In anticipation of tomorrow’s Federal Reserve meeting, the Twitter feed is abuzz with dilapidated boobs calling for the immediate implementation of “#QE3.” These same twits have been tweeting about “the next QE” since QE2 ran out in June.
They have been senselessly echoing one another, and I have been determinedly mocking them.
Really, if you have the time, check out the #QE3 twitter subject; I’ve been chucking paint on it from my ninth floor pinnacle like an abstract artist.
There’s just no reason for the Federal Reserve to implement QE3 tomorrow. I mean, they certainly could, but far from bowing to those lowest denominations of life presently pandering for it, if the Fed announced another buying program I would still call people betting on the outcome a fool (just after flinging my positions all long on margin).
There’s no good that can come from more money printing at this point. The people who are demanding it are the people who have first line to the all-you-can-eat buffet. But unless the markets start to freeze up, perhaps from some sort of major economic shock like Europe or a major pension shortfall dragging here at home, there’s just no advantage to quantitative easing here.
The real positive effect from printing money, from the stand point of central bankers, is to propagate second chances and avoid situations where a limit of currency stifles development of resources. However, we are arguably hanging out on the other side of the spectrum still.
There’s plenty of money to be had at very cheap rates. What we don’t have is a plethora of men and women who have the credit and worthiness to accept that money.
Additional printing would be sweet if you have access to the Fed programs. So “analysts” at GS are insistent that “we need it.” But “we” is really “we” – as in just them. Additional QE would cause crude oil to spike above $100; food staples would go on a run, with corn probably topping $700 a bushel; the metals would inflate.
How would that help the economy right now? There’d be plenty of dollars available for loan lines, sure, but the demand destruction would wipe out half the businesses that could borrow from them.
QE1 and QE2 were effective as much because people were willing to bet against them as anything else. Broken traders thrown in the trenches fed the programs and made them cheaper for the Fed, which got to spend money for a time, while prices stayed depressed from before the recession got underway.
It was the best of both worlds.
But generally throwing money around is not a free endeavor anymore. More precision is going to be needed, to get money to where it’s needed most, if the economy is to improve. Anything less will cause as much harm as good.
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
… have to say Mr. Cain Thaler :
YOU … have become a must read here for me ! Enjoy the posts !
.
Thank you.
“to get money to where it’s needed most,”
Where pray tell, would that be?
Consumer deleveraging.
then why cant monies just be given to the citizenry. years ago,believe it or not,in california of all places,the people were given monies back to the people of that state from surplus’s. and the state thrived. grant it,we have no surplus’s,but geez if you really want to get to where it’s needed,then just give it to the people.because thats who needs it,the most. what does a captain do after his ship gets gutted by an iceberg,call the AAA.no,you protect all the living.
Excuse me; consumer deleveraging through job creation. I’m not advocating giving cash to everyone with a pulse.
It’s not just about giving money to people who think they’re hurting; it’s about those people using the money appropriately too.
Unfortunately, I can’t help but think that Ben is secretly printing even thought it’s the worst of ideas and we do irreparable damage to this country.
“There’s no good that can come from more money printing at this point.”
There’s a plan. Whether it’s good or not seems to depend on the level of one’s own brainwashing.
The UN has thousands of associated NGOs. The prominent ones, such as the Club of Budapest (COB), help create UN vision and agendas. From the COB web site:
“We support the shift of our economic focus from translational corporate “fusionism” to regional subsistence. Subsistence economy focuses on a “natural” way of living. This is not “back to stone age”. It rather means a spiral, wavelike progress out of the life-destroying habits of today’s so-called civilization and accepting and welcoming the complexity of life.
We support the development of sustainable, decentralized, that is local, high-tech production, combined with local use of local resources. and the redesign of our monetary system according to a fourfold model: 1) economy of gifting (a basic matriarchal feature), 2) counter-trade (barter) economy, 3) complementary local monetary systems for regional trade, and 4) unified currency (for example called “terra”) for interregional and global trade. In our eyes compound interest has to be abolished. Also the concept of “owning” land must be reconsidered.”
http://www.worldshiftnetwork.org/action/subsistence.html
What the fuck are you talking about? Nobody listens to U.N. bodies except for other U.N. bodies.
You speak yet are uneducated. Your words are therefore not important.
By the way, didn’t I just supply you with hard documentation in the post above?
Duh, fucking numbnuts?