For the last time, QE is not a loan. It was $1.3T per year for four consecutive years, given by the FED to the large investment banks. In exchange the FED took failed assets off those banks' books at face (not market) value. Go learn something
They didn't allow the FED to give $1.3T per year, for four years running to the large investment banks? Is that your final answer?
You've had my final answer on what happened historically as a result of the SubPrime Mess that caused the Great Recession. Rebut or go vent your irritability elsewhere ...
I'd go a bit further. Beyond unionizing the work-force, make them part-owners in the company by means of stock-options. This gives them an even more effective "voice" in the company Of course, not everybody in the hierarchy would obtain the same stock-option values. But, at the very least each worker, regardless of rank, would be "owner" of the company and, as such, vote on matters that affect uniquely the company. Voting-ESOP's (Employee Stock Ownership Plan) would give employees a voice in running the company from the POV further down the corporate ladder - which is often where a company begins to flounder. If nobody asks employees and employees have no inherent "right to voice their opinions" then all goes to hell very quickly in a hand-basket. Stock-ownership would not only give workers a say in matters but often at a critical level where/when operations start to fail. And this is how many companies come-apart. That is, most seem to blame TopManagement and its Marketing Plan. But, often enough, the basic fault comes from some internal aspect of production that TopManagement overlooks - because nobody is responsible for signalling any dysfunction so nobody does ...
Which prompted me to recall Stock Ownership by Employees that still functions in some eastern-European countries. It works for two very good reasons: *Workers benefit partially by corporate ownership in terms of stock valuations (but they also assume the risks of devalued stocks). *There is a tendency for workers to stay-longer in a company rather than hopping from job-to-job looking for better "career opportunities". But, no, there is no real means of getting workers to stay-put except really good-pay. The two options mentioned above simply have a positive effect in keeping them within the company.
Er...a hammer? Still needs one user to hammer a nail, I think. But your global neoliberal competitive free market system has passed its use-by date. (BTW, Americans still apparently prefer German and Japanese cars; but if it wasn't for Obama intervening in the market, GM would have folded during the GFC - your preferred outcome, obviously, with your monstrous survival of the fittest philosophy. Nature sorts out species selection that way, but humans don't have to follow suit to manage a just economic system. Even Trump is calling for " fair-trade not free-trade" (his exact words a couple of days ago)…. but of course the other G7 disagree with Trump's definition of "fair trade"....
You're 100% wrong and completely ignorant of how QE worked. Not bad for an expert in economics. You should be proud
Just a helping remark: You need to copy something from the person to whom you are responding in order for others to know to whom your message is addressed ...
A BUNCH OF HALFWITS Trump did not define Free Trade. That happened a long time ago at the WTO in 1990 when it was created. You are forgetting that Trade Agreements as signed are not abrogated freely by any one country. There were negotiated in the context of the World Trade Organization. Which has as its charter this: If Trump wants to renegotiate a Trade Agreement, that's where he starts. Not a G7 meeting, where all the countries came down upon him like a ton-of-bricks. Because he made it patently obvious that he did not know the basic rules about Trade Agreements - or if he did, he could care less about the rules. Who the hell is "advising" Donald Dork? Looks like that other idiot Bannon. (That makes two-to-tango and both twerps.) America, what a fix you have got yourself into - a bunch of halfwits are pulling your strings ... *Which means Donald Dork has no right whatsoever to change agreements without having negotiated them at the WTO and presented them to Congress for approval.
What I described. The FED gave the wall st banks $1.3T every year, for four years running. In exchange the FED removed the same dollar amount of their most toxic, failed assets, paying them face not market value, and put them on the books of the FED where they remain today. The banks, flush with cash were then able to buy up everybody's distressed assets for cheep and drive the prices back up How many common folk got paid face value for their underwater homes and we're able to rebuy at distressed levels? Their stocks? How much trickled down to the working guy?
you mean it gave the surviving banks money to prevent a rerun of of the 1929 Great Depression and World War. Good for them!!
Lots and lots actually because the banking collapse did not trickle down to them as it did in 1929 Great Depression!!
