They were right about none of it. QE wasn't primary aimed at employment: that was what the stimulus was for. Except, in the US, the GOP deficit hawks insisted it be watered down.
> I see the following scenario: a weak stimulus plan, perhaps even weaker than what we’re talking about now, is crafted to win those extra GOP votes. The plan limits the rise in unemployment, but things are still pretty bad, with the rate peaking at something like 9 percent and coming down only slowly. And then Mitch McConnell says “See, government spending doesn’t work.”
* https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/stimulus-arithm...
And when these folks were talking about "inflation" they were referring to CPI and the risk of Wiemar Germany, not assets. And I wish people would stop using "asset inflation", as it muddies the waters wit regards to what "inflation" means, and there's already another term:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_bubble
And the reason why assets are going up is because there are "excess" savings: a bunch of money sitting around doing nothing because there's not much spending. Japan has been in this situation since the mid- to late-1990s:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_stagnation
Perhaps someone should start spending so the money is being used for something besides earning interest on interest.
> The currency didn't depreciate relative to other currencies, but is that because it held its value or because other currencies were also QEing their way out of the recession?
So basically another prediction by the inflationists was a no-op.