Chimera; That's the response the media is pushing, but it's not true at all.
Nolocimes, there's nothing wrong with an ever increasing money supply. We inherited existing money from the gold standard (when it was abolished), but think if you were creating a country from scratch. You know there are x amount of loaves of bread being produced in your country, and you think they should roughly be $2 each. So to give your people a tool to facilitate their prosperous trade (and incidently give them some money so you can tax) you spend $20 into existence, otherwhise there would be no money to pay for the good's with.
So whilst you have economic growth; more good's and services being produced, you need to ensure that an adequate amount of new money is created. Otherwhise you get deflation (same money chasing more good's), and we all know how much worse that is to inflation.
1. It doesn't increase the amount of money, it already existed (can we count cash and treasuries as the same? Because functionally They are) 2. Certainly sustainable. 3. QE2 is inflationary because it removes net financial asset's from the system. Ie. There are less places to park your cash if you wan't a return... sooo commodities anyone :)? 4. QE3 would make stock's go up, I don't think we'll see it, considering how miserably bad and unhelpful QE2 has been. QE2 ends, stocks fall some (will happen before, 'priced in'), US dollar rallies as more treasuries are eventually offered to drain the excess reserves QE2 has created.
And SaturnV I apologize, as I mentioned what I write in casual text is probably not how it would be interpreted, so please excuse me lol. (-That should read; please excuse me, laugh. Not; excuse me lol in a sarcastic/patronising tone)
