Quantitative Easing - Why is it damaging our society and what can be done to fix it?

The initial QE in the US was push $80bn a month for 10-12 months or so? This was going get everything back on an even keel. To a large extent it worked, or at least gave that impression by papering over the cracks in the foundations of the US economy.
Six years on, where are we? QE program No.4? No.5?
And now the amounts are in the region of $350bn a month! Obviously Covid19 did not help, but then again, neither does trying to protect and sustain asset prices.
The ominous thing about this round of 'stimulus', the $1.90trn, is that it comes at a time when asset prices have actually been rising despite economies sinking.
None of it makes any sense most of the time, but now it is just off the charts insofar as any rationale can be applied.
And that is just the US, the Eurozone is a complete basket case.
 
Anyone with assets is delighted - the money had to go somewhere - stock markets up, property prices up, bond prices up
 
jpd said:
Anyone with assets is delighted - the money had to go somewhere - stock markets up, property prices up, bond prices up
Click to expand...
Also some were able to buy assets with cheap credit.
Some companies also can and do buy their own shares back ( backed by very cheap finance ) - which increases the share price for everyone who holds.
The ECB can't really increase interest rates without causing issues within many countries in Europe - but at some point (more in the distant future) it might become necessary.
 
But stock markets didn't all go up, most of the money went into very concentrated areas of the markets, technology and us stocks. Look at the ftse, Europe. Financials, industrials, many.valued at alot less than they were a decade ago. For example the banking executives of a decade ago have been replaced by the collison brother except the collisons are more wealthy but maybe they will be knocked off by the Chinese hot guys in a decade time. Look.at Sean dunne and Sean quinn billionaires in 2007 now in survival mode
 
The two Sean's are examples of how success goes to some people's head and they feel that they are infallible. Both made disastrous investment decisions which failed and brought down the whole enterprise.

Not the first, and certainly, not the last.

Very few business successes remain modest and keep their feet on the ground - realising that there is always a bit of luck in their success and that it is not 100% down to their undoubted expertise
 
But the point is that the super wealthy of years gone by are no longer the super wealthy of today, the industrialists and bankers of yesterday have been replaced by the tech billionaires of today , it's not a homogeneous unchanging group of people, many billionaires have also lost their wealth again even if through their own actions.
 
I suspect that it is not the billionaires that lost their wealth rather their grandchildren lost their inherited wealth
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top