Talk:Quantitative easing

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  The purpose of QE 

message: Having read the whole article carefully, I find it quite confusing, on these scores:
* Section  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  and  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)
thread_title:  Confusing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Quantitative tightening (QT) noted today on pg QE should be indexed.