Back when the Fed started its first QE program, I thought it was a pretty risky bet. I felt that all QEs have gone far beyond providing emergency liquidity, and instead conceded that asset prices were/are unsustainably high. But one thing that would bail out an overpriced market for assets was to have a domestic economic revolution that rivaled WW2 rebuilding or the tech revolution. So, their reaction was to actually continue to prop up asset prices. Forget the Taylor Rule and whatever. The Fed wanted to give asset prices a floor. By attempting to give asset prices a floor, it was simply buying us time to have a solid economic revival that goes beyond juicing GDP with credit and entitlements.

That was over five years ago. We chose to invest this capital in three routes. One is domestic oil production. It may be a little early to tell, but it looks like all that money will have been wasted. So, net effect on the economy may end up being that we wasted time, money and natural resources in building useless machines in the middle of nowhere that added an unfathomable amount of carbon to our atmosphere. The other is Silicon Valley tech and biotech. So far, that has not been a bust, but I'm not sure it's playing out quite as well as we need it to. SV has a strange dynamic where the efficiencies and labor displacements that it has been bringing about may actually be harming our economy. Biotech sounds cool, but it may just be a new rent seeking industry that sucks off the teat of inefficiencies of socialized medicine.

Needless to say, I don't think any of these industries are anywhere near the level of revolution they need to be to actually justify asset price levels. They can be good, but I doubt that good.

So, regarding 'potential dangers' in asset price overvaluations. Umm, no shit?