{"id":11363,"date":"2013-09-16T17:24:13","date_gmt":"2013-09-16T17:24:13","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2013-09-16T17:24:13","modified_gmt":"2013-09-16T17:24:13","slug":"quantitative_easing_the_liberal_version_of_trickle_down","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2013\/09\/16\/quantitative_easing_the_liberal_version_of_trickle_down\/","title":{"rendered":"Quantitative Easing: The Liberal Version of Trickle Down"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Listen<\/a><\/p>\n

RUSH: Janet Yellen — who will become the next chairman of the Fed, theoretically — is in favor of the current policy. She\u2019s in favor of more printing of money and keeping interest rates low, and Larry Summers, who pulled himself out of the running for it, was the one who was going to end the printing of money. The quantitative easing, QE, whatever it is — it\u2019s three we\u2019re on now — and get interest rates back up. I had the two reversed. <\/p>\n

I was misinformed by a self-professed market expert. Anyway, my bad. I got \u2019em reversed. That\u2019s why the market\u2019s doing well today. It is because the priming of the stock market pump is scheduled to continue unabated if this Yellen woman ends up being the chairman of the Fed. Now, I\u2019ll give you the stats on all this quantitative easing. It\u2019s basically $85 billion a month. What it is, is they\u2019re not really printing the money.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

They just digitize it. They change the figures in the ledger, and they\u2019re just adding money to certain accounts where they know the money is going to be spent on buying stock, essentially, investing in the markets. This is from the Financial Times<\/a>: 40% of quantitative easing benefit has gone to the top 5% of income earners at the top of the wealth chart, including bankers. That\u2019s who has benefited. <\/p>\n

The reason for this, once again, is style points. The Regime knows that every day, day to day, economic activity is moribund. I mean, it\u2019s static, squalid. There isn\u2019t anything great happening on Main Street. There is no rising wages for people. There is no massive job creation. In the economy at large, there isn\u2019t anything happening on the growth side. But the Regime wants it to appear all right, so the stock market has been the beneficiary of almost half of this quantitative easing. <\/p>\n

It\u2019s been used to elevate activity in the stock market and to increase the daily Dow Jones Industrial Average, which then makes it appear that everything\u2019s hunky-dory in the economy. It is kind of strange because the Democrats heretofore, prior to all this, have always been the ones saying what happens in the stock market is not the real world. “That\u2019s just the rich! That\u2019s just wealthy! The stock market does not mean Main Street.” Now they\u2019ve done a 180 because everything is image; everything is style points. <\/p>\n

If you have an economy that\u2019s squalid and just basically going along at an unremarkable pace, you have to make it look like there is a burgeoning, growing economy, and that\u2019s what QE whatever — we\u2019re on number 3 — really has been all about. So the chairman of the Federal Reserve, that position is highly, highly crucial. Larry Summers, who took himself out of the running, wanted to end all of this because it isn\u2019t real. The Federal Reserve is… I forget the exact number.<\/p>\n

Adding all the quantitative easing up, QE1, QE2, QE3, since 2008, since the financial crisis, the amount of money that they basically created out of thin air, just printed, or digitized and added to financial ledgers, is over a trillion dollars that has no basis in reality. There\u2019s been nothing that has happened that would have produced it. There hasn\u2019t been any economic activity undergirding it. There\u2019s no reason for it to have happened.<\/p>\n

But the Fed can do this. They can print it. They can add it wherever they want. They can add it to the money supply. They can give it to put it in accounts that end up being active in the stock market, and the theory has been — guess what? — that that will trickle-down. I\u2019m not kidding. The theory has been that it would trickle-down — which, of course, I\u2019ve always been told the Democrats were opposed to trickle-down.<\/p>\n

They didn\u2019t believe it, of course, when Ronaldus Magnus instituted it. But this doesn\u2019t have a chance to trickle-down. What the Democrats are doing here, what the Fed is doing, what Obama\u2019s doing is what they always accused Reagan of doing, but this is nothing like what Reagan did. The trickle-down that they accused Reagan of engaging in, that they say didn\u2019t happen, simply was tax cuts. <\/line><\/p>\n

People in the private sector, all over the private sector ended up with more money in their back pockets. Not just 5% of the population. Today, 5% of the population is getting the economic growth in this country, 5% of it, and it\u2019s a closed universe in which these people operate. It\u2019s not small businesses getting money and using it to invest and grow and hire people. That is not happening. <\/p>\n

In fact, what\u2019s happening in the real world, as you well know, is that full-time workers are being converted to part-time workers so they can afford to stay in business because of Obamacare. Well, that\u2019s not a concern for the people getting the QE3 money. That $1.5 trillion is the grand total of, essentially, printed money. In fact, it\u2019s worse than that. Since the financial crisis… I was reading something over the weekend about the financial crisis and a five-year look back at it.<\/p>\n

The overall amount of priming that the federal government and the Federal Reserve along with several other central banks all over the world have done, the amount of money that they put in to the global economy… What was it I heard? It\u2019s $18 trillion, and that\u2019s just the US number. That\u2019s what it is. It\u2019s $18 trillion all told for $1 trillion worth of growth. So in order to get $1 trillion of economic expansion in the past five years, the Fed has spent $18 trillion. It\u2019s been classic Keynesian economics.<\/p>\n

You know, people like Paul Krugman run around saying, “We haven\u2019t spent nearly enough.” We\u2019ve spent more than anybody knows! It just hasn\u2019t all come from the federal government and been distributed like Obama wanted everybody to believe it was gonna be. We basically have bailed out financial institutions, we\u2019ve bailed out automobile companies, we\u2019ve bailed out unions. We have bailed out $18 trillion worth — and, remember, this was done to prevent a global economic disaster. <\/p>\n

Remember, we had to do this in 24 hours or the world economy was going to collapse. You know, there was a TV show that aired I think Thursday or Friday night on the Discovery Channel, and I made a mistake of only TiVoing the first two hours. It was called The President\u2019s Gatekeepers<\/a>, and it\u2019s about the various chiefs of staff. I got hot under the collar watching this. <\/p>\n