We intended first to boost the stock and property markets. Supported by this safety net – rising markets – export-oriented industries were supposed to reshape themselves so they could adapt to a domestic-led economy. This step was supposed to bring about an enormous growth of assets over every economic sector. The wealth effect would in turn touch off personal consumption and residential investment, followed by an increase in investment in plant and equipment. In the end, loosened monetary policy would boost real economic growth.
This is the post I did below, but from the mouth of an official. All that this guys says is true, the downside is that "it is true for awhile", namely until the debt repayments come due or the debt burden is too much. Then the same dynamic kicks in reverse. As a politician, who can resist the above logic? The last sentence can be expanded in "In the end, loosened monetary policy would boost real economic growth, FOR A WHILE, until the cash flow needs are too strong and then the financial system implodes with great consequences for the economy. We are jackasses, wizards of oz that don't know what the fuck we are doing, yet pilot the central bank of one of the major economies". FUCKING CLOWNS!
That is my top of mind thought right now. That no one really understands money. The fact that the statement above, comes from a high placed official who shows an incomplete understanding of monetary history that could have been filled by simple studies of the 1870, 1907 and 1929 financial crises, speaks volumes.
We are cro-magnons when it comes to money. This crisis is easily explained: the human race is RETARDED and STUPID when it comes to money.