Not surprising to see a libertarian-oriented site refer to QE as "money printing". It's not. Monetary policy doesn't increase the net financial assets available in an economy; that's only achieved by fiscal deficit spending. QE is just an asset swap (reserves for tsy's)--it's shifting the yield curve, but not adding anything new.
It is effectively money printing which will lead to inflation but that does not mean it is the wrong thing to do. Inflation over time balances out old debt with new income.
Isn't that just a case of input output? Like throwing a bigger boomerang and saying "hey look, a bigger boomerang is coming back, we're making progress!"?
You would have a point if the 'libertarian-oriented site' referred to QE as "asset printing." It didn't though. QE may not increase financial assets in an economy, but it does increase available money. The money used to purchase the bond did not exist prior to the swap.
Now if you really wanted to argue that this is not money printing, I might accept the claim that the Fed will at some point unwind this position. But even that is highly dubious.
To be more precise, you are using the moniker "money printing" to confuse the issue. See, inflation isn't caused by printing money, inflation is caused by spending. If there is too much spending power going around and the productive capacity of the economy cannot keep up, then prices are going to be bid up.
QE isn't going to cause much more spending, because as grandparent correctly stated, nobody's total amount of assets is going to be changed by QE. After all, suppose you hold long term treasury bonds. Now the Fed offers to buy them at a higher price. Maybe you will take that offer. And maybe you'll use that money to buy some other class of assets. But will you now actually put that money into the real economy, buying some produced goods or services that you would not otherwise have bought?
Most people won't do the latter, and that's why QE isn't going to cause additional spending, and this is why it isn't going to cause inflation.
Note that this is very different from historical episodes where money was printed by the government for direct spending, e.g. by the southern US states during the civil war.
I am not sure I understand your point, I didn't say anything about inflation. Maybe you meant to reply to the original post. But I'll respond nevertheless...
Saying inflation is caused by spending, not by money printing, is akin to saying a heroin addict has a "syringe problem." Sure, the spending is what actually increases prices, but tell me, how can spending actually increase? What allows this to take place? Your line of thinking is similar to Nixon's, when he decided to freeze wages in the 70s, thinking this would tame inflation. How did that work out for him. Just about as well as outlawing syringes would do to eliminate heroin addicts.
The Fed's goal with QE is to increase asset prices, this is not some right-wing conspiracy theory.
I m not an economist, so i might've understood your point wrong, but you just argued that the Feds offered to purchase your long term bonds for a higher price - logically this must mean you've made some money (ala, profit).
So having made profit, wouldn't you then spend that profit on something that you otherwise wouldn't have afford to spend? Thus, this introduces more spending power, and thus, introduce the inflation that you said wouldn't happen?
Let me clarify what I wrote: you have a choice between (a) just keeping the money, (b) buying some other kind of asset, and (c) spending the money in the real economy.
Asset prices can indeed go up, because people do (b), but (c) is almost non-existent, which is why these Fed operations are neither going to help the real economy nor create inflation there.
Keep in mind that those transactions are mostly done by insurances, pension funds, and other types of "money managers".
Yes, the Federal Reserve creates the electronic credits that it uses to purchase the bonds. But this is not "money printing" in any meaningful economic sense because it its just swapping one government liability for another one. There is no functional difference from the govt's persepctive between a reserve deposit and a treasury bond other than the term structure and the fact that the treasury bonds pay interest.
In fact, you could argue that QE ultimately reduces private sector income because it eliminates this interest income.
I've heard people say that the Fed is deliberately creating inflation in order to sabotage the American and global economy. This makes it easier to consolidate real estate and business assets, so it is beneficial to the wealthiest individuals and companies.
But I'm sure I'm just latching onto a simplified explanation because I am too ignorant and stupid to comprehend the complexities of "economic science".
While I'm sure that there are some people who are quite happy about what the Fed is doing, that sounds very much like conspiracy theory nuts.
From what I understand, the Fed is politically in a very crappy position: they have a mandate for high employment (which is a good thing!), but they cannot really do anything to meet that mandate.
To create jobs, somebody needs to actually spend money. Spending money means moving money around so that afterwards, person A has less monetary assets and person B has more monetary assets.
However, the Fed is not allowed to engage in such actions. All it can do is asset swaps. So it can swap short term for long term bonds, for example, but when they do that, everybody still has the same amount of monetary assets afterward. It is only the maturity and interest rate structure that changes.
The hope is that lower interest rates encourage private investment and thus private spending on jobs. However, that's not very realistically going to happen on a larger scale, because demand for products matters much more to firms than a tiny change in interest rates does. And as long as unemployment is high, demand remains low, which means that firms have no incentive to create jobs.
It's a vicious cycle, that in theory the government (the union of legislative and executive branch) should break out of, because they are in a unique position to do so: they are not bound by market constraints. But the government is instead bound by partisan politics and an unscientific belief in the religion of austerity.
So with the government not doing anything, the Fed at least tries to do the best they can to help the situation, which happens to be almost nothing - but they still try, because of the miniscule hope that there are, after all, some positive effects.
