But Prins is correct that because they reject socialist regulations, planning and ideals the central bankers simply would not, could not, do anything else.
With QE 3 in 2012 the savvy observers in the developing world saw what QE and ZIRP also served as: a way to create easy money for Western bankers to buy up foreign assets and to entrap developing countries with unsustainable loans. That is something I imagine you have never read even a single time in a Western media anti-Western accusations of "collusion" is merely called "business sense" in the West, after all. The unexplored, negative consequences which QE has wreaked on the non-QE world are detailed in Parts 3 and 4.
QE3 was when QE showed its true colors: several years of it had not fixed anyone's economy. And because the QE system cannot be stopped without revealing that fact, the US decided it will get their allies to print as much as they can while they can in order to enrich their 1% chums and to ensnare foreigners via the free capital flows required in globalisation.
In 2012 (and at other times, as well) we assumed that a government's bankruptcy Greece, Italy, Spain, etc. would end the QE game. However, QE has gone on so long that many predict that Germany's private Deutsche Bank will be the bankruptcy which restarts economic chaos. And why not? Major private banks are still just as rotted out with un-shed-able assets as they were 10 years ago. Non-austerity policies likely could have saved some of these failed investments and improved the state of these stupid loans, but".
What is certain is that when government bond rates go back to floating on market rates instead of on the air of QE, that's when chaos is sure to hit" and that's why governments cannot end QE. 2019 is no different from 2017.
Conclusion: QE can't end, and it could have been so much better
The amazing thing is not the idea of QE, but how stupid the West has been about it: if they had been smarter, then they could have purchased a golden future for their societies instead they bought fancy paintings you can find images of for free online.
QE could have been a chance to smash neoliberalism forever by proving what we all know: the government must have a major role in the economy why empower the parasitical middleman? That is a question asked by every hard-working farmer for quite some time"
The good news is: not everyone takes part of the West's financial system. Iran, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and even though many are loath to admit it China. All these nations may trade with foreign nations, but that doesn't mean their own domestic economies are based upon the exact same neoliberal capitalist principles as the US and Eurozone.
It is the goal of neoliberal/globalisation propaganda to deny that reality.
In many ways Part 2 in this 10-part series is the least revealing, but only to the very well-initiated.
QE has changed the Western economic system because their central banks have become the toxic asset-owner which has become "too big to fail":
"Even if fabricated money wasn't achieving its stated purpose of real economic growth, taking it away would invoke chaos on the financial system. That was a possibility that central bank leaders did not want to risk, not on their watch."
The reason we have had QE Infinity is because no central banker will be the one to end to QE. To do so would be to say: "I have been a fool a capitalist banker. Let's switch to socialism."
What about journalists? Asking them to successfully campaign against 1%-er easy money/99%er austerity seems very difficult in the West, where the vast majority of the media has been foolishly privatised. I have never seen any honest series in The New York Times or any other top media regarding the obvious failure of QE and far-right economics. The best they can do is to blame an individual politician for cutting this government service or raising that single tax on the 99% mostly they prefer to blame people who rail against capitalist globalisation, like the Yellow Vests. Of course, the monthlong tactic has been to ignore the Yellow Vests entirely".
That leaves us with only citizens: "Citizens were caught in a vortex between unpopular and ineffective policies. Governments seemed to forget they existed, while central bankers did not even pretend to be concerned."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
2
