A rise in money supply in response to an increase in money demand does not mean that the effect on the economy will be neutral. As a result, any rise in the supply of money out of thin air. we will have all of the adverse consequences that an increase in money out of printing causes.
This perspective is the opposite of what "money" does in an economy. If the necessary real resources are available to expand the economy, computers being your example, the money simply serves to deploy those resources in the private sector by serving as a common unit of measure.
To deny the potential for economic growth because we thought we were out of any other unit of measure, ie: inches, feet, gallons, etc. would be absurd and your article's subject would be a comedy, not economics. It is only when absurdity is applied to money that it becomes acceptable, and orthodox economists will conjure elaborate formulas to explain it.
The decision to keep the money or lend it out changes the demand for money, but this has nothing to do with saving.
This decision is not applicable to banking in a fiat currency environment. The act of borrowing is the primary cause for increases in the money supply. No one is lending the savings of others. Reserves are created, in balance with borrowers' contracts/collateral, that become obligations of the lending bank, not assets.
As the bank receives payment on the principle of the obligation contract the reserves are retired and the money supply is reduced until the loan is repaid. The money supply remains unchanged but the real resources are effectively deployed and added to the economy. Only the interest paid on the loan by the borrower is responsible for the increase in the money supply and that can only be supplied by federal deficit spending. Without that "real" money injection in a timely fashion, the economy will suffer from defaults and deflation.
Now let us examine the effect of printing money by a Central Bank on the pool of real savings. Since the expanded money supply was never earned, products, therefore, do not support it, so to speak.
The central bank can exchange reserves for other forms of money, such as Treasury instruments or mortgage bonds without "creating money", which is what QE does. It cannot create "net" money in the private sector that is able to be net saved or pay a federal tax obligation. That is the sole monopoly of Congress in the US.
Given that banks don't use savings to lend and create new reserves with each loan, one has to wonder what the goal of QE is for the Fed. Claiming that it is a tool to set rates isn't accurate, but neither is the claim that it somehow provides an incentive for lending.
Instead of being concerned about the "quantity" of reserves converted it might be wiser to worry about the "quality" of investments being exchanged for them. The combined balance sheet between the Fed and Treasury would allow for a grand money laundering scheme if lenders are still making questionable investments or still have those left from the '08 crash to dispose of. You alluded to this in your last paragraph, but I don't think you understand fully the mechanics involved.
It is my guess, (totally unqualified and without a shred of solid evidence) that the Fed and Treasury are mopping up a future calamity in the commercial loan market preemptively before it can do the damage we saw in the housing market and all of the derivatives it spun off. If we don't get a handle on investment banking this will be a continual process and will eventually take down Wall St and our economy. That, however, is not related to your objections and needs to be addressed by Congress and regulation, not at the Fed.
