and, if you're confused, i'll clarify: my position on the fed is the exact opposite of ron paul's.

ron paul wanted to end the fed. i disagree very strongly. what i want is for the left-keynesian perspective on the role of the fed to return to the status quo, which actually means giving them more power.

so long as we have this trickle up economy where all the wealth floats up to the top, i'm in favour of perpetual quantitative easing and willing to blame more or less everything that happens in the economy on weak demand as a result of inadequate government spending. now, you can make arguments about this or that, but at the end of the day it's the government that makes the money, and unless you want to stop that, as some people on the right do, you can't really get around the need to ensure that the state is creating enough paper wealth to go around. chances are that i'm going to argue that your position is rooted in a triviality, and that, even if i agree with you, it doesn't change the need to keep creating money at high rates.

so, the arguments presented by jordan weissman are mostly red herrings. the issue with quantitative easing is really about demand, and the shift in mindset that we all need to have is that the economy simply can't stand on it's own two feet by itself. trump may have been concerned about his own legacy mostly, but he's right on this, even if it's by accident.

nor does quantitative easing have any measurable effect on inflation. that's a relic of an outdated model; there's no evidence for it.

the main point, the main takeaway, is that we need to stop seeing quantitative easing as an emergency policy to bring in as a last resort and start seeing it as the new normal; the next time it's brought back, we should create legislation that keeps it permanently in place. if that requires jettisoning the independence of the fed then i'd support that, too - that's not something i ever really supported, anyways.