My second thought when reading this article is the fact that the author is able to split things up into very nice subsections. The "region" of the "United States economy" that needs a "round" of quantitative easing can be seen through the graphs. From what I know about Austrian economics, however limited that knowledge may be, I do not believe there is such thing as the "United States" economy, much less "regions", because the world is network of exchange. The network of exchange that occurs in the United States is not just contained on our soil. Imagine this; all the exchanges that occur in the world are shown by a line connecting the origins of the interactions, now in order to isolate the "economy" of the United States drawn a line around the area we know as the United States. Look at all the lines you just drew a line around! These lines, or exchanges, are not looked at as part of the United States economy even though economic activity in and around the US depends on those interactions just as much as any interaction. Trying to analyze the United States economy as a separate entity even though it is really just a part of the this huge world network is like trying to view the human body as separate individual parts even though they are all dependent on other parts of the body to function.
The last comment I have to make is that the author uses the term "rounds" to describe a session of QE. Although this policy may only be in effect for a period of time, the economy keeps going. I try to think of the changes in variables that would occur during the QE time, but when the QE stops what will happen? All the variables that the Fed is trying to manipulate will change again and then the outcome of the QE policy will become even more foggy. Buttonwood, the author, clearly sees the economy as his Econo-car where if he puts in a bigger motor it will go faster and gain horsepower. The economy is clearly not a machine because the world wide network is made up of people and we are not machines.