What do people mean when they talk about the central bank providing “cheap money”? What are the implications for the stock market?
Companies with existing borrowings (where borrowings are on variable interest rates) or in the case with fixed interest rates - companies that get new borrowings - would pay less interest on these borrowings, so their cost will go down and profits up, making them more attractive to investors.  So, in general lower interest rates will make the share market a more attractive investment (than some alternatives) as investors are willing to take on more risk for potentially higher returns. This will usually result in the stock market rising as it is currently in the US. EDIT: The case for rising interest rates A central bank's purpose when raising interest rates is to slow down an economy that is booming. As interest rates rise consumers will tighten up their spending and companies will thus have less revenue on top of higher costs for maintaining existing borrowing (with variable rates) or new borrowing (with fixed rates). If rates are higher companies may also defer new borrowings to expand their business. This will eventually lead to lower profits and lower valuation for these companies. Another thing that happens is that as banks start increasing interest for saving accounts investors will look for safety where they can get a higher return (than before) without the risk of the stock market.  With lowering profits and valuations, and investor's money flowing out of shares and into the money market, so will company share prices drop (although this may lag a bit with the share market still booming due to greed. But once the boom stops watchout for the crash). "There are a couple of different things that could be referenced by ""cheap money"": The money supply itself - This is the Federal Reserve printing more money which could devalue the existing US dollars and thus make the dollars even cheaper since there would be more of them. Interest rates - Currently in the US interest rates are rather low which means that borrowers could possibly get good rates on that money thus making it relatively cheap.  Compare current interest rates to the early 1980s and there is a major difference. In terms of implications on the stock market, there are a couple that come to my mind: Investment options - With low interest rates, cash and bonds aren't necessarily yielding that much and thus some people may be more likely to invest elsewhere with stocks being an option.  Thus, there may be some people that would rather invest in stocks than hold their investments in lower-yielding options. Corporate spending - If rates stay low, then for companies with good financial track records, they could borrow money to expand operations rather than sell more stock and thus there may be companies that borrow to grow so that they take advantage of these interest rates." "Newspapers write a lot about the central bank stopping ""cheap money"" in the US. What is that exactly and what are the implications for the stock market? An interest rate is simply defined as the price of money.  So if money is cheap, it must mean there is a low interest rate compared to normal.  If milk is cheap, we're comparing it to past prices or prices at competitors' stores.  Same with money. I don't think its fair to say just because the supply of dollars rises that the value of dollars will go down.  Value or price is determined by supply and demand, not just supply.  Its possible for the demand for dollars to be stronger than the rising supply, which would drive the price higher.  A good example of this is to look at the value of the dollar recently.  The Fed has been printing $85 billion per month, yet the value of them is going up compared to foreign currencies, gold, and just about everything.  Why? Because the Fed has merely threatened to stop, but it hasn't stopped.  That alone was enough to increase demand above supply.  So if you want to know what will happen, take a look at what IS happening. When cheap money ends, the value of the dollar will go up, interest rates will go up.  This will be a drag on the economy.  It will be more difficult for companies to show profits and earnings should decline.  In addition, those who have grown accustom to the easy money and have over-leveraged themselves (ie REITs) could go bankrupt."
"Quantitative Easing Explained: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/10/07/130408926/quantitative-easing-explained The short of it is that you're right; the Fed (or another country's Central Bank) is basically creating a large amount of new money, which it then injects into the economy by buying government and institutional debt. This is, in fact, one of the main jobs of the central bank for a currency; to manage the money supply, which in most fiat systems involves slowly increasing the amount of money to keep the economy growing (if there isn't enough money moving around in the economy it's reflected in a slowdown in GDP growth), while controlling inflation (the devaluation of a unit of currency with respect to most or all things that unit will buy including other currencies). Inflation's primary cause is defined quite simply as ""too many dollars chasing too few goods"". When demand is low for cash (because you have a lot of it) while demand for goods is high, the suppliers of those goods will increase their price for the goods (because people are willing to pay that higher price) and will also produce more. With quantitative easing, the central bank is increasing the money supply by several percentage points of GDP, much higher than is normally needed. This normally would cause the two things you mentioned: Inflation - inflation's primary cause is ""too many dollars chasing too few goods""; when money is easy to get and various types of goods and services are not, people ""bid up"" the price on these things to get them (this usually happens when sellers see high demand for a product and increase the price to take advantage and to prevent a shortage). This often happens across the board in a situation like this, but there are certain key drivers that can cause other prices to increase (things like the price of oil, which affects transportation costs and thus the price to have anything shipped anywhere, whether it be the raw materials you need or the finished product you're selling). With the injection of so much money into the economy, rampant inflation would normally be the result. However, there are other variables at play in this particular situation. Chief among them is that no matter how much cash is in the economy, most of it is being sat on, in the form of cash or other ""safe havens"" like durable commodities (gold) and T-debt. So, most of the money the Fed is injecting into the economy is not chasing goods; it's repaying debt, replenishing savings and generally being hoarded by consumers and institutions as a hedge against the poor economy. In addition, despite how many dollars are in the economy right now, those dollars are in high demand all around the world to buy Treasury debt (one of the biggest safe havens in the global market right now, so much so that buying T-debt is considered ""saving""). This is why the yields on Treasury bonds and notes are at historic lows; it's bad everywhere, and U.S. Government debt is one of the surest things in the world market, especially now that Euro-bonds have become suspect. Currency Devaluation - This is basically specialized inflation; when there are more dollars in the market than people want to have in order to use to buy our goods and services, demand for our currency (the medium of trade for our goods and services) drops, and it takes fewer Euros, Yen or Yuan to buy a dollar. This can happen even if demand for our dollars inside our own borders is high, and is generally a function of our trade situation; if we're buying more from other countries than they are from us, then our dollars are flooding the currency exchange markets and thus become cheaper because they're easy to get. Again, there are other variables at play here that keep our currency strong. First off, again, it's bad everywhere; nobody's buying anything from anyone (relatively speaking) and so the relative trade deficits aren't moving much. In addition, devaluation without inflation is self-stablizing; if currency devalues but inflation is low, the cheaper currency makes the things that currency can buy cheaper, which encourages people to buy them. At the same time, the more expensive foreign currency increases the cost in dollars of foreign-made goods. All of this can be beneficial from a money policy standpoint; devaluation makes American goods cheaper to Americans and to foreign consumers alike than foreign goods, and so a policy that puts downward pressure on the dollar but doesn't make inflation a risk can help American manufacturing and other producer businesses. China knows this just as well as we do, and for decades has been artificially fixing the exchange rate of the Renmin B (Yuan) lower than its true value against the dollar, meaning that no matter how cheap American goods get on the world market, Chinese goods are still cheaper, because by definition the Yuan has greater purchasing power for the same cost in dollars. In addition, dollars aren't only used to buy American-made goods and services. The U.S. has positioned its currency over the years to be an international medium of trade for several key commodities (like oil), and the primary currency for global lenders like the IMF and the World Bank. That means that dollars become necessary to buy these things, and are received from and must be repaid to these institutions, and thus the dollar has a built-in demand pretty much regardless of our trade deficits.  On top of all that, a lot of countries base their own currencies on our dollar, by basically buying dollars (using other valuable media like gold or oil) and then holding that cash in their own central banks as the store of value backing their own paper money. This is called a ""dollar board"". Their money becomes worth a particular fraction of a dollar by definition, and that relationship is very precisely controllable; with 10 billion dollars in the vault, and 20 billion Kabukis issued from Kabukistan's central bank, a Kabuki is worth $.50. Print an additional 20 billion Kabuki and the value of one Kabuki decreases to $.25; buy an additional 10 billion dollars and the Kabuki's value increases again to $.50. Quite a few countries do this, mostly in South America, again creating a built-in demand for U.S. dollars and also tying the U.S. dollar to the value of the exports of that country. If Kabukistan's goods become highly demanded by Europe, and its currency increases relative to the dollar, then the U.S. dollar gets a boost because by definition it is worth an exact, fixed number of Kabukis (and also because a country with a dollar board typically has no problem accepting dollars as payment and then printing Kabukis to maintain the exchange rate)" "It's simply supply and demand.   First, demand: If you're an importer trying to buy from overseas, you'll need foreign currency, maybe Euros.  Or if you want to make a trip to Europe you'll need to buy Euros.  Or if you're a speculator and think the USD will fall  in value, you'll probably buy Euros. Unless there's someone willing to sell you Euros for dollars, you can't get any.  There are millions of people trying to exchange currency all over the world.  If more want to buy USD, than that demand will positively influence the price of the USD (as measured in Euros).  If more people want to buy Euros, well, vice versa. There are so many of these transactions globally, and the number of people and the nature of these transactions change so continuously, that the prices (exchange rates) for these currencies fluctuate continuously and smoothly. Demand is also impacted by what people want to buy and how much they want to buy it.  If people generally want to invest their savings in stocks instead of dollars, i.e., if lots of people are attempting to buy stocks (by exchanging their dollars for stock), then the demand for the dollar is lower and the demand for stocks is higher.  When the stock market crashes, you'll often see a spike in the exchange rate for the dollar, because people are trying to exchange stocks for dollars (this represents a lot of demand for dollars). Then there's ""Supply:"" It may seem like there are a fixed number of bills out there, or that supply only changes when Bernanke prints money, but there's actually a lot more to it than that.  If you're coming from Europe and want to buy some USD from the bank, well, how much USD does the bank ""have"" and what does it mean for them to have money?  The bank gets money from depositors, or from lenders.  If one person puts money in a deposit account, and then the bank borrows that money from the account and lends it to a home buyer in the form of a mortgage, the same dollar is being used by two people.  The home buyer might use that money to hire a carpenter, and the carpenter might put the dollar back into a bank account, and the same dollar might get lent out again.  In economics this is called the ""multiplier effect."" The full supply of money being used ends up becoming harder to calculate with this kind of debt and re-lending.   Since money is something used and needed for conducting of transactions, the number of transactions being conducted (sometimes on credit) affects the ""supply"" of money. Demand and supply blur a bit when you consider people who hoard cash.  If I fear the stock market, I might keep all my money in dollars.  This takes cash away from companies who could invest it, takes the cash out of the pool of money being used for transactions, and leaves it waiting under my mattress.  You could think of my hoarding as a type of demand for currency, or you could think of it as a reduction in the supply of currency available to conduct transactions. The full picture can be a bit more complicated, if you look at every way currencies are used globally, with swaps and various exchange contracts and futures, but this gives the basic story of where prices come from, that they are not set by some price fixer but are driven by market forces.   The bank just facilitates transactions.  If the last price (exchange rate) is 1.2 Dollars per Euro, and the bank gets more requests to buy USD for Euros than Euros for USD, it adjusts the rate downwards until the buying pressure is even.  If the USD gets more expensive, at some point fewer people will want to buy it (or want to buy products from the US that cost USD).  The bank maintains a spread (like buy for 1.19 and sell for 1.21) so it can take a profit. You should think of currency like any other commodity, and consider purchases for currency as a form of barter.  The value of currency is merely a convention, but it works.  The currency is needed in transactions, so it maintains value in this global market of bartering goods/services and other currencies.  As supply and demand for this and other commodities/goods/services fluctuate, so does the quantity of any particular currency necessary to conduct any of these transactions. A official ""basket of goods"" and the price of those goods is used to determine consumer price indexes / inflation etc.  The official price of this particular basket of goods is not a fundamental driver of exchange rates on a day to day basis." The general discussion of inflation centers on money as a medium of exchange and a store of value. It is impossible to discuss inflation without considering time, since it is a comparison between the balance between money and goods at two points in time. The whole point of using money, rather than bartering goods, is to have a medium of exchange. Having money, you are interested in the buying power of the money in general more than the relative price of a specific commodity. If some supply distortion causes a shortage of tobacco, or gasoline, or rental properties, the price of each will go up. However, if the amount of circulating money is doubled, the price of everything will be bid up because there is more money chasing the same amount of wealth. The persons who get to introduce the additional circulating money will win at the expense of those who already hold cash. Most of the public measures that are used to describe the economy are highly suspect. For example, during the 90s, the federal government ceased using a constant market basket when computing CPI, allowing substitutions. With this, it was no longer possible to make consistent comparisons over time. The so-called Core CPI is even worse, as it excludes food and energy, which is fine provided you don't eat anything or use any energy. Therefore, when discussing CPI, it is important to understand what exactly is being measured and how. Most published statistics understate inflation. &gt;First of all QE is an increase of money supply but using non conventional measures(there might be exceptions) some examples of this measures are changing interest rates or TLTRO.  Ok, but how is this different from printing money? I mean the money supply goes up in both cases, right? Shouldn´t this cause massive inflation?  &gt;As to why this hasnt transitioned into more inflation, which in the end has but years after, has been a question that people have asked a lot. One of the reasons for this is the transmission mechanism not working properly, which implies that despite the fact banks have received money, they havent been able to move it to the real economy hence not increasing prices.  I have read that all QE has done is basically make the prices of assets such as housing, stocks, art and whatnot skyrocket. As if all the extra money has gone to a very few, specific areas while not touching the rest of the economy.  Is this something you agree with? Thanks for your reply, btw! Inflation can be a misleading indicator. Partly because it is not measured as a function of the change in prices of everything in the economy, just the basket of goods deemed essential. The other problem is that several things operate on it, the supply of money,  the total quantity of goods being exchanged, and the supply of credit. Because the supply of goods divides - as more stuff is available prices drop - it's not possible to know purely from the price level, if prices are rising because there's an actual shortage (say a crop failure), or simply monetary expansion. At this point it also helps to know that the total money supply of the USA (as measured by total quantity of money in bank deposits) doubles every 10 years, and has done that consistently since the 1970's.  USA Total Bank Deposits So I would say Simon Moore manages to be right for the wrong reasons. Despite low inflation, cash holdings are being proportionally devalued as the money supply increases. Most of the increase, is going into the stock market. However, since shares aren't included in the measures of inflation, then it doesn't influence the inflation rate. Still, if you look at the quantity of shares your money will buy now, as opposed to 5 years ago, it's clear that the value of your money has dropped substantially.  The joker in the pack is the influence of the credit supply on the price level. "Currencies that are pegged or fixed require that foreign currencies are held by the central issuer at a proportional amount. This is analogous to having a portfolio of currencies that the central bank issues shares from - in the form of its own currency. We will continue with this analogy, if the central bank says these ""shares"" are worth $1, but the underlying components of the portfolio are worth $0.80 and decreasing, then it is expensive for the central bank to maintain its peg, and eventually they will have to disregard the peg as people start questioning the central bank's solvency. (People will know the $1 they hold is not really worth what the central bank says it is, because of the price changes people experience in buying goods and services, especially when it comes to imports. Shadow economies will also trade using a currency more reflective of labor, which happens no matter what the government's punishments are for doing so). Swiss National Bank (central bank) did this in early 2015, as it experienced volatility in the Euro which it had previously been trying to keep it's currency pegged to. It became too expensive for it to keep this peg on its own. The central bank can devalue its currency by adjusting the proportions of the reserve, such as selling a lot of foreign currency X, buying more of currency Y. They can and do take losses doing this. (Swiss National Bank is maintaining a large loss) They can also flood their economy with more of their currency, diluting the value of each individual 1 dollar equivalent. This is done by issuing bonds or monetizing goods and services from the private sector in exchange for bonds. People colloquially call this ""printing money"" but it is a misnomer in this day and age where printers are not relevant tools. The good and service goes onto the central bank's balance book, and the company/entity that provided the service now has a bond on its book which can be immediately sold to someone else for cash (another reading is that the bond is as good as cash). The bond didn't previously exist until the central bank said it did, and central banks can infinitely exchange goods and services for bonds. Bond monetization (also called Quantitative Easing) is practiced by the Federal Reserve in the United States, Bank of Japan, European Central Bank and now the Central Bank of the Republic of China" Anything related to the central bank will have a large impact, as they are the ones who determine interest rates, and interest rates have a big effect on currency flows.  GDP is also important, as when there is an economic slowdown it may result in the central bank reducing rates to boost economic activity. The opposite is also true, large increases in GDP may mean that an interest rate hike might be needed. Inflation data is also very important. Again, large changes in inflation either way may push the central bank towards changing rates. This data typically is in the form of CPI Note that each central bank is different. They all have specific mandates and specific pieces of economic data that they place emphasis on. The Federal Reserve as of late has closely been watching inflation data, especially wage inflation data, and employment. Significant deviations in these data points from whats expected by investors can greatly move the market. However, these specific factors are a little less important for, say, Mexico, which is mostly concerned with headline inflation. Read the statements issued by the central banks to find out whats important to them. Central banks also issue expectations for things like growth, CPI, etc. If these expectations are not met, it may result in a policy change, or at least talk of a policy change, at the next meeting of the central bank. Anticipating these policy changes and trading accordingly is one strategy to be a profitable forex trader Also, there are several forex news calendars online that indicate what is likely to be high impact news. These can be helpful starting out. "The Bank of England will simply increase some numbers in a computer.  It will then buy UK Government Bonds (debt) and other financial assets from their favorite banks and investment firms with the newly created money that they just pulled out of thin air.  It's a win-win-lose.  Your government wins by getting more cash to waste, the elite global bankers win by getting more cash to swim around in, and you lose because the money supply inflates, so the small amount of cash you have now has even less buying power.  It's the perfect scheme for the government and banking elites.  They steal your money from you without you even noticing and just pretend it's a normal part of life.  But I expect all the Krugman worshipers to tell me why I'm wrong, throw around some obscure keyensian terms like ""liquidity trap"", and tell you why this is all good for you and to just shut up, accept it and keep quite." assuming that a couple big players are making the majority of money in the stock market (which is true), it is logical to assume that most smaller players are losing.   For example, if one big hedge fund makes 20% a year,  it means either 20 funds lost 1%, or 5 funds lost 4%, and etc.   Assuming that the economy is not drastically getting much better, stocks are a zero sum game. Therefore, the couple of funds with the most resources will be taking from the people that aren't as advanced or taking a chance. "Most folks would loan out money for the purpose of being re-loaned.  Depositing money in the bank, is loaning the bank money who will re-loan it.  Buying bond based mutual funds is another way that it could be viewed that people are loaning money for the purpose of the money being re-loaned.  The reason why banks always have money available for withdrawal, is because of the reserve.  Fractional reserve banking in its simplest explanation, is that banks are allowed to take deposits and loan them out so long as they keep a set reserve.  If the reserve rate is 10% (it's really much lower), and somebody deposits $100, then the bank is allowed to loan out $90, keeping $10 as a reserve.  Now even with a reserve, a bank does run some risk of the deposits being withdrawn faster than the loans are paid back, this is called a run.  What protects banks most from this, is that deposits, withdrawals, loans, and loan repayments, all happen at a fairly steady and predictable rate (short term), so banks are able to judge how many loans they should give out.  Even when banks do see their reserve depleting, they have options.  The first and most common, is simply getting a loan from another bank.  The rule with the reserve, is that banks need to meet it at the end of the day, so banks will loan each other money overnight for the purpose of making up for the slight fluctuations that occur in a normal business day.  If you have ever heard the Fed talking about the ""overnight rate"" they are talking about the rate banks loan each other money for the night.  Another common way for banks to make up for a deficit in deposits, in a longer term solution,is to sell assets.  Fairly rare for a bank to sell actual physical assets, but the loans they hold are assets, and they can sell them to other banks.  Most banks will also hold some bonds that are available to sell.  The major functions that allow a bank to be profitable would still apply to the OP's idea.  The only real difference would be that commercial banks have direct access to the central banks, and the OP's idea would need to have a commercial bank to act as the middle man between the central bank." "I've mostly seen this term peddled by those with large portfolios in gold/commodities. The incentive for these guys, who for example may have a large portfolio in gold, is to drive demand for gold up - which in turn drives the value of the gold they're holding up and makes their assets more valuable. The easiest way to get a large amount of people to invest in gold is to scare them into thinking the whole market is going to fall apart and that gold is their best/only option.  I personally think that the path we're on is not particularly sustainable and that we're heading for a large correction/recession anyways - but for other reasons.  **Example:**  [Peter Shiff YouTube Channel called ""The Economist"" with conspiracy videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/PeterSchiffChannel/videos)  [Actual ""The Economist"" magazine researching the market](https://www.youtube.com/user/EconomistMagazine/videos)  (edit: formatting)" "I'll take a stab at this question and offer a disclosure: I recently got in RING (5.1), NEM (16.4), ASX:RIO (46.3), and FCX (8.2).  While I won't add to my positions at current prices, I may add other positions, or more to them if they fall further.  This is called catching a falling dagger and it's a high risk move. Cons (let's scare everyone away) Pros The ECB didn't engage in as much QE as the market hoped and look at how it reacted, especially commodities.  Consider that the ECB's actions were ""tighter"" than expected and the Fed plans to raise rates, or claims so.  Commodities should be falling off a cliff on that news. While most American/Western attention is on the latest news or entertainment, China has been seizing commodities around the globe like crazy, and the media have failed to mention that even with its market failing, China is still seizing commodities.  If China was truly panicked about its market, it would stop investing in other countries and commodities and just bail out its own country.  Yet, it's not doing that.  The whole ""China crisis"" is completely oversold in the West; China is saying one thing (""oh no""), but doing another (using its money to snap up cheap commodities). Capitalism works because hard times strengthen good companies.  You know how many bailouts ExxonMobil has received compared to Goldman Sachs?  You know who owns more real wealth?  Oil doesn't get bailed out, banks do, and banks can't innovate to save their lives, while oil innovates.  Hard times strengthen good companies.  This means that this harsh bust in commodities will separate the winners from the losers and history shows the winners do very well in the long run. Related to the above point: how many bailouts from tax payers do you think mining companies will get?  Zero.  At least you're investing in companies that don't steal your money through government confiscation. If you're like me, you can probably find at least 9 people out of 10 who think ""investing in miners is a VERY BAD idea.""  What do they think is a good idea?  ""Duh, Snapchat and Twitter, bruh!""  Then there's the old saying, ""Be greedy when everyone's fearful and fearful when everyone's greedy."" Finally, miners own hard assets.  Benjamin Graham used to point this out with the ""dead company"" strategy like finding a used cigarette with one more smoke.  You're getting assets cheap, while other investors are overpaying for stocks, hoping that the Fed unleashes moar QE!  Think strategy here: seize cheap assets, begin limiting the supply of these assets (if you're the saver and not borrowing), then watch as the price begins to rise for them because of low supply.  Remember, investors are part owners in companies - take more control to limit the supply.  Using Graham's analogy, stock pile those one-puff cigarettes for a day when there's a low supply of cigarettes. Many miners are in trouble now because they've borrowed too much and must sell at a low profit, or in some cases, must lose.  When you own assets debt free, you can cut the supply.  This will also help the Federal Reserve, who's been desperately trying to figure out how to raise inflation.  The new patriotic thing to do is stimulate the economy by sending inflation up, and limiting the supply here is key." The monetary supply isn't a fixed number like in the old days of the [gold standard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard) is part of the answer. Also, the actual spending of that one thousand dollars -- where the money is spent and on what -- does make a significant difference on how the overall economy is effected: People spending it on food, transportation and housing isn't going to drive up the costs of a Porshe 911. "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://themarketmogul.com/central-bank-policy/?hvid=uJZ0z) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; A futures contract would be set at a certain level of NGDP growth, and from the buy and sell orders made on the contract, the central bank would ascertain the market&amp;#039;s prediction of future nominal income and alter its policy rate in a way that would bring those expectations in line with its original target.  &gt; TLTRO. First launched by the ECB in 2014, with TLTRO-II introduced in 2016, the TLTRO program allows banks to borrow reserve balances from the central bank, long-term and with negative rates, of up to 30% of the value of their outstanding loans to businesses and consumers, directly incentivising new loan creation to spur growth.  &gt; The policy has the potential to be far more effective than the aforementioned policy innovations and is likely to be relied upon in an expanded form, which might be referred to as &amp;#039;helicopter money&amp;#039;, alongside negative policy rates, when the next recession occurs.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6v2n2b/a_new_dawn_in_central_bank_policy/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~195528 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **rate**^#1 **inflation**^#2 **policy**^#3 **Bank**^#4 **central**^#5" It will have some positives, and some negatives. The hardest hit will be the insurance agencies, as well as banks. Manufacturing will also take a short term hit. When insurance payments come out, then there will be a boom in construction, consumer goods, industrial goods, etc. Companies will upgrade their equipment whereas before they might have let it run for another 10-20 years or longer. After all, if you are going to buy something, you aren't going to get it used, you'll get something more modern. Of course, Japan already was one of the most modern countries in the world, so they likely won't see as many gains as other countries, but this would hold more true in a less technologically advanced society. Long term, 10-20 years down the line, when everything is rebuilt, it might have a slight positive increase in productivity, but this will be somewhat offset because Japan already is such a technological powerhouse, and on the cutting edge in many technologies. But I agree, it's quite foolish to say that it'll improve the economy of Japan, some clarification should be done to clear that one up...