Talk:Quantitative easing

A popular myth is that QE amounts to giving banks base money, and no broad money is created unless/until banks lend it out. This myth is doubly wrong, firstly because banks do not generally lend out reserves and also because QE directly creates broad money immediately without banks doing any additional lending. I do not wish to discuss the issue of whether or not banks lend out reserves in this section (please start a new section if you are keen to discuss this aspect), but I'd like this section to be about whether or not QE directly increases broad money.

In this paper: Quantitative easing injecting money into the economy it says: "At the same time, those selling assets to the Bank have more money in their bank accounts and commercial banks hold more deposits at the Bank of England." - the first part of that sentence, i.e. "those selling assets to the Bank have more money in their bank accounts" indicates that there is more broad money in economy by virtue of the QE.

I would like this fact to be included in the main page, but another editor is reverting my changes. Please discuss Reissgo (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Broad money is just one measure of the money supply. I think QE's impact on the money supply is already covered adequately in the sentence you want to change. Lagrange613 10:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

QE in US from 2914-2018 did not increase broad money supply, it only increased reserves. Also, QT from 2016-2019, and from 2022, didn’t reduce broad money supply. QE/QT was just a cover for Large Scale Asset Purchase/Sale of risky assets at a fat fee to few Asset dealers like Wellington 73.223.163.17 (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The term “broad money” is not found in Modern Money Mechanics or in The Federal Reserve System Purposes and Functions’’. You should define it explicitly. I agree with others that the article should be published in at least two forms, 1) for the US monetary System, and 2) for the Bank of England. This is because the policies and enabling legislation are specific to a specific sovereign nation. This affects the practice of QE in each nation’s system.Lobdillj (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

As I understand the definition of QE it is in most respects the same as Open Market Operations in which Treasuries are purchased by the Fed. The difference seems to be that in QE the Fed does not restrict purchases to Treasuries, but also buys other, less safe and stable securities (such as “toxic assets”). The explanation for buying such insecure securities should be given explicitly. The article states that the reason for Open Market purchases is to increase the bank reserves and thus encourage an increase in lending and stimulate the economy by increasing M1. Buying toxic assets from Wall Street banks pumps new money into these predatory banks that were complicit in causing the toxicity in the first place, and this money goes into the purchase of more toxic assets and resale of these to the Fed at a handsome profit. It also goes into bonuses and increases in pay to the bank executives. All of this usage of the new money goes into M3, (but not M1 or M2). You need to explain why this was not understood by the architects of QE in the crash of 2008. The addition of toxic assets into the mix of securities purchased by the Fed does not comport with the idea of stimulating the economy. When the public will not borrow due to fear of instability and/or chicanery increasing the availability of credit will not work, and that fact is not unknown by Wall Street or the Fed.Lobdillj (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

QE doesn’t restrict purchase to treasury but it uses reserves and doesn’t directly increase money supply. So it’s LSAP

under covers. 73.223.163.17 (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello? I have found the definition of broad money at Investopedia. It is M0+M1+M2+M3. QE has not resulted in any increase in M1 as far as I can tell. It has only enriched the creators of toxic assets. Those predators have no intention of spending that QE money into M1 where it could possibly help people and expand the economy. The Fed knew this would be the result of QE and that it would not help Main Street one iota. Please...someone respond.Lobdillj (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The current sentence gives the impression that QE only increases the monetary base. This statement does nothing to dispel widely held misconceptions about QE. Do you deny that QE directly increases demand deposits? Reissgo (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

There are tons of sources that say that if banks don't lend money out, QE just increases money base and not broad money. No idea where you're getting your funny ideas about money from, but please, just read a textbook and stick to it if you want to edit Wikipedia. Putting in non-mainstream economics is a no go. Darx9url (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I am getting my information from the highest possible quality source, namely the Bank of England. The Bank of England (and many others) are scathing of the information available in most textbooks aimed at undergraduates, see here for examples. Reissgo (talk) 09:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but linking to a self-pub website that collects misinterpreted quotes to push a weird POV is setting my fringy senses a tingling. Darx9url (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Would you care to share with us your highest quality source that claims that QE does not increase broad money? (I sure hope its not written by a journalist and aimed at the public)Reissgo (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, hmm, how about the very first source on the page with your hero Mervyn King saying: "No guarantee bank lending will rise". They have him on video and everything. And don't give me that BS about no articles by journalists. Economics news articles are RS, unlike selfpub websites. Darx9url (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The statement "No guarantee bank lending will rise" does not contradict my claim that QE directly increases the broad money supply. Imagine a pension fund that currently owns $100m of government bonds. Imagine the pension fund has an account with bank A. Now imagine the central bank wishes to purchase those bonds from the fund... how can they do it? The fund will want to have $100m of demand deposits in its account at bank A - but bank A would not like to have a new liability of $100m it owes to the fund. It will require $100m in reserves from the central bank in compensation. So QE corresponds to the central bank giving central bank money to the bank and simultaneously the bank allocating broad money to the fund. No "bank lending" needs to rise. Bank A did not *lend* any money in the process.

With regard the link to a page on my "selfpub" website - it is a one paragraph intro followed by a series of quotes from, and links to, a collection of ten papers written by the most authoritative sources on the monetary system you could ask for. Reissgo (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Reissgo: I think your example in the preceding paragraph deserves being discussed. Let me see whether I got it straight:

1. At the outset, the pension fund possesses $100m bonds and no deposits.

2. The Fed buys the bonds. How does it pay for them? It increases bank A's reserves.

3. Now, bank A has additional reserves worth $100m and an additional liability of the same size.

4. The pension fund has no bonds but $100m in its deposit account at the bank.

5. Both the monetary base and the M1 money supply increase, which confirms your point.

However, you also indicate that the bank does not like an additional liability. If bank A wishes to regain the previous position, it must restrict credit by $100m. In this case, the monetary base remains at the high level, but M1 falls to the previous level.--Herbert81 (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Your wording in 1-5 is perfectly correct. You are correct that the bank does not like to have the additional liability - but it has been fully compensated by the fed with extra reserves... so that's the end of it. If the banks assets matched or exceeded its liabilities before the QE, then its assets will still match or exceed its liabilities after the QE. There will be no attempt by the bank to "regain its previous position". Reissgo (talk) 07:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Reissgo: Perhaps Basel III makes the argument more complicated? This new regulation forces banks to maintain a leverage ratio of at least 3%. The leverage ratio is defined as Tier1 capital over total exposure. Assume that, in our example, Bank A just met this constraint before QE. Then, its total exposure violates the constraint after QE. Therefore, bank A would be obliged to reduce credit in order to comply with the regulation. BTW, many sources think that the leverage constraint actually binds.--Herbert81 (talk) 08:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Reissgo: A second point is empirical. Between January 2008 and January 2015, base money increased from 851 to 4,051 billion dollars, while M1 increased from 1,379 to 2,924. You can check the data here[] and here[]. The increase in base money (3.200) exceeds the increase in M1 (1.545) by far which suggests that QE does not induce an increase in the money supply of the same amount.--Herbert81 (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You need to check your maths because an additional $X of reserves combined with an additional $X of demand deposits will improve the reserve ratio of a highly leveraged bank (i.e. it will make the bank less leveraged). Reissgo (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Reissgo: You are perfectly right: A simultaneous increase in reserves and deposits improves bank A's reserve ratio. But I was referring to the new leverage ratio which complements traditional reserve ratios and equity ratios. Have a look at Basel III. The leverage ratio deteriorates in our example, and this may explain the figures I presented above. --Herbert81 (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit short on time right now... but can I respectfully ask you to double check the affect on the leverage ratio because I find it very hard to imagine QE causing a bank to be less compliant with any regulations. Reissgo (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Easy to prove: Basel III requires tier1capital/total exposure => 3%. In our example, total exposure increases. Bank A's tier 1 capital remains unchanged. Hence, the leverage constraint gets tighter.--Herbert81 (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Tier 1 capital, wiki says: "It is composed of core capital,[1] which consists primarily of common stock and disclosed reserves (or retained earnings)".. not sure quite what is meant by "disclosed reserves", but isn't that just "reserves" (which does indeed change with QE)? Reissgo (talk) 08:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Disclosed reserves = retained earnings = part of own equity. Appear on the right-hand side of banks' balance sheets. Reserves at the Fed are an asset and appear on the left-hand side of banks' balance sheets. The two items are completely unrelated.--Herbert81 (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Herbert81: Re: "The increase in base money (3.200) exceeds the increase in M1 (1.545) by far which suggests that QE does not induce an increase in the money supply of the same amount." - not at all. QE is done at a time when, in the absence of any special actions, the money supply would otherwise be falling, i.e. times where the rate of money destruction through loan repayments exceeds the rate of money creation through new loans being made. QE, in and of itself does indeed increase the money supply, but it is swimming against the tide. i.e. QE could add $10billion of new money during some time interval while the new-loans-vs-repaying-old-loans balance, conspires to remove $15billion from the economy in that same interval. The net effect could be minus $5billion.

Re: "BTW, many sources think that the leverage constraint actually binds."... can you tell me one?

Re: "Therefore, bank A would be obliged to reduce credit in order to comply with the regulation" - presumably this assumes that the bank was originally sitting at the regulatory limits... this may of course not be the case... particularly when the enthusiasm for new lending is low. Reissgo (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Reissgo: Regarding your question, there are many sources, e.g. ^[1]. If the leverage constraint binds, your reasoning becomes invalid.--Herbert81 (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Reissgo: I think it's debatable whether QE increases broad money. I would lean towards "little to none". It's certainly not a direct effect, since only new credit creation (new loan) creates new money, broad or narrow. Fed is not directly participating in the credit origination, neither for the RMBS or Treasuries it is buying (which together are 95%+ of QE). Treasuries are still intermediated through prime brokers, mortgages through banks. Of course you could argue that the massive 4 Trillion buy has been "conducive" towards increasing government net borrowing, but then there have been political constraints on larger deficits as well so it's not clear it made any difference. And deficits abounded pre-QE. Lower mortgage rates may just lead to a lot of refinancing, which as nice as it may be, by definition is not new money.

That is why I could be convinced it made no difference to broad money, or at most contributed to a slight increase from whatever the non QE trend would have been. I think it's one of the reasons there is still a lot of head-scratching on this whole QE business (not just in the US, but everywhere).Greenbe (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Greenbe: I'll repeat my earlier comments here to make it easier to follow:

"Imagine the pension fund has an account with bank A. Now imagine the central bank wishes to purchase those bonds from the fund... how can they do it? The fund will want to have $100m of demand deposits in its account at bank A - but bank A would not like to have a new liability of $100m it owes to the fund. It will require $100m in reserves from the central bank in compensation. So QE corresponds to the central bank giving central bank money to the bank and simultaneously the bank allocating broad money to the fund. No "bank lending" needs to rise. Bank A did not *lend* any money in the process."

- do you think I got something wrong there? Reissgo (talk) 07:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Reissgo: Firstly a pension fund is not a great example, since they are a financial institution and my impression from reading various FRED reports that usually reports of total credit and broad money exclude inter-financial institution credit & deposits. Nonetheless let's take a better example. Say I, as a private individual, I buy a $1000 Treasury bond through Treasury direct website. This is something anyone can do, for real. Now I own it directly and it seems like I have an asset with no offsetting liability. Later on, I decide to sell it to a member of the public, they wire me $1000 and I wire them the Bond. It seems like the money supply has gone up by $1000, but not so fast. When I originally bought it I had to pay $1000 from a bank account, that money actually when to the Treasury which in turn gave it out to social security recipients, medicare providers or perhaps a defense contractor. The $1000 is still out in the economy, broken up in bits. Net net when I sell it to a member of the public there is no net change in the money supply, I am just getting my recirculated dollars back.

However, as you astutely point out, if a bank comes to me and offers to take my bond and return creates new deposits and credits my account, that is in theory something they can do. And that would increase the broad money if you did not count my bond as broad money before. Whether or not the bond is counted or should be counted as broad money is a long and even closer debate. But in practice I don't think this happens much, if at all. That's where I get "little" in my "little to none" sweeping statement. My impression is in fact there is very little of this conversion going on, the Fed are mostly buying the securities from various financial institutions and the resulting credit/deposits are excluded from broad money. I don't remember seeing any sharp up-tick in any broad money series in the direct amount of QE, but I don't follow those series closely let me know if you have seen anything.Greenbe (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

First of all I should have used the title "QE increases demand deposits directly".

Secondly I am getting my information about QE in the UK which may be slightly different to the US.

In this document from the BoE it says: "QE is intended to boost the amount of money in the economy directly by purchasing assets, mainly from non-bank financial companies." which would imply that BoE-buying-bonds-from-pension-funds is a perfectly good example. Reissgo (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Reissgo: First let me say I agree with your original sentiment at the top of this section and proposed edit, and the editor should not be simply reverting because your change contains facts and sources. Also clearly you understand a lot about the mechanisms of reserves (which can't be lent out) and money creation, more than most. When I said broad money increase was debatable I can be convinced one way or another on this point. I've certainly heard a lot of opinions over the years, everywhere from it's a massive increase in money supply with dangers of hyperinflation, to "little to no effect" and even that it shrinks the money supply. Personally I think it's hard to figure out.

Anyhow, to your comment - I know few details of how QE is implemented outside of the US other than being aware from press reports that BOJ, ECB, BOE and some other countries have implemented it collectively in large amounts. I think our discussion hinges on both the definition of broad money and the details of how each country implemented it. I think we both agree it matters who the Central Bank buys the asset from, and what type of asset. If BoE includes pension fund commercial bank deposit in their measure of broad money, and if the asset purchased was excluded from broad money, then yes by definition it should increase broad money. And similarly for my example of buying it from a household, either directly or through pass-through bank. As for the definition of broad money, I looked into this a bit 8 years ago just before we got hit by QE here. I took another look on FRED after I wrote that to see what definition they had. Most of their M3 series are discontinued so I guess the definitions are moot so really I could not find anything useful. I remember this from years ago reading articles that said attempts to measure broader money were out of vogue so they just gave up. The have however started tracking Money Market funds, and they seem to just total non- financial-institution credit with some detail. I don't know if that was their proxy for broad money but obviously QE is not going to directly affect that (and there is no jump in that series).

So, I think that leaves two points of discussion: (1) What do central bankers say, and (2) What should the definition of broad money be. For (1), I have not had time to read your link but I trust it is current BOE policy and then it should be in the article. BOE can define both broad money and the implementation, so it's just a plain fact (whether or not we agree with their definition). As for the US my understanding is that only Fed system banks are allowed to have accounts with the Fed, so the statement "direct" would be a little challenged, but if a system bank decided to do this as a pass-through for a pension fund, it's a short hop away from "direct" I'll grant you that! In the US the vast majority of QE was split between long term Treasuries and GSE MBS. I don't know if the net drain of these assets was from households, pensions/insurance, corporates or mainly from banks. Although I doubt it was much from households but that's a guess. As for (2) that's a more interesting question. For me pension/insurance should be excluded from broad money measures because they are not going to act any differently if they have demand deposit or long bond asset. Either way, their payouts are driven by life events outside their control so it only matters if they are on the edge of liquidity. Households probably should be included, the rest a toss-up. However I definitely think money market funds should be included, and therefore any short-term Treasury should be included in broad money since the market for those are very liquid here, and it's almost the same thing in practice as a money market fund. Greenbe (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I just found the series that I have seen in the past, it's not that easy to find. If you superimpose Fed reserve balance (QE) there is no easily discernable effect on total commercial bank deposits. I'm _not_ saying it's not possible for QE to directly increase it (of course) just that it doesn't seem to have done so in the US anyway. My speculation is that the vast majority of asset purchases in the US were from banks or financial institutions not counted in this series, rather than from non-financial entities.Greenbe (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the term "broad money" wasn't the best choice for my claim because it is not the most clearly defined term. That's why I said "First of all I should have used the title 'QE increases demand deposits directly'" in my last edit.

By the way watching what happens to graphs of total demand deposits when QE is going on is not the final arbiter of deciding if its true that QE increases demand deposits directly. This is because demand deposits could be disappearing elsewhere in the economy due to loans being repaid. Its rather like a claim that "running a tap will add water to the bath" - if the plug is removed and water is gushing out faster than it is being added then the water level may still fall despite the added water. This doesn't make the claim false. Reissgo (talk) 06:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Reissgo: OK, let's step back a bit and review the back and forth. I feel like we have established and agreed on a few things and I add a few more:

1. Banks cannot directly "lend out" reserves to non-banks since that is not the definition of reserve 2. QE directly creates reserves, but not exclusively. It may create other types of assets depending how it is implemented. 3. QE has been implemented differently in different countries, in some cases with slightly different detailed goals, but has common themes 4. In the US the stated goal was reduction of long term interest rates, affect on money supply was not mentioned by the Fed 5. In England one of the stated goals was direct increase of the broad money supply (commonly referred to as M3) 6. Different countries use varying measures of M3. The Fed discontinued measuring M3 in 2006, pre-crisis and thus there is no official US definition 7. By definition if a central bank buys a security from an asset owner that is counted towards M3 in that country it can directly increase M3 if that central bank allows that owner to hold an account directly with the central bank. Or it can wire the funds to a commercial bank which will cause reserves and demand deposit to be created simultaneously, and the owner can hold the proceeds indirectly.

Now for the discussion. The interesting part of this whole QE business is that it's opaque who were the net sellers of the assets, either directly or on aggregate. I have been interested in that topic for quite some time and have never seen anything direct on it (if you know send me your references please). If money supply increase is the goal it must matter who the seller is since all measures of money supply exclude certain owners of demand deposit (for instance, the former US definition of M3 excluded depository institution owners but pension funds ... so you win one there!) If long term interest rate decrease is the goal then according to the Fed it seems the source of the security does not seem to matter much only the quantity since they seem to believe the market blends similar securities together. At least that is the best I can gather from Bernanke and a few other Fed papers.

Finally the only reason I checked total demand deposit for some blip was to try to divine where the securities came from. Of course they could just tell us ... but afik they did not. Of course they could be adding demand deposit at exactly the same rate they are draining, but I was hoping for some change not the whole 2 Trillion chunk. I am skeptical it added to demand deposits in the US, I think they mostly bought from financial institutions that hold reserves directly with the Fed, or through prime brokers. If that is right it explains why there was little obvious net effect on the real economy or lending, other than to remove that approximately $100B source of profit from the banking industry. Thoughts??? Greenbe (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Greenbe: You're still repeating your error. You say: "OK, let's step back a bit and review the back and forth. I feel like we have established and agreed on a few things and I add a few more: 1. Banks cannot directly "lend out" reserves to non-banks since that is not the definition of reserve..."

No, we haven't agreed on that. We've already established that your theory is error.

The legal definition of "reserves" includes vault cash -- the actual, physical paper currency and coin owned by a bank and, for the most part, held in its vaults. I quoted the definition for you, directly from the regulations of the U.S. Federal Reserve System. Thus, it is most certainly possible for a bank to directly lend out vault cash, to a non-bank or to anyone else. Furthermore, if it were impossible to do that, and if never occurred, the AICPA would not need to have the warning in its Audit Guide to the effect that such a practice is a weakness in internal control. As I have already explained to you, "lending out" of reserves is not impossible -- it's just highly unusual. Famspear (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

PS. Dear Greenbe: Perhaps your resistance to accepting the point that you were wrong about the definition of "reserves" (and that you were wrong about whether a bank can physically lend out those reserves) is based on a fear that this discovery somehow impairs the rest of your theories as you have explained them. I don't see that the rest of your theories are impaired. Again, it is correct to say that as a general rule, banks do not lend out paper currency and coin (which are indeed part of reserves). It would not be correct to say that lending out paper currency and coin is impossible, or that it never happens. Famspear (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I just made an edit to the lede removing the claim that QE is designed to "stimulate the economy". If you look up the wiki page "stimulous (economics)" then you will see that it is essentially defined as "that which is achieved by QE"... so the definition that was given in the lede was completely circular and therefore meaningless.

So I changed it in accordance with what Mervin King the former governor of the Bank of England (who was in charge when QE started in the UK) said. The reference includes the quote "What we were doing [through Quantitative Easing] is injecting money into the economy, and what the banking sector has been doing is destroying money [as existing loans were repaid]. As they reduce the size of their balance sheet and deleverage, they’re reducing not just the size of their assets but also the size of their liabilities. And most of the money in our economy comprises liabilities of banks in the form of bank deposits. So what we were doing was partially to offset what would otherwise have been an even bigger contraction." you can see him say those words on video here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15446545 Reissgo (talk) 08:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit - I said as much here back in Sept. 2015 , but you did a better job than me of articulating it. Xerton (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

sources checked out and this is definately an improvement over the confusing circluar definition. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Stimulus (economics) is certainly not just QE - QE is just one type of alleged economic stimulus - and the Wikipedia article on economic stimulus - fortunately - does not currently state that.--greenrd (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Reissgo: re this: having looked through the relevant portion of King's testimony before the Treasury Select Committee (in the BBC News video, with a transcript of the same remarks appearing here), he doesn't say anything about a "falling money supply" (in fact, the words "money supply," "falling" "declining," etc. don't appear). Instead, he talks about how QE is designed to respond to offset/slow the bank deleveraging process so as to encourage bank lending. Now, maybe this is describing the same idea, but I think to the extent possible, if we cite Sir Mervyn, we should try to match his terminology. Do you have objections to recasting the sentence accordingly? Neutrality^talk 00:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Given that the edits are in the lede, I would encourage the simplest possible language. Don't forget that most readers of the page will only have a very limited (or no) idea how the monetary system works. Most people have no idea that it is even possible for the money supply to fall. This means that when people first hear about QE they mistakenly assume that QE makes money supply automatically grow - and they may become overly concerned that out of control inflation may ensue. If they are made aware that QE is often simply combating an otherwise falling money supply then it will make much more sense.

I think that the words I chose do indeed correspond to what Mervyn King said. Especially this bit: "what we were doing was injecting money into the economy and what the banking system has been doing is destroying money" Reissgo (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Reissgo, we need the simplest language possible for the lede. The idea of QE is difficult to grasp in the current language when the concept is rather simple and destroying money is as clear as it gets. Printing new notes, WITHOUT retiring the current notes in circulation, decreases the value of all notes. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, when Mervyn King talks about banks destroying money, he is unquestionably talking about the destruction of (electronically recorded) demand deposits, as happens in our fractional reserve monetary system as loans are repaid at a faster rate than new loans are being taken out. Reissgo (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking through the QE page, I note there is scarcely a mention of the fact that without QE the money supply would be falling. I think this omission should be corrected. Perhaps a new section called "A falling money supply" or "How the money supply could fall without QE"? Reissgo (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

This is Original Research and as such should not appear in the article. If you can find a secondary or tertiary source that summarizes "quantitative easing" in those terms, please present it here and state your view as to how the source supports your proposed text. SPECIFICO talk 11:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The idea that QE counteracts a falling money supply is not unique to me. Apart from Mervyn King's statements you can also find the idea in these places (after a two minute search on google):

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jan/31/more-quantitative-easing-fall-money-supply

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-20/helicopter-has-already-been-tested-and-it-failed-spectacularly

http://www.lindau-nobel.org/christopher-sims-ultra-liquidity/

Reissgo (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Please review WP policy as to Reliable Sources and Verification, then cite the text in mainstream RS on this subject that supports specific article text you propose to include. SPECIFICO talk 11:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Christopher Sims said "We see this all too clearly in the Eurozone, where everything the ECB can do within its mandate to counteract the falling money supply is ineffective because interest rates are already on the floor".

The Guardian newspaper reports: "The prospects of fresh action by the Bank of England to boost growth increased on Tuesday after Threadneedle Street released figures showing a contraction in the money supply and weak borrowing by both companies and households. News of a drying up of credit left City analysts confident that a fresh round of quantitative easing would be announced by the Bank's nine-strong monetary policy committee when it meets next week."

Economicshelp.org (summarising King's words) said: "Therefore, without quantitative easing, we may have seen a bigger fall in the money supply and a deeper recession."

Bank of England leaflet on QE: "The money supply needs to keep growing at a steady rate to keep pace with the expansion of the economy, and to ensure inflation remains close to the Government’s 2% target." Reissgo (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The guardian and Larry Elliot used falling money supply, as well as several others. Omitting such renders a less elegant article. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Having read the whole article carefully, I find it quite confusing, on these scores:

• Section § Effectiveness quotes various experts' opinions, but without summarising them in an overview. Apparently, we have two successive quotes (IMF, Feldstein) that support the effectiveness of QE, then a significant opinion (Greenspan) against it, then another two (Stein, Irwin) for it; finally "Several studies" which "modestly" support it. Who's a poor sap to believe? And why bury Greenspan between the others? Surely we could make it clearer: (a) whether there's a general informed consensus, and if so, what; and (b) how effectiveness is measured against stated aims.
• Sections § Monetary financing and § QE for the people allude to QE's "failure", a conclusion in no wise supported by any of the preceding material - certainly not in such robust and categorical terms. And although the discussion in the latter section points to calls for change, nothing quoted there can be said to call QE a failure. Of course, if QE is, by informed consensus, a failure, the article ought to state so very clearly.

yoyo (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Quantitative tightening (QT) does the opposite of Quantitative Easing, and is also done for monetary policy reasons (where a central bank sells off some portion of its own held or previously purchased government bonds or other financial assets, in the market, and is usually so-called after periods of their own, earlier, Quantitative Easing, so I added it to the QE page. can we index both "Quantitative tightening" and abbrev. "QT", since the US fed has started to do that, and it's cpming up a lot in financial news & speech. - John in Chicago ChgoJohn (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

^shb "coming up" ChgoJohn (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2025 and 21 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Superawesomestar123 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: 49ers21.

— Assignment last updated by WikiUser496320 (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2025 (UTC)