The Impact of Quantitative Easing on The U.S. Economy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/yhcbs318Keywords:
Quantitative easing; public service; consumption; investment.Abstract
Quantitative easing has had a profound impact on various aspects of the US economy, including social welfare and wealth disparities, education reforms, changes in government fiscal strategies and financial regulation, alterations in consumption savings and investment patterns, as well as corporate strategy adjustments. Additionally, this policy has significantly influenced academia, policymaking, and public discourse. The recession was not limited to the financial markets but affected all sectors of society. In a low-interest-rate environment, capital seeking higher returns flooded into the stock and real estate markets leading to soaring prices. While excessive borrowing and spending may stimulate short-term economic growth; it could trigger a credit crunch that would further depress growth in the long run. In the current global low-interest rate environment, higher education institutions have the option of obtaining funds through debt financing; however, they must remain vigilant to fluctuations in tuition and educational burden. Collaboration between governments, educational institutions, employers and students is crucial for mitigating this crisis. Vocational education has become a more cost-effective and adaptable alternative due to its lower tuition fees. Furthermore, quantitative easing may impose constraints on future government policymaking regarding debt-related issues. The government should closely monitor changes in inflationary pressures, take measures to contain the threat of high inflation to economic stability, and prevent long-term debt accumulation from leading to fiscal deficits and cuts in public services.
Downloads
References
Bernanke B. The Federal Reserve and the Financial Crisis. Economics and Finance, 2013, 1(2): 2-30.
Bernanke B, Reinhart V R, Sack B P. Monetary policy alternatives at zero bound: An empirical assessment. Brookings papers on economic activity, 2004, 4(2): 1-100.
Czarnecki K, Korpi T, Nelson K. Student support and tuition fee systems in comparative perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 2020,46(09): 34-60.
Damle H, Basu S, Ercolano S. Effect of the U.S. quantitative easing policy on institutional investor flows of an emerging country. Cogent Economics & Finance, 2020, 8(1): 175-200.
Di Maggio M, Kermani A, Palmer C J. How quantitative easing works: Evidence on the refinancing channel. The Review of Economic Studies, 2020, 87(3): 1498-1528.
Ephraim B E. Banking sector performance amid crisis: A study on the impact of quantitative easing on bank stock returns in the US during COVID-19. The Review of Economic Studies, 2023, 23(01): 732-800.
Gagnon J E. Quantitative easing: An underappreciated success. PIIE Policy Brief, 2016,16(43):1-7.
Gagnon J, Raskin M, Remache J, Sack B. Large-scale asset purchases by the Federal Reserve: Did they work? The Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports, 2011, 21(441): 1-45.
Goksu A, Goksu G G. A comparative analysis of higher education financing in different countries. Procedia Economics and Finance, 2015, 26(43): 1152-1158.
Kirikos D G. Quantitative easing impotence in the liquidity trap: Further evidence. Economic Analysis and Policy, 2020, 68(09): 151-162.
Li Jing, Gao, Mingyu. A study on the spillover of monetary policy normalization in the United States: A comparison between emerging economies and developed economies. Shanghai Economic Research Journal, 2019, 21(06): 110-120.
Morrison A. The moral economies of marketised higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 2022, 43(2): 199-215.
ShaoYu, Chen Dafei. Gains and losses of quantitative easing. Financial Expo, 2020, 21(02): 34-35.
Siami Namini S. Quantitative Easing Policy and Income Inequality in the U.S. Economy: Evidence from a FAVAR Model. 2020, 65(20): 759–779.
Sweet E, Nandi A, Adam E K, McDade T W. The high price of debt: Household financial debt and its impact on mental and physical health. Social Science & Medicine, 2013, 56(91): 94-100.
van der Klaauw W, Wolpin K L. Social security and the retirement and savings behavior of low-income households. Journal of Econometrics, 2008, (145): 21-42.
Zhao Jian, Li Jia Yi. Interest rate trend, wealth heterogeneity and wealth gap: Theoretical analysis and empirical test from the perspective of asset structure. International Finance Research, 2022, (08): 24-33.
Zhu Qi Rong, Sun Ming Song. The economic impact of the US QE4 policy on the world's major economies and China's countermeasures. Research in Financial Economics, 2020, 35(03): 77-89.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.






