QE certainly isn't perfect. Giving liquidity to banks in theory should give them an incentive to loan it out (they earn more by doing that rather than sitting on it or putting it in super safe assets like Treasuries). However, they have generally erred on the conservative tack, partly also because their capital requirements (how much cash/equity they have to sit on) was raised. Companies that have done well and not received bailouts have also hoarded cash rather than invest because of uncertainty around the economy.

Meanwhile stock market valuations have soared because of a lack of other assets to put it in. Many of these cash holdings from corporations and banks have been dumped in Treasuries. This has reduced the return from Treasuries to a miserable amount. Meanwhile commodity prices have also tanked. That pretty much left stocks, which are arguably now inflated in price (and historically overvalued) largely as a result of the QE money handed out to banks.

What oritteropo says is very correct, if any poor or middle class person had opened a brokerage account and dumped their money in an S&P or Nasdaq tracking fund at or near the bottom of the 2009 market, they would have tripled their money or more. The option was certainly available and affordable to anyone.

The problem was that there were arguably limited alternatives. What the Australian government here did, which was far more effective (and completely avoided any recession) is simply gave out cash to everyone. Unlike QE money which just sat around in safe assets this got spent (largely to pay off debts, but this would have to happen anyway and sped up a recovery).

The issue was, this was fiscal policy, and we could easily afford it because we had (and still have) very low debt levels. A country like the UK could not so easily do this, certainly not many of the troubled European countries. The US arguably could have because with the USD being such a crux global currency, there is virtually no chance it would have led to a currency crash or brought about serious worries about being able to service their debt levels (even if they are high).

Vote with your wallet.
If you have an account with any Citygroup company, close it.
Same thing goes for B of A.
Small, local banks serve you better and don't lobby congress for bailouts and immunity.
If you give them your money but hate how they use it, take your money back. That simple.
If you like bailouts, wall street immunity, and the status quo of being under the thumb of big banking, keep your money where it is and vote republican.

EDIT:One might also lobby their congressman/woman for a constitutional amendment stating clearly that corporations are barred from government and are NOT citizens, so can't vote, lobby, make political 'statements' (as in commercial campaigns), or donate to political campaigns. I've written many a letter suggesting the same.

@newtboy
i agree with you but consider a few things:
1.for the first time bob is actually engaging and revealing where his perspective originates.(which came as no shock,to anyone).now we can disagree on his position but understanding how he got to that position gives an opportunity to disseminate the particulars.

this is a good thing.

2.while bob's breakdown of the political spectrum is extremely,overly simplified and his understanding of socialism vs corporatism is staggeringly..wrong..it begs the question ..why does bob have it so wrong?

which he answers by where he gets the majority of his information.i dont necessarily blame bob for this but rather the institutions and media outlets he gives authority.

bob is not the exception but rather the rule.people tend to congregate and gravitate towards those who speak in the language they,themselves,can relate to.this is why FOX is so successful and why every other 24 hr news channel has tried to copy their success.

FOX appeals to the emotional rather than the rational.they pound a message for entire news cycles with little or no actual analysis of very complicated issues.there IS actual news hidden in there but it gets drowned out by the screaming apologists who just seek to perpetuate their own agenda and/or popularity.the hyper-partisanship alone is reason enough to never watch FOX.

most americans do not have the time to do a research paper every night,and the majority never made it past 9th grade civics.so they tune in to 5 minute soundbites that appeal to their own emotionally triggered prejudices.presented by vapid pretty people who are the exact opposite of a journalist.

they ALL do it.every 24hr news channel does it,FOX just does it better.

3.the fact that bob frequents a predominantly secular-left site should be an indicator that he is not as partisan as he appears in many of his comments.he comes here to see what the "lefties" find important and their take on current events.

the problem always arises when people assume that if given all the information,everybody will all come to same conclusion.

which is untrue.

but to come to a rational and reasonable conclusion we must have the information ...all of it...we may still disagree in the end but at least the discussion is founded on even ground and not polluted by propaganda and politics.

the hyper partisanship has got to stop.it only serves those who wish to divide and conquer.

4.the tea party in the beginning was pretty amazing and,ironically,had a very similar message that occupy wall street had.remember what was going on when the tea partiers first exploded on the scene?

the wall street bailout.

now they were eventually co-opted by the very power structure that they originally protested against..ironical..but if you look at the history of mass movements the powered elite were using an old playbook in that regard.

ugh..you got me writing a damn lecture newt!

let me just conclude that i am glad bob is engaging on much more personal level and i hope he continues.
will bob and i still disagree? most likely

@bcglorf
this assumes there will be no consequences for breaking the rules or no structure in place to enforce those rules.this implies that if their WAS no enforcement,everybody would spend the entire day robbing,raping and causing mayhem.

so you are right,the base argument is indeed intellectually dishonest,but is also not an argument FOR a militarized police force.the real arguments is the laws themselves.

start with more humane and common sense laws and the need for a massive police force becomes irrelevant.

in an anarchal system it is the people who are the representatives who create legislation.
lets take the iraq war of 2003,where the american people were overwhelmingly against going into iraq..yet we still invaded.representative democracy? not a shot.
or in 2008 when the american people,in a massive majority,rejected the bailout and wished to see the perpetrators held accountable.well? what happened? i think you know.

anarchism is a varied and dynamic political view.its not just one simple flavor.do you see trance and i agreeing on much?my politics over-laps with trance but it does with @newtboy and @ChaosEngine as well.

the basic gist is individual liberty trumps everything and that the structures put in place should be temporary and be directed from the bottom up,not the top down.we realize that we live in a society populated by people and it should be the people who direct where that society should be going.we have no need or use for "leaders" or "rulers" and when the "representatives" have obviously jumped the shark to whore to their donors,it is time to question/criticize the system and not just replace the crack whore with a meth whore.

anarchy is simply a political philosophy,thats it.

so we would see:
zero wars of aggression
no more criminalized drug addicts or poor people
no more corporate welfare
and most likely the people would vote out the federal reserve and print its own currency.

anarchists prefer direct democracy but will accept representative if they are actually being represented.(though begrudgingly).

you should read up on some anarchy.you may find some very food ideas and while not a perfect political philosophy,the one thing it does offer that i find most appealing:if it aint working...vote it out.

I'm not sure if you meant to say Republicans and Democrats do, more or less, the same things but use different language, or what, but I don't see how this video has no relevance. Relevance to what?


Regardless, Obamacare is indeed a "bailout gimme" to big pharma as you say, so it's really beyond me why the liberals continue to support it.

Maybe they're as "stupid" as Gruber was counting on.

not exactly a secret.
elites by the very definition feel themselves superior to the befuddled herd (actual term used) and therefore feel compelled to "guide" them and "control" them.
this attitude crosses partisan lines.
so on one side you have educated,indoctrinated elites who disdain the masses but use the language of empathy and compassion to manipulate and on the other side of the aisle you have a perverted aynrand/jesus monster to manipulate the masses.

either way....you are being manipulated.

and there aint NO way the republicans are getting rid of obamacare.only the largest bailout gimme to big pharma and the health insurance industry.that would be political suicide.the entire policy was written by the heritage foundation for fucks sake! not exactly a bastion of liberal ideologies.

just as no republican will repeal roe vs wade.
they will use abortion like a battering ram to get their religious base into a frothy frenzy of hate and self-righteousness,but no way would they EVER let go of that boom stick.

this video is stupid and is only being used to create a platform so a certain someone can jump on his soapbox and preach his religion.

fuck that shit.go on a street corner and peddle your wares.this video has zero relevance.

downvote*

your bailout dollars at work: *related=http://videosift.com/video/Your-Bailout-Money-At-Work-GM-Announces-700K-More-Recalls

Critics Wrong-GM Worth $50 Billion & Profitable With Bailout has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach on that post.

Your Bailout Money At Work: GM Announces 700K More Recalls has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach.

Your Bailout Money At Work: GM Announces 700K More Recalls has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach on that post.

Peter Schiff On CNBC: GM/Chrysler Bailout Debate has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Peter-Schiff-On-CNBC-GM-Chrysler-Bailout-Debate

I agree, the whole bailout thing was un-American. Thanks W for starting the processes with the airlines and Wall street. At least we got something back with the auto bailouts, but we still artificially kept the near monopoly going strong when it should have failed and split into numerous smaller companies, and paid through the nose to do it.
I also wish we still broke monopolies instead of giving them MORE artificial advantages. It is disgusting how much of our government has whored itself out to the highest bidder.

i voted for this video if only to see it dissected for the hack piece it is.

do we really need to point out the infantile logic of using michelle obamas comment of "knuckleheads" and conflate it with a 300$ bottle of water?

come on..seriously? thats pretty dumb.

but obamacare is not a failure.it is performing exactly as it was designed.
written by the heritage foundation.
it is basically a gimme bailout for big pharma and the health insurance industry.
and it is functioning perfectly.

if obama truly wanted a universal health care.we already had a system in place that,as @Yogi already pointed out,would have saved money and the infrastructure was already in place.
single payer would have been an easy implementation.
covered everybody.
and saved money.

but that was never the goal.

socialism for the rich.
capitalism for the poor.