp
I assume the FOMC is referring to discretionary cuts/sequestration which is mostly behind us now. But if Repubs take over in November, I'd expect fiscal drag/uncertainty to come back some.
With the Fed I've come to realize that you have to read between the lines. What they believe, and what they want the public to believe, are often not the same.
That's why they keep the minute secret for five years. The supposedly most powerful tool the Fed has is managing expectations through the bully pulpit. In fact, they got nuthin' else in their arsenal when it comes right down to it because their other tools take so long to have any effect, largely because the transmission is through housing.
Post a Comment