![Google](http://www.google.com/images/poweredby_transparent/poweredby_FFFFFF.gif)
Videos: Quantitative Easing is actually Quantitative Looting
From Alex James
Private Central Banks can create an unlimited amount of money by monetizing government and commercial bank bonds. This money then becomes the Private Commercial Banks reserves on deposit at the Private Central Banks. Private Commercial Banks can then create 9 to 10 times that amount of money from nothing by monetizing personal and corporate debts such as corporate bonds and mortgages.
Through this process, owners of banks take ownership of the World’s wealth by creating money from nothing, e.g. when a bank creates money from nothing to buy debt instruments (bonds, mortgages, etc.), it actually becomes the owner of wealth which it did not have to lend previously. Both legalized and illegal counterfeiting produce the same effect, i.e. wealth transfer theft or expropriation. This is explained by the eminent Austrian Professor Franz Hörmann at the Economics University in Vienna (TED talk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=88ksYFsleto, see also The Money Myth: Professor Jem Bendell at TEDxTransmedia2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5uGLbV5zVo ), on the workings of the private creation of money from nothing: "If one creates money out of thin air and then passes on what did not exist before and charges interest on it and uses physical assets as collateral, then that is in reality a model for expropriation." The effect is compounded through the process of inflation which steals from the existing holders of already issued money, etc..
Quite to the contrary of what the public is told to believe, the national debt owed to private central banks and commercial banks is in fact a record of how much banks have expropriated from The People. And unlike individual and corporate debt which disappears upon death, national debt/interest is inherited eternally from the old generation to the new generation.
This video explains QE looting in simple terms: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PTUY16CkS-k (also available at http://www.independentamerican.org/2010/11/12/greatest-video-on-federal-reserve-ever/ )
Congressman Ron Paul explains: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea1OCgSmadg
This video explains about the Lords of Money: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzyOtl4MDC4
Quantitative Easing is an extension of this wealth transfer as explained in the links at the end and here:
Steal from the poor to give to the rich
Quantitative easing is essentially the Federal Reserve creating money and then handing it to the richest banks by either purchasing worthless bank securities or lending banks at very very very low interest rate and paying the banks a higher interest rate to keep this money as reserves at the Fed. This facility is not available to others. Meanwhile, all that new money eventually floating around will erode the value of the dollars in the hands of the working taxpayers. So their grocery bills go up. Their fuel costs go up. Their daycare costs increase and their utility bills creep ever skyward.
But the rich banksters are simultaneously rolling in FREE Fed cash, and instead of actually lending this money out and doing something useful with it, they crank up their own executive bonuses to make sure they get paid while the rest of the economy crumbles. And why? It’s simple: Because people are crooks, and if they get handed $40 billion a month in free money, they’re just going to grin and say, “How can we get MORE?” That’s the credo of the banks: MORE!
When you’re out of a job and looking for honest work just to put a roof over your head, the bank is repossessing your house and screaming “MORE!”
When you can’t make that car payment and you have to start riding the bus with the minimum wage masses, the banks scream “MORE!”
When you’re trying to put healthy food on the table for your own family, and you see food prices ratcheting higher and higher as the value of your hard-earned dollar erodes, the banks scream “MORE!”
This mantra is all they know. The top global banks do not operate on compassion, benefit to society, fairness or even anything resembling lawful activity. They simply hornswaggle their way into the receiving end of ALL the money: Mortgage money, bailout money, government money and of course Fed money. That’s the game, you see: Screw the whole world and everybody in it. There’s MORE to be had!
Fed pumping is essentially a Ponzi scheme
How long will this go on? Until the whole system suddenly collapses due to its own corruption and greed. All such systems eventually collapse, of course. The Federal Reserve is essentially pushing a global Ponzi scheme where new money is created in order to keep old money from being lost.
The problem with all Ponzi schemes is that their very survival depends on continually expanding the money base upon which they operate. And since mathematics tells us that no currency system can be expanded to infinity, every such Ponzi-like system must, by definition, come crashing down.
We’ve seen it time and time again, of course.
Can this happen to the U.S. dollar?
The Fed has been paying the big banks high enough interest on the funds which they deposit at the Fed to discourage banks from making loans. Indeed, the Fed has explicitly stated that – in order to prevent inflation – it wants to ensure that the banks don’t loan out money into the economy, but instead deposit it at the Fed.
The U.S. dollar has a large circulation base. The U.S. dollar M2 money supply is roughly $10 trillion. That sounds really large until you consider the U.S. national debt is, all by itself, $16 trillion. (www.USdebtClock.org) In just four more years, by 2016, that debt will almost certainly reach $22 trillion. (http://www.usdebtclock.org/cbo-omb-gop-budget-estimates.html)
On top of all this, if the Fed is printing $85 billion a month, it adds another trillion dollars to the monetary base each year. Effectively, this means the Fed will be expanding the money supply by 10% annually, from day one. Except it doesn’t end there, of course. In just a few months, the $85 billion a month will need to be increased to $200 billion a month. Then $500 billion a month. And before you know it, the Fed is creating one trillion dollars a month in a grand, final blowout of the U.S. dollar.
QE3 becomes the “infinite bailout” strategy of the Fed. But there’s a problem in all this: Infinite money creation means infinite devaluation. As the money supply expands, the value of the dollars currently in circulation (physically or electronically) approaches ZERO.
A global debt dump is inevitable
The final phase of all this will be radically accelerated, of course, by the dumping of U.S. government debt by other central banks in China, Japan and elsewhere. When they see the writing on the wall, they’ll stage a selloff. The selloff will send shockwaves throughout the financial sector, causing investors to flee the dollar and ultimately resulting in the Fed creating even more fiat currency to buy back U.S. debt in a last-ditch effort to prevent a national bankruptcy.
This is the point where you get into Zimbabwe territory… where the government is forced to issue “new dollars” with a trade-in value of 1,000,000 to 1, and where the Fed becomes the last buyer of U.S. debt because nobody else will touch it. This is a lot like getting a cash advance on your credit card in order to make your minimum monthly payment. The debt accumulates as crushing compound interest, and there is no escape from the inevitable default.
Timing? Still unknown
Personally, I’m always amazed at how long corrupt institutions can prop up their monetary scams, so I tend to think a full-blown meltdown might require years to take place. That’s not an official prediction, however; it’s just a cautious warning to be safe rather than sorry. Historically, my own predictions tend to be 1-3 years too early. I began warning about the dot-com bubble in 1998, for example, and it didn’t burst until 2001. I began warning about the housing bubble a year or two before it collapsed.
Either way, the U.S. dollar has become a game of musical chairs, and the loser is anyone holding dollars when the music stops. Don’t have all your eggs in the dollar basket when that day comes, okay? Diversify into storable food, gold, farm land… anything that holds value through a currency collapse.
Because remember, the value of the currency you hold can be stolen from you through inflation even if the physical paper money is not. This swindle has been repeated countless times throughout human history, always by corrupt central bankers and government conspirators. Time after time, the People get scammed, and time after time, most of them can’t even figure out who stole the money. That’s the evil genius of the entire plan: Currency creation is invisible theft. With every new dollar they create, they effectively steal one dollar’s worth of purchasing power from those who hold the currency.
In essence, then, the Federal Reserve has announce its plan to steal $85 billion a month from those who hold U.S. dollars… with no limit to the number of months this theft will continue.
We are staring into the eyes of the beast here, looking at the greatest financial swindle ever pulled off in the history of the world. This is the banker end game. When this chapter is complete, the people will be left with nothing while the banks own everything. It’s all about MORE! …remember?
This article was posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 at 4:57 am
81.5% of Money Created through Quantitative Easing Is Sitting There Gathering Dust … Instead of Helping the Economy
June 26, 2013
Robert D. Auerbach – an economist with the U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Committee for eleven years, assisting with oversight of the Federal Reserve, and now Professor of Public Affairs at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin – notes today:
There is a massive misconception about where the Bernanke Fed’s stimulus landed. Although the Bernanke Fed has disbursed $2.284 trillion in new money (the monetary base) since August 1, 2008, one month before the 2008 financial crisis, 81.5 percent now sits idle as excess reserves in private banks. The banks are not required to hold excess reserves. The excess reserves exploded from $831 billion in August 2008 to $1.863 trillion on June 14, 2013. The excess reserves of the nation’s private banks had previously stayed at nearly zero since 1959 as seen on the St. Louis Fed’s chart. The banks did not leave money idle in excess reserves at zero interest because they were investing in income earning assets, including loans to consumers and businesses.
This 81.5 percent explosion in idle excess reserves means that the Bernanke Fed’s new money issues of $85 billion each month have never been a big stimulus. Approximately 81.5 percent (or $69.27 billion) is either bought by banks or deposited into banks where it sits idle as excess reserves. The rest of the $85 billion, approximately 18.5 percent (or $15.72 billion) continues to circulate or is held as required reserves on banks’ deposit accounts (unlike unrequired excess reserves).
What’s Professor Auerbach talking about?
We’ve repeatedly pointed out that the Federal Reserve has been intentionally discouraged banks from lending to Main Street – in a misguided attempt to curb inflation – which has increased unemployment and stalled out the economy.
We noted in 2010:
[T]he Fed has been paying the big banks high enough interest on the funds which they deposit at the Fed to discourage banks from making loans. Indeed, the Fed has explicitly stated that – in order to prevent inflation – it wants to ensure that the banks don’t loan out money into the economy, but instead deposit it at the Fed:
Why is M1 crashing? [the M1 money multiplier basically measures how much the money supply increases for each $1 increase in the monetary base, and it gives an indication of the "velocity" of money, i.e. how quickly money is circulating through the system]
Because the banks continue to build up their excess reserves, instead of lending out money:
(Click for full image)
These excess reserves, of course, are deposited at the Fed:
(Click for full image)
Why are banks building up their excess reserves?
As the Fed notes:
The Federal Reserve Banks pay interest on required reserve balances–balances held at Reserve Banks to satisfy reserve requirements–and on excess balances–balances held in excess of required reserve balances and contractual clearing balances.
The New York Fed itself said in a July 2009 staff report that the excess reserves are almost entirely due to Fed policy:
Since September 2008, the quantity of reserves in the U.S. banking system has grown dramatically, as shown in Figure 1.1 Prior to the onset of the financial crisis, required reserves were about $40 billion and excess reserves were roughly $1.5 billion. Excess reserves spiked to around $9 billion in August 2007, but then quickly returned to pre-crisis levels and remained there until the middle of September 2008. Following the collapse of Lehman Brothers, however, total reserves began to grow rapidly, climbing above $900 billion by January 2009. As the figure shows, almost all of the increase was in excess reserves. While required reserves rose from $44 billion to $60 billion over this period, this change was dwarfed by the large and unprecedented rise in excess reserves.
[Figure 1 is here]
Why are banks holding so many excess reserves? What do the data in Figure 1 tell us about current economic conditions and about bank lending behavior? Some observers claim that the large increase in excess reserves implies that many of the policies introduced by the Federal Reserve in response to the financial crisis have been ineffective. Rather than promoting the flow of credit to firms and households, it is argued, the data shown in Figure 1 indicate that the money lent to banks and other intermediaries by the Federal Reserve since September 2008 is simply sitting idle in banks’ reserve accounts. Edlin and Jaffee (2009), for example, identify the high level of excess reserves as either the “problem” behind the continuing credit crunch or “if not the problem, one heckuva symptom” (p.2). Commentators have asked why banks are choosing to hold so many reserves instead of lending them out, and some claim that inducing banks to lend their excess reserves is crucial for resolving the credit crisis.
This view has lead to proposals aimed at discouraging banks from holding excess reserves, such as placing a tax on excess reserves (Sumner, 2009) or setting a cap on the amount of excess reserves each bank is allowed to hold (Dasgupta, 2009). Mankiw (2009) discusses historical concerns about people hoarding money during times of financial stress and mentions proposals that were made to tax money holdings in order to encourage lending. He relates these historical episodes to the current situation by noting that “[w]ith banks now holding substantial excess reserves, [this historical] concern about cash hoarding suddenly seems very modern.”
[In fact, however,] the total level of reserves in the banking system is determined almost entirely by the actions of the central bank and is not affected by private banks’ lending decisions.
The liquidity facilities introduced by the Federal Reserve in response to the crisis have created a large quantity of reserves. While changes in bank lending behavior may lead to small changes in the level of required reserves, the vast majority of the newly-created reserves will end up being held as excess reserves almost no matter how banks react. In other words, the quantity of excess reserves depicted in Figure 1 reflects the size of the Federal Reserve’s policy initiatives, but says little or nothing about their effects on bank lending or on the economy more broadly.
This conclusion may seem strange, at first glance, to readers familiar with textbook presentations of the money multiplier.
Why Is The Fed Locking Up Excess Reserves?
Why is the Fed locking up excess reserves?
As Fed Vice Chairman Donald Kohn said in a speech on April 18, 2009:
We are paying interest on excess reserves, which we can use to help provide a floor for the federal funds rate, as it does for other central banks, even if declines in lending or open market operations are not sufficient to bring reserves down to the desired level.
Kohn said in a speech on January 3, 2010:
Because we can now pay interest on excess reserves, we can raise short-term interest rates even with an extraordinarily large volume of reserves in the banking system. Increasing the rate we offer to banks on deposits at the Federal Reserve will put upward pressure on all short-term interest rates.
As the Minneapolis Fed’s research consultant, V. V. Chari, wrote this month:
Currently, U.S. banks hold more than $1.1 trillion of reserves with the Federal Reserve System. To restrict excessive flow of reserves back into the economy, the Fed could increase the interest rate it pays on these reserves. Doing so would not only discourage banks from draining their reserve holdings, but would also exert upward pressure on broader market interest rates, since only rates higher than the overnight reserve rate would attract bank funds. In addition, paying interest on reserves is supported by economic theory as a means of reducing monetary inefficiencies, a concept referred to as “the Friedman rule.”
And the conclusion to the above-linked New York Fed article states:
We also discussed the importance of paying interest on reserves when the level of excess reserves is unusually high, as the Federal Reserve began to do in October 2008. Paying interest on reserves allows a central bank to maintain its influence over market interest rates independent of the quantity of reserves created by its liquidity facilities. The central bank can then let the size of these facilities be determined by conditions in the financial sector, while setting its target for the short-term interest rate based on macroeconomic conditions. This ability to separate monetary policy from the quantity of bank reserves is particularly important during the recovery from a financial crisis. If inflationary pressures begin to appear while the liquidity facilities are still in use, the central bank can use its interest-on-reserves policy to raise interest rates without necessarily removing all of the reserves created by the facilities.
As the NY Fed explains in more detail:
The central bank paid interest on reserves to prevent the increase in reserves from driving market interest rates below the level it deemed appropriate given macroeconomic conditions. In such a situation, the absence of a money-multiplier effect should be neither surprising nor troubling.
Is the large quantity of reserves inflationary?
Some observers have expressed concern that the large quantity of reserves will lead to an increase in the inflation rate unless the Federal Reserve acts to remove them quickly once the economy begins to recover. Meltzer (2009), for example, worries that “the enormous increase in bank reserves — caused by the Fed’s purchases of bonds and mortgages — will surely bring on severe inflation if allowed to remain.” Feldstein (2009) expresses similar concern that “when the economy begins to recover, these reserves can be converted into new loans and faster money growth” that will eventually prove inflationary. Under a traditional operational framework, where the central bank influences interest rates and the level of economic activity by changing the quantity of reserves, this concern would be well justified. Now that the Federal Reserve is paying interest on reserves, however, matters are different.
When the economy begins to recover, firms will have more profitable opportunities to invest, increasing their demands for bank loans. Consequently, banks will be presented with more lending opportunities that are profitable at the current level of interest rates. As banks lend more, new deposits will be created and the general level of economic activity will increase. Left unchecked, this growth in lending and economic activity may generate inflationary pressures. Under a traditional operating framework, where no interest is paid on reserves, the central bank must remove nearly all of the excess reserves from the banking system in order to arrest this process. Only by removing these excess reserves can the central bank limit banks’ willingness to lend to firms and households and cause short-term interest rates to rise.
Paying interest on reserves breaks this link between the quantity of reserves and banks’ willingness to lend. By raising the interest rate paid on reserves, the central bank can increase market interest rates and slow the growth of bank lending and economic activity without changing the quantity of reserves. In other words, paying interest on reserves allows the central bank to follow a path for short-term interest rates that is independent of the level of reserves. By choosing this path appropriately, the central bank can guard against inflationary pressures even if financial conditions lead it to maintain a high level of excess reserves.
This logic applies equally well when financial conditions are normal. A central bank may choose to maintain a high level of reserve balances in normal times because doing so offers some important advantages, particularly regarding the operation of the payments system. For example, when banks hold more reserves they tend to rely less on daylight credit from the central bank for payments purposes. They also tend to send payments earlier in the day, on average, which reduces the likelihood of a significant operational disruption or of gridlock in the payments system. To capture these benefits, a central bank may choose to create a high level of reserves as a part of its normal operations, again using the interest rate it pays on reserves to influence market interest rates.Because financial conditions are not “normal”, it appears that preventing inflation seems to be the Fed’s overriding purpose in creating conditions ensuring high levels of excess reserves.
***
As Barron’s notes:
The multiplier’s decline “corresponds so exactly to the expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet,” says Constance Hunter, economist at hedge-fund firm Galtere. “It hits at the core of the problem in a credit crisis. Until [the multiplier] expands, we can’t get sustainable growth of credit, jobs, consumption, housing. When the multiplier starts to go back up toward 1.8, then we know the psychological logjam has begun to break.”
***
It’s not just the Fed. The NY Fed report notes:
Most central banks now pay interest on reserves.
Auerbach explained in 2010:
Immediately after the recession took a dramatic dive in September 2008, the Bernanke Fed implemented a policy that continues to further damage the incentive for banks to lend to businesses. On October 6, 2008 the Fed’s Board of Governors, chaired by Ben Bernanke, announced it would begin paying interest on the reserve balances of the nation’s banks, major lenders to medium and small size businesses.
You don’t need a Ph.D. economist to know that if you pay banks ¼ percent risk free interest to hold reserves that they can obtain at near zero interest, that would be an incentive to hold the reserves. The Fed pumped out huge amounts of money, with the base of the money supply more than doubling from August 2008 to August 2010, reaching $1.99 trillion. Guess who has over half of this money parked in cold storage? The banks have $1.085 trillion on reserves drawing interest, The Fed records show they were paid $2.18 billion interest on these reserves in 2009.
A number of people spoke about the disincentive for bank lending embedded in this policy including Chairman Bernanke.
***
Jim McTague, Washington Editor of Barrons, wrote in his February 2, 2009 column, “Where’s the Stimulus:” “Increasing the supply of credit might help pump up spending, too. University of Texas Professor Robert Auerbach an economist who studied under the late Milton Friedman, thinks he has the makings of a malpractice suit against Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, as the Fed is holding a record number of reserves: $901 billion in January as opposed to $44 billion in September, when the Fed began paying interest on money commercial banks parked at the central bank. The banks prefer the sure rate of return they get by sitting in cash, not making loans. Fed, stop paying, he says.”
Shortly after this article appeared Fed Chairman Bernanke explained: “Because banks should be unwilling to lend reserves at a rate lower than they can receive from the Fed, the interest rate the Fed pays on bank reserves should help to set a floor on the overnight interest rate.” (National Press Club, February 18, 2009) That was an admission that the Fed’s payment of interest on reserves did impair bank lending. Bernanke’s rationale for interest payments on reserves included preventing banks from lending at lower interest rates. That is illogical at a time when the Fed’s target interest rate for federal funds, the small market for interbank loans, was zero to a quarter of one percent. The banks would be unlikely to lend at negative rates of interest — paying people to take their money — even without the Fed paying the banks to hold reserves.
The next month William T. Gavin, an excellent economist at the St. Louis Federal Reserve, wrote in its March April 2009 publication: “first, for the individual bank, the risk-free rate of ¼ percent must be the bank’s perception of its best investment opportunity.”
The Bernanke Fed’s policy was a repetition of what the Fed did in 1936 and 1937 which helped drive the country into a second depression. Why does Chairman Bernanke, who has studied the Great Depression of the 1930′s and has surely read the classic 1963 account of improper actions by the Fed on bank reserves described by Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz, repeat the mistaken policy?
As the economy pulled out of the deep recession in 1936 the Fed Board thought the U.S. banks had too much excess reserves, so they began to raise the reserves banks were required to hold. In three steps from August 1936 to May 1937 they doubled the reserve requirements for the large banks (13 percent to 26 percent of checkable deposits) and the country banks (7 percent to 14 percent of checkable deposits).
Friedman and Schwartz ask: “why seek to immobilize reserves at that time?” The economy went back into a deep depression. The Bernanke Fed’s 2008 to 2010 policy also immobilizes the banking system’s reserves reducing the banks’ incentive to make loans.
This is a bad policy even if the banks approve. The correct policy now should be to slowly reduce the interest paid on bank reserves to zero and simultaneously maintain a moderate increase in the money supply by slowly raising the short term market interest rate targeted by the Fed. Keeping the short term target interest rate at zero causes many problems, not the least of which is allowing banks to borrow at a zero interest rate and sit on their reserves so they can receive billions in interest from the taxpayers via the Fed. Business loans from banks are vital to the nations’ recovery.
The fact that the Fed is suppressing lending and inflation at a time when it says it is trying to encourage both shows that the Fed is saying one thing and doing something else entirely.
Ellen Brown added some details in 2011:
Bruce Bartlett, writing in the Fiscal Times in July 2010, observed:
Economists are divided on why banks are not lending, but increasingly are focusing on a Fed policy of paying interest on reserves — a policy that began, interestingly enough, on October 9, 2008, at almost exactly the moment when the financial crisis became acute. . .
Historically, the Fed paid banks nothing on required reserves. This was like a tax equivalent to the interest rate banks could have earned if they had been allowed to lend such funds. But in 2006, the Fed requested permission to pay interest on reserves because it believes that it would help control the money supply should inflation reappear.
. . . [M]any economists believe that the Fed has unwittingly encouraged banks to sit on their cash and not lend it by paying interest on reserves.
At one time, banks collected deposits from their own customers and stored them for their own liquidity needs, using them to back loans and clear outgoing checks. But today banks typically borrow (or “buy”) liquidity, either from other banks, from the money market, or from the commercial paper market. The Fed’s payment of interest on reserves competes with all of these markets for ready-access short-term funds, creating a shortage of the liquidity that banks need to make loans.
By inhibiting interbank lending, the Fed appears to be creating a silent “liquidity squeeze” — the same sort of thing that brought on the banking crisis of September 2008. According to Jeff Hummel, associate professor of economics at San Jose State University, it could happen again. He warns that paying interest on reserves “may eventually rank with the Fed’s doubling of reserve requirements in the 1930s and bringing on the recession of 1937 within the midst of the Great Depression.”
The bank bailout and the Federal Reserve’s two “quantitative easing” programs were supposedly intended to keep credit flowing to the local economy; but despite trillions of dollars thrown at Wall Street banks, these programs have succeeded only in producing mountains of “excess reserves” that are now sitting idle in Federal Reserve bank accounts. A stunning $1.6 trillion in excess reserves have accumulated since the collapse of Lehman Brothers on September 15, 2008.
The justification for TARP — the Trouble Asset Relief Program that subsidized the nation’s largest banks — was that it was necessary to unfreeze credit markets. The contention was that banks were refusing to lend to each other, cutting them off from the liquidity that was essential to the lending business. But an MIT study reported in September 2010 showed that immediately after the Lehman collapse, the interbank lending markets were actually working. They froze, not when Lehman died, but when the Fed started paying interest on excess reserves in October 2008. According to the study, as summarized in The Daily Bail:
. . . [T]he NY Fed’s own data show that interbank lending during the period from September to November did not “freeze,” collapse, melt down or anything else. In fact, every single day throughout this period, hundreds of billions were borrowed and paid back. The decline in daily interbank lending came only when the Fed ballooned its balance sheet and started paying interest on excess reserves.
Related posts:
- Bernanke Knew Back in 1988 that Quantitative Easing Doesn’t Work
- Quantitative Easing Benefits the Super-Elite … And Hurts the Little Guy and the American Economy
- Do You Realize That The Government Is Still Paying Banks Not To Lend…?
- Quantitative Easing Rounds 1 and 2 Hurt the Economy … Bernanke Proposes Round 3
- 9 Reasons Why Quantitative Easing Is Bad For The U.S. Economy
This article was posted: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 at 5:00 am
1. Congressman Ron Paul discredits Quantitative Easing. Ben ...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea1OCgSmadg
o Cached
Mar 13, 2012 - Congressman Ron Paul discredits Quantitative Easing. Ben Bernanke caught transferring wealthagain. SergeantPepper99·608 videos
1. Does Quantitative Easing Benefit the 99% or the 1%? | Washington's ...
www.washingtonsblog.com/.../forget-competing-theories-about-quantitat...
o Cached
Apr 29, 2012 - What Do the Facts Say about Quantitative Easing? ... The Fed is transferringimmense wealthfrom the middle class to the most affluent, from the ...
2. QE — the ultimate subsidy for the rich » Spectator Blogs
blogs.spectator.co.uk/.../08/qe-the-ultimate-subsidy-for-the-rich/
o Cached
Aug 23, 2012 - It's official: Quantitative Easinghas marked the biggest transferof wealthto the rich of any government policy in recent documented history.
1. Quantitative Easing. Ben Bernanke caught transferring wealth again ...
www.thecentralbanker.com/quantitative-easing-ben-bernanke-caught-tra...
o Cached
2 Responses to “Quantitative Easing. Ben Bernanke caught transferring wealthagain” Subscribe. Dominic Figueroa May 20, 2013 at 2:11 pm #. get'em
3. How Quantitative Easing is bad for the economy - AAV
anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com/.../quantitative-easing-transfer-bad-eco...
o Cached
Sep 14, 2012 - It is quite clear from this evidence that Quantitative Easingpolices have tended to transfer wealthfrom many millions of ordinary people with ...
4. Britain's richest 5% gained most from quantitative easing – Bank of ...
www.guardian.co.uk › Business › Quantitative easing
o Cached
Aug 23, 2012 - Threadneedle Street said that wealthyfamilies had been the biggest beneficiaries of its £375bn quantitative-easing(QE) .... BARCLAYCARD Platinum Credit Card with Extended Balance Transfer, 0.00%, 27 months, More.
5. quantitative easing - The Greatest Wealth Transfer in History
www.cashflowdragon.com/tag/quantitative-easing/
o Cached
The Federal Reserve is believed to step in again with more quantitative easing, but is this really the solution to the US' economic problems? Peter Schiff ...
6. The Case Against Monetary Stimulus Via Asset Purchases at ...
www.macroresilience.com/.../the-case-against-monetary-stimulus-via-ass...
o Cached
Jun 4, 2012 - As with quantitative easingthrough government bond purchases, the ... a program is by definition a transferof wealthtowards asset-holders ...
2. 01.13.12- The Cheque-Kiting Economy - Silver Bear Cafe
www.silverbearcafe.com/private/01.12/kiteing.html
o Cached
Thus any efforts to explain this fraudhave been doomed to failure. What is ... They write one (bad) cheque to supposedly "cover" anotherone. ... "Quantitative easing" is nothing but openly and shamelessly cheque-kiting. ... will (over time) transferall of the wealthof a society into the hoards of the ultra-wealthy– The Pilgrims.
3. From Quantitative Easing To Quantitative Looting And Beyond ...
vidrebel.wordpress.com/.../from-quantitative-easing-to-quantitative-looti...
o Cached
Apr 14, 2013 - Quantitative Easingis best thought of as legalized pick pocketing at a ... This subsidizes mortgage-backed securities (MBS) which were fraudulent. ... Burn which she describes as the systematic transferof wealthfrom you to the bankers. Anotherexample of the Slow Burn was the announcement by Donald ...
4. Quantitative Easing - Transfer of Wealth from the 'Poor' to the ...
www.positivemoney.org/.../quantitative-easing-transfer-of-wealth-from-t...
o Cached
Apr 13, 2012 - There is considerable doubt that QE (Quantitative Easing) is ... Still is that not par for the course, the transferof wealthfrom the 'poor' to the wealthy? ... In case the BofE announces anothertranche of QE money, thereby ...
More results for quantitativeeasing is another fraud wealth transfer
5. How Quantitative Easing is bad for the economy - AAV
anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com/.../quantitative-easing-transfer-bad-eco...
o Cached
Sep 14, 2012 - The Quantitative Easing wealth transfer: How Quantitative Easingis bad ... The issue is Quantitative Easing(if you don't know what it means .... This PayPal donations box is the only source of revenue for AnotherAngry Voice.
More results for quantitativeeasing is another fraud wealth transfer
6. The Crime Known as Quantitative Easing » The Cobden Centre
www.cobdencentre.org/2011/02/the-crime-known-as-quantitative-easing/
o Cached
Feb 23, 2011 - Quantitative Easinghas resulted in a transferof wealthfrom society at ... In my view (and that of Rothbard) Monetarists are not much differentto ...
More results for quantitativeeasing is another fraud wealth transfer