Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (102890)	9/23/2013 10:38:53 AM
From: carranza2	1 Recommendation Recommended By Paxb2u Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217697

Oh, and by the way, continuing to do same amount of QE is equivalent to taper because the size of QE since QE One has resulted in a huge increase in money supply/stock. This implies that adding the same amount each month increases money stock/supply by a smaller percentage each time. By the time it's all said and done, $85 billion per month will seem like a drop in the barrel. This is probably the fundamental reason why Abenomics relies on massive QE. The modern global leaders in QE have had no success with it and are walking the same plank the French walked in the late 1700s, as has every economy which has proceeded along this dangerous path. QE has a perverse life cycle: once it begins, it inevitably gets bigger, then everything collapses.

To: carranza2 who wrote (102890)	9/23/2013 11:08:43 AM
From: teevee	Respond to of 217697

The velocity of money is hindered by monetary outflows. Until the trade deficit reverses its trend, and foreign buying of treasuries picks up, there can be no tapering. Once that happens, tapering will match reductions in monetary outflows. Mean while, QE and low interest rates are necessary unless you want to create a depression.