The Bank of England announced today:
At its meeting ending on 4 November 2015, the MPC ..... voted unanimously to maintain the stock of purchased assets financed by the issuance of central bank reserves at £375 billion, and so to reinvest the £6.3 billion of cash flows associated with the redemption of the December 2015 gilt held in the Asset Purchase Facility.
Let's be clear: that means the UK is still doing quantitative easing to support the finance sector.
That £6.3 billion could instead be used to capitalise a National Investment Bank. Then the rest of us would see a return from new housing, industry, investment, sustainable energy and so much more.
It really is time to change from quantitative easing to People's Quantitative Easing. There is no defence for not doing so when the funds become available now.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Richard-are these ‘cash flows’ the matured gilts which are redeemed by ‘payment’ from the treasury account at the BoE? So a continuation of the accounting trick which disguises the fact that it is sovereign money creation? presumably the bond dealers fill their wallets by selling at inflated prices with the new reserves being transferred back into bonds again?
This is indeed reinvestment of matured gilts
Forgive my ignorance Richard I have been a little out of touch of late and I am also confused by the BoE’s cryptic terminology.
I take it that the matured gilts represent (effectively)cancelled debt and that their determination to maintain reserves at the same level means that they are buying more(an equivalent to the amount that matures in 2015)
Is that what “reinvestment” means?
Marco
I and they are indeed referring to matured gilts
Richard
Richard,as I’ve said before, you can’t taper a ponzi scheme!
If they can’t taper they would have to maintain it $375bn indefinitely (forever?). Interesting.
This seems to provide more evidence that QE was never intended to help the real economy as promised.
It was only ever intended to preserve the profits of finance.
One wonders how, if the broader community had any knowledge or understanding of this, Osborne could even begin to justify removing working tax credits?
Don’t ban me Richard for writing this, but we all know that QE is just plain crazy when the Treasury can issue its own debt-free and interest-free money based on the wealth and potential of the British nation. It worked in 1914 and it can work now. http://www.thebcgroup.co.uk/What_Exactly_is_Austerity_V1.0.pdf
I distrust the motives of the group you link to
Pray enlighten – we are only going where the truth takes us.
The group website perpetuates a myth that the BoE is privately owned and has a, to me, unacceptable feel of anti-semitism to the suggestion
I’m appalled by your slur of anti-Semitism against me, my friends and our research. Either apologise immediately and retract or put up the FACTS to prove this slur!
As I recall it your campaign suggests the BoE is not nationalised (which is completely untrue) and hints at Rothschild involvement in the BoE, which is also wholly unfounded
If it does not do either of those things and I have confused you with another campaign then I apologise: it would be a case of mistaken identity
If these suggestions are on your web site I think both are unfounded and do nothing to help your campaign and leave an unsavoury feel to it that mean I could not associate with it
For an academic Richard, you need to educate yourself quickly in the area of what is and what isn’t anti-Semitic. Feed into any search engine “Jews against Zionism” or “Jews against Israel”. The House of Rothschild was the driving force behind Zionism which is completely at odds with the ancient and much respected religion of Judaism. Apology accepted.
On the question of the Bank of England, it may be ‘nationalised’ on paper but the reality is quite different. The intense secrecy that the Bank practices concerning its hidden ‘clients’ and its extremely close relationship with the privately controlled Bank for International Settlements – the central bank for all central banks – proves that the British Government and the British people have no real control over this institution. And please remember that my late uncle, Sir Harry later the Lord Pilkington, a Director of the Bank of England from 1955 until 1972, told me the truth about what really goes on. He also attended the first ever Bilderberg Group meeting in 1954 at the Hotel Bilderberg in Holland. He was an insider just as Professor Carroll Quigley was. And remember what he said in his book ‘Tragedy and Hope — A History of the World in Our Time’ published in 1966. He wrote:
“The powers of financial capitalism had
another far reaching aim, nothing less than
to create a world system of financial control
in private hands able to dominate the
political system of each country and the
economy of the world as a whole. This
system was to be controlled in a feudalist
fashion by the central banks of the world
acting in concert, by secret agreements,
arrived at in frequent private meetings and
conferences. The apex of the system was
the Bank for International Settlements in
Basle, Switzerland; a private bank owned
and controlled by the world’s central banks
which were themselves private
corporations. The growth of financial
capitalism made possible a centralization of
world economic control and use of this
power for the direct benefit of financiers and
the indirect injury of all other economic
groups.”
Sorry, Richard, but I’m afraid you’ve got a lot of learning here too!
I think your uncle’s anecdotes unreliable evidence
Sorry
That’s fine about my uncle, I can understand that. But what about what Professor Quigley wrote? And what about what I said about Jews opposed to Zionism? And what I also said about the Bank of England and its relationship with the BIS? Such a short response from you on such hugely important topics does you no credit. Do I detect a closed academic mind or one that is open and capable of accepting new ideas and evidence? There is no shame to admitting that you were wrong – God knows that I’ve had to do plenty of ‘U’ turns in my life as new information and evidence came my way! The important thing is that the provable truth wins and our egos are kept firmly under control. Humility is a good thing for ALL of us to have, especially in the academic world! Do you agree?
I gave made clear I do not agree with your approach
Nor do I accept your evidence
I think the Bradbury Pound interesting but would certainly not associate with your campaign
That is my choice
I have no need to defend it
I’m sorry Richard but this reply really isn’t good enough. Anyone reading this thread for the first time would wonder why you can’t give proper answers to my questions and detailed responses to the very little known, but completely provable facts which I’ve drawn to your attention, possibly for the first time…facts which have enormous possibilities and outcomes for all of us.
You say you find the debt-free Treasury-issued Bradbury Pound ‘interesting’ but you wouldn’t associate yourself with the campaign to bring it back. Why not? You are an important opinion former so people will wonder why you can’t enter into a proper and balanced debate on something that provably worked in 1914 to the detriment of the debt-creating bankers and which, if re-introduced today, would provide the debt-free liquidity needed for a prosperous and happy nation where our sovereignty, security and well-being are all guaranteed.
And you say you can’t accept my evidence. What, you can’t accept the verifiable quotes and the writings of highly placed people of integrity like Carroll Quigley, Vincent Vickers and Thomas Johnston? You have me completely mystified on this point. As an academic, don’t you use ‘written sources’ from well placed people to back up your arguments?
The bottom line is this – you’ve made some random statements against us and our campaign but you are not prepared to go into any sort of detail. This, for an academic who wants to be taken seriously and who enjoys being an advisor to Jeremy Corbyn, is extremely sad! I would urge you to rethink!
Respectfully, this is the last time you will waste my time
Justin,
Richard may correct me if I am wrong but reading this thread there are a few of points at issue.
1. The Rothschilds may have been involved with Zionism but that does not mean that they were involved with the Bank of England.
2. Saying that your uncle’s anecodotes are ‘not evidence’ doesn’t mean that they are wrong, merely that they are not evidence.
3. You note that Richard has a position of prominence or responsibility but that only makes him all the more cautious.
4. The fascinating suggestion that the BoE, Fed, BIS, etc. are privately owned is one the reappears from time to time but it begs the question of who “owns” them. Without a firm answer to that one defaults to the accepted version of the facts. You may suggest that the central banks are heavily influenced or effectively controlled by private interests and you may well have a case. But that is not the same as being “privately-owned”. That particular term is one that can only be understood in the literal sense(as it relates to title)unlike most things it is not subject to interpretation.
Thank you