Quantitative easing: giving cash to the public would have been more effective

Now, when Janet Yellen, the Fed chairwoman, has called time on quantitative easing in the US, there are quite a few people advocating injecting the money directly into veins of the economy.

In an article with a controversial title “QE central bankers deserve a medal for saving society” in the Telegraph on 29th Oct 2014, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard argues:

We may need QE4 after all. If so, let us inject the stimulus money directly into veins of the economy next time, using it to build roads, houses and an infrastructure fit for the 21st century.

Read the whole article here.

On the same day an article entitled “Quantitative easing: giving cash to the public would have been more effective” by Larry Elliot was published in the Guardian. He discusses some fundamental questions:

Has QE worked? Does it mean the end of economic stimulus? Who really gained from the policy? Were there any better alternatives?

QE could have been better designed. …Handing a cheque directly to members of the public would have got money into the economy much more effectively.

Read the whole article here.

We agree. There’s a far more powerful way of creating jobs and boosting the real economy! Our Sovereign Money proposal explains how the Bank of England and the government could make the recovery sustainable by creating a relatively small amount of money and spending it into the real economy. This would lead to a boost in jobs and employment, and stop the current debt-fuelled recovery turning into another crisis. More info & download

[smc_vs_qe_infographic]

Download Print at home version