Just a funny video about how the FED is dealing with the current economic and financial situation.

Enjoy if you can.

Actually, I thought the Fed was using QE as Stimulus money more or less to decrease unemployment.

Not to stop deflation.

Not that I think it's a good idea.

But I'm pretty sure that's why it was happening not deflation.

The problem with the Fed is that it's focus is always short term.

Inflation diminishes government debt. That's a good thing for the government.

That seems to be the problem with all of our most important institutions.

Central banks: The next year's financial indicators

Elected officials: Whenever the next election comes

Publicly traded corporations: The next quarterly financial report

My favourite is when they liquidate a long-term strategic asset to pad the budget of today. And they all seem to do it.

And the Fed hasn't been wrong about everything it's done.  The stimulus created lots of jobs, just not nearly enough, largely because it was half as big as it was designed to be... http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm

Now I don't have much education in the area of economics but the from what I can tell we've been on an economic recovery for sometime now, most people are just complaining because the job growth is too slow (jobs have always been the hardest part of the economy to boost growth in from what I've read.)

Also it seems like a lot of other countries are criticizing this move because it would impact their economies.  But if it improves ours in the long run I don't know if we as Americans should really care if we are no longer the money sink hole of the world. 

Inflation is important because it creates a cost to hoarding money. If prices are deflating, it means your money gets more valuable if you just hold onto it and do nothing. It creates a disincentive to lend money, invest it, consume goods with it... pretty much everything we associate with economic activity.

Of course, the video goes on to point out all the prices that aren't deflating. As I understand it, the big price that is at risk of deflation is real estate, which is kind of a no-shit-sherlock consequence of a bursting real estate bubble.

Exactly , and it's a bad thing for the most people, because their savings diminishes, too.

"Lehman was a rival of Goldman Sachs. Lehman was allowed to sink.

The bailout program, designed by Paulson to give about 12 billion indirectly to Goldman
Sachs via AIG,
is being "managed" by...Neel Kashkari, a former Goldman Sachs VP.

Geithner was a protege of Robert Rubin.
Rubin was Clinton's Sec. Treasury who pushed for the deregulation which led to this mess.
Rubin came to Treasury job from.................Goldman Sachs.

Geithner's Chief of Staff, Mark Patterson, was a lobbyist for...Goldman Sachs.

The new AIG CEO, Liddy, who was appointed by Paulson, came from Goldman Sachs."

Your info from US-today is backed up by ....Goldman Sucks.

In.Goldman.Sachs.We.Trust.

And btw. I know how my government (german government) is lying about the unemploeyment-rate.

The US-government (I would say most governments atthe moment) is doing the exactly same. Its just propaganda.

I rather would belive in the unofficial stats from shadowstats then the bullshxxx for the government.

In the end...belive what you want to belive.

But don`t be surprised if you have to pay 20$for one bread.

3 million jobs.

With.... trillions spent?  It would of been more effective to just give those trillions to 3 million people.

Overall 8 million jobs were lost during the recession.  So a bill which was cut almost in half in the amount spent created 2.5 to 3.6 million.  Optimistically speaking that means that nearly half of all jobs lost were compensated for.  Pessimistically over a quarter.  If the bill had been passed it might have saved nearly all the jobs lost, but we'll never know.  I'm assuming that what the democrats allowed to be stripped out of the bill were the projects that would create the least amount of jobs, ie the weakest parts of the bill. 

But let's see $785 billion divided by 313 million equals $2507.99 per american citizen.  That's not really that much dough to throw around.  You could argue it would have stimulated the economy more but at the least I think it would have simply prolonged the oncoming forclosures for many families.

Bush tried a similar approach in which he gave anyone above eighteen years old a check for 500 dollars.  I believe you also had to have been employed though so it was much less money spent, but it had no stimulating effect on the economy.  Granted it's one fifth of the size of Obamas bill, but do you really think it would have made much of a difference?