Yes, but you did not create the short term cash in order to liquidate your stock portfolio. The Federal Reserve did.
Your problem is that in that joy to be a smarmy jerk like Toddster you overlook simple fundamental facts, like the fact that short term money equivalents, unlike credit, are not created out of thin air but genuinely reflect short term cash created by the Federal Reserve.
There is a wealth of economics literature on the subject if you need to go educate yourself on it. You can start with the Federal Reserve itself.
You see, if the federal reserve did not create the liquidity for the system, you could and everyone else could not liquidate stock portofolios at ever increasing valuations because one liquidation would decrease the amount of short term cash available for the next liquidation. There is only so much money to go around, unless Bernanke stays as busy as he has been and creates more of it.
BTW I know of no serious economist or member of the federal reserve board or economist at the federal reserve who argues that the federal reserve does not create short term money. The argument is not about whether they do, but whether they should, and whether they should be creating moral hazard by liquidating the excesses of the banking system.
Prove it. LOL!
Are you really as ignorant as your post implies? Banks can create money with no Fed. In fact, it is the hindrance of a reserve requirement that holds money creation in check.
Yes the Fed control the increase in the narrower measures of money, through require reserves and their effect on banks' ability to make new loans. But it is there new loans that directly create or destroy new dollars. And MZM is much broader than the items the Fed directly controls. M1 closely, M2 loosely, yes. MZM, no.
But there is a more basic error in your comment, when you say only more short term money can allow stocks to be sold at higher prices. This is obviously just false. The same $1 million can serve to liquidate any amount of stock, just by using it over and over. A typical dollar in the financial circulation in New York turns over literally 50000 times faster than a dollar in the rest of the economy.
Once someone sells a stock, what do they want to hold instead? If it is a dollar balance at a bank, then it will increase the demand for dollars, which would raise the value of dollars (cause deflation) if the quantity of them were fixed. Since the quantity of them isn't fixed, it doesn't do that either, it just prompts the Fed to ease a little to accomodate the higher demand for held dollar balances.
But if they want to hold art, or gold, or Brazilean Llama futures, then no, it doesn't increase the demand for dollars, the dollars turns right over as many times as people want to move from one asset to another through as many intermediaries and at any prices they please, and those dollars have performed their medium of exchange function, without the amount of gold or art or stocks or llamas or written contracts or little green slips of paper, having changed in the slightest.