It certainly doesn't work when it's entirely fake.
The Fed is trying to skip the cause, and acquire the result. It's one of the dumbest economic concepts ever devised.
Trickle-down is a goofy name for capital investment. Meaning, rich people have capital, they allocate it where they can earn a return. Nothing can ever actually alter this premise, it will exist even in the most Communist of nations; so calling anything trickle-down is absurd, it's all trickle-down, even when it's the Communist Party in the USSR that is the rich and doing the trickling down. In a healthy economy, job creation goes hand-in-hand with that capital investment, it's no more complex than that.
Normally a booming stock market is the result of widespread economic growth - that is, in the absence of the Fed generating huge imbalances in the economy that spur an artificial stock market boom.
This (the Fed trying to acquire the result without the cause) is the same exact reason we're seeing non-existent job creation. The Reagan recovery saw massive, full-time job months, such as 1.1 million produced in Sept 1983. Bill Clinton also saw very impressive full-time job gains. So far this non-recovery is lucky if it produces 200k jobs, and if 10% of them are full time jobs, with only 50% in hospitality and retail (low paying consumption driven jobs instead of production).
The Fed is trying to skip the cause, and acquire the result. It's one of the dumbest economic concepts ever devised.
Trickle-down is a goofy name for capital investment. Meaning, rich people have capital, they allocate it where they can earn a return. Nothing can ever actually alter this premise, it will exist even in the most Communist of nations; so calling anything trickle-down is absurd, it's all trickle-down, even when it's the Communist Party in the USSR that is the rich and doing the trickling down. In a healthy economy, job creation goes hand-in-hand with that capital investment, it's no more complex than that.
Normally a booming stock market is the result of widespread economic growth - that is, in the absence of the Fed generating huge imbalances in the economy that spur an artificial stock market boom.
This (the Fed trying to acquire the result without the cause) is the same exact reason we're seeing non-existent job creation. The Reagan recovery saw massive, full-time job months, such as 1.1 million produced in Sept 1983. Bill Clinton also saw very impressive full-time job gains. So far this non-recovery is lucky if it produces 200k jobs, and if 10% of them are full time jobs, with only 50% in hospitality and retail (low paying consumption driven jobs instead of production).