Never said QE n+1 was sustainable... But liquidity injection is the absolute right answer for deflation from a supply side perspective. Just as liquidity removal is the answer for inflation. I have said countless times on here that timing will be critical. The Fed is obviously having internal debates as to when to pare back on the asset purchases as you can tell when you read their minutes of the FOMC meetings. They have now taken the unusual step of signaling when that will happen according to sir dual mandate: 6.5% unemployment and 2.5% inflation. We aren’t anywhere near those two levels yet.
On the workforce it’s amazing how many people on here only show the participation chart over the last 5-10 years and completely ignore that participation rates have been far lower than they are now. The 40’s, 50’s, 60’s and most of the 70’s were far lower. They also completely ignor that the rate has been falling since the 1990’s. Selective presentation at best. Lying and manipulation at worst. As Moynihan said, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
Only if you start with the premise that we should have a state run economy.
The end result of QE is a European socialist economy with unemployment never dipping below 10% and real unemployment, especially among those below the age of 30, of over 40%. The new normal, as it were.
This QE will never stop, because it isn't working. In fact, it is ensuring that unemployment will never get better. Its not like we don't have dozens of such examples to look at.
Participation rates before the 70's reflect a different cultural norm of one earner households and low divorce rates. Going back 70 years reflects social change, not economic. That is broadly accepted by everyone that uses the charts. I also don't use industrial capacity charts from the 1700s.
As for things getting worse since the 90s, so? Is there someone on this thread indicating that we weren't already becoming a welfare state in the 90s?
You think that we are going to use the same game plan as Japan and Europe, but somehow achieve a different result. Now that is some first class selective thinking.
I reject your underlying premise that the state can manage the fundamentals of the micro economy by adjusting the macro indicators. Its a simple case of cause and effect. Artificially adjusting the indicators doesn't magically adjust the fundamentals, no more than turning a weather vane affects the direction of the wind.