> Quantitative easing (QE) is a monetary policy whereby a central bank purchases predetermined amounts of government bonds or other financial assets (e.g., municipal bonds, corporate bonds, stocks, etc.) in order to inject money into the economy to expand economic activity.
QE was the bailout, primarily. It is what economists call monetary policy, with the other side of economic policy being called fiscal policy. The fiscal side of the bailout was much smaller, amost by 3 orders of magnitude. Anyways, it's Ok to be new to a subject but you shouldn't state as much in the first sentence and then start pronouncing what look to be conclusions in the second.
The author does not ask the question which many are asking: Why is it okay to use quantitative easing[1] for the ongoing bail-out of banks, but not for the provision of public services?
"As of September 2012, the Bank of England had committed a total of £375bn to QE, while on 14 September the Fed said it would spend a further $40bn (£25bn) per month. This was on top of the $2.3 Trillion the Fed had already put into QE since 2008... are the UK and US's actions different from 1920s Germany and Zimbabwe?"
Turning "QE" into a catchall for anything even sort of related to central banks holding more bonds isn't helpful. When words have too many meanings they have none, communication breaks down and people talk past each other, exactly as is happening here.
reply