“The Federal Reserve is creating hundreds of billions of dollars out of thin air and using that money to buy U.S. government debt and mortgage-backed securities and take them out of circulation. Since the middle of 2008, these purchases have caused the Fed’s balance sheet to balloon from under a trillion dollars to nearly four trillion dollars. This represents the greatest central bank intervention in the history of the planet, and Janet Yellen says that she does not anticipate that it will end any time soon because “the recovery is still fragile”. Of course, as I showed the other day, the truth is that quantitative easing has done essentially nothing for the average person on the street. But what QE has done is that it has sent stocks soaring to record highs. Unfortunately, this stock market bubble is completely and totally divorced from economic reality, and when the easy money is taken away the bubble will collapse. Just look at what happened a few months ago when Ben Bernanke suggested that the Fed may begin to “taper” the amount of quantitative easing that it was doing. The mere suggestion that the flow of easy money would start to slow down a little bit was enough to send the market into deep convulsions. This is why the Federal Reserve cannot stop monetizing debt. The moment the Fed stops, it could throw our financial markets into a crisis even worse than what we saw back in 2008.”
“”It’s not just the Fed, it’s central banking,” Jim Rogers exclaims to Reuters in this brief clip, “this is absolute insanity.” As the world’s central banks, for the first time in history “try to debase their currencies,” simultaneously, Rogers cautions, “the world’s floating around on a huge artificial sea of liquidity.” Rogers goes on to explain that he doesn’t expect Bernanke to taper and fears that Yellen won’t either but hopes that she “knows that this is going to cause problems when they stop producing so much money.” His ominous warning, eventually “it’s going to dry up.. and when it dries up, we’re all going to pay the price for this madness.””
Via Zero Hedge
“A banker named Andrew Huszar that helped manage the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing program during 2009 and 2010 is publicly apologizing for what he has done. He says that quantitative easing has accomplished next to nothing for the average person on the street. Instead, he says that it has been “the greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time.” And of course the cold, hard economic numbers support what Huszar is saying. The percentage of working age Americans with a job has not improved at all during the quantitative easing era, and median household income has actually steadily declined during that time frame. Meanwhile, U.S. stock prices have doubled overall, and the stock prices of the big Wall Street banks have tripled. So who benefits from quantitative easing? It doesn’t take a genius to figure it out, and now Andrew Huszar is blowing the whistle on the whole thing.”
“We went on a bond-buying spree that was supposed to help Main Street. Instead, it was a feast for Wall Street.
I can only say: I’m sorry, America. As a former Federal Reserve official, I was responsible for executing the centerpiece program of the Fed’s first plunge into the bond-buying experiment known as quantitative easing. The central bank continues to spin QE as a tool for helping Main Street. But I’ve come to recognize the program for what it really is: the greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time.
Five years ago this month, on Black Friday, the Fed launched an unprecedented shopping spree. By that point in the financial crisis, Congress had already passed legislation, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, to halt the U.S. banking system’s free fall. Beyond Wall Street, though, the economic pain was still soaring. In the last three months of 2008 alone, almost two million Americans would lose their jobs.
The Fed said it wanted to help—through a new program of massive bond purchases. There were secondary goals, but Chairman Ben Bernanke made clear that the Fed’s central motivation was to “affect credit conditions for households and businesses”: to drive down the cost of credit so that more Americans hurting from the tanking economy could use it to weather the downturn. For this reason, he originally called the initiative “credit easing.”
My part of the story began a few months later. Having been at the Fed for seven years, until early 2008, I was working on Wall Street in spring 2009 when I got an unexpected phone call. Would I come back to work on the Fed’s trading floor? The job: managing what was at the heart of QE’s bond-buying spree—a wild attempt to buy $1.25 trillion in mortgage bonds in 12 months. Incredibly, the Fed was calling to ask if I wanted to quarterback the largest economic stimulus in U.S. history.”
Via Zero Hedge
“I would like readers to consider carefully the fundamental difference between a “real economy” and a “financial economy.” In a real economy, the debt and equity markets as a percentage of GDP are small and are principally designed to channel savings into investments.
In a financial economy or “monetary-driven economy,” the capital market is far larger than GDP and channels savings not only into investments, but also continuously into colossal speculative bubbles. This isn’t to say that bubbles don’t occur in the real economy, but they are infrequent and are usually small compared with the size of the economy. So when these bubbles burst, they tend to inflict only limited damage on the economy.”
“When the U.S. economy dipped into an inflationary recession in 1969, Murray N. Rothbard in his introduction to the Second Edition of America’s Great Depression wrote that the Keynesian paradigm could not explain that phenomenon, but Austrian economics could explain what was happening. If Rothbard was correct — and he was — then one might believe Keynesian “economics” should have been deep-sixed permanently, given it could not explain what everyone saw happening.
Likewise, during the turbulent 1970s and 1980, the bouts of inflationary recessions grew worse and even die-hard political liberals such as ABC News’ economics correspondence, Dan Cordtz, bemoaned the fact that the “rules of economics” no longer seemed to apply. Those so-called rules were not laws of economics at all, but rather were dogma first given by John Maynard Keynes in his infamous work, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money.
Joyous economists such as Arthur Laffer, who espoused a form of what he and others called “Supply Side Economics,” declared that Keynesian “economics” was discredited, perhaps for good. The advent of three more inflationary recessions, including the current downturn, should have resulted in the permanent death of Keynesianism, but, alas, it seems that the Keynesian paradigm is more influential than ever.”
Via Zero Hedge
“As we mentioned earlier, if there was one thing that would guarantee an 1800 print in the Stalingrad and Propaganda 500 index today, it was a 0 or negative ADP print. Well, it wasn’t that bad. But it was close: with a paltry 130K private jobs created in October, this was a monthly plunge in private (i.e. non-government) payrolls, well below expectations, and substantially lower than the September 166K print which also was revised lower to 145K. It was also the 4th consecutive monthly decline starting with a 190K print in June, and it’s all downhill from there. Finally, this was the 7th ADP miss in the past 8 months. We can’t wait as the spinmasters do all they can to explain how private payrolls were affected by a government shutdown.”
Via Zero Hedge
“Now that another annoying gut check moment is safely in the rearview mirror, we can all get back to the business of filling the punch bowl yet another time. Yep, once again, we’ve proven ourselves to be among the dimmest of bulbs and are going right back to the bag of tricks that isn’t working anymore, but nobody seems to be noticing that – at least not on a meaningful level. Yes, I’m referring to the umpteenth opening of the monetary spigots announced gleefully in the mainstream press this week. The whole world is awash in money, every one is rich, and the party is bound to go on for at least another hundred years if you listen to the misinformation misfit mafia.
Marc Faber recently shocked some folks with his prediction that we could soon see a trillion dollar per month monetization program here in the US. He’s probably right too. After all, it makes perfect sense when you consider the path we’ve taken over the past several years. If X won’t do it, then 2X must be the answer. Or maybe X2. This is the very nature of fiat-based monetary systems. The supply of money and credit expand, slowly at first, then exponentially into what Von Mises et al have dubbed the crack up boom. This very logical conclusion is based on simple economics, the laws of supply and demand, and the law of diminishing returns.”
Via Alt Market
” Marc Faber, publisher of The Gloom, Boom & Doom Report, told CNBC on Monday that investors are asking the wrong question about when the Federal Reserve will taper its massive bond-buying program. They should be asking when the central bank will be increasing it, he argued.
“The question is not tapering. The question is at what point will they increase the asset purchases to say $150 [billion] , $200 [billion], a trillion dollars a month,” Faber said in a ” Squawk Box ” interview.
The Fed-which is currently buying $85 billion worth of bonds every month-will hold its October meeting next week to deliberate the future of its asset purchases known as quantitative easing . “
Via Yahoo Finance