Finally got time to read your link.
I thought this was very accurate and telling:
First, the high demand for liquidity that prompted the cash injections is not the result
of higher demand for goods and services. Banks will be using the money to shore up
their own balance sheets rather than reinjecting it into the real economy. And
quantitative easing is designed not to send the money supply into orbit but to stop it
from crashing—in other words, to ward off deflation.
Problem is you can inflate your way to ward off deflation when there is a hole in the balloon...
The greatest danger, dwarfing all other risks, is the possibility of an outbreak of
major inter-state conflict, an all-too-common feature of past episodes of
extreme economic distress. The British historian, Niall Ferguson, has recently
talked of an imminent "age of upheaval". Looking at the causes of 20th century
upheavals, he concludes that just three factors made the location and timing of
large-scale conflict more or less predictable: ethnic disintegration, extreme
economic volatility and the decline of empires. All three are very much present
today. Before such theses are just dismissed as scaremongering, two things
should be remembered: first, very few in the pre-1914 world predicted the
disaster ahead; and second, in our own times very few predicted the depth of
the financial and economic meltdown now afflicting the world.
Author