Read this passage from the article, first paragraph:
“The Federal Reserve’s unconventional measures to boost the recovery in recent years have followed a pattern in benchmarks of the economy’s health. In months before past Fed action, private payroll growth worsened, the economy stalled or contracted and stocks weakened, depressing consumer and business confidence.”
First, the WSJ missed the most obvious trigger, an article by Hilsenrath! I am not being snarky. Every single Fed move over the last two years has been telegraphed by Hilsenrath. The WSJ has a duty to print this, because of the huge conflict of interest inherent in having one of its reporters function as Bernanke’s mouthpiece.
Second, the writer is assuming that Fed action works. The underlined passage should read “unconventional measures in attempts to boost the recovery.” Why not also include information showing that these measures have a disputed effect? The empirical evidence to date shows that Fed action certainly raises the prices of stocks and commodities in the short-term, but any claims to improvements in labor market growth are questionable.