I saw the editorial in today's Times newspaper an hour of so ago. Speaking of those parts of Jeremy Corbyn's economic policies over which it is acknowledged I have influenced it said:
Mr Corbyn is a case apart. His economic ideas testify to a native faith in controls and isolationism. His belief that £120 billion can be raised by clamping down on tax evasion is a fairytale. His plan to compel the Bank of England to underwrite deficit financing for any purpose would make counter-inflationary strategy as futile in Britain as it is under the revolutionary regime of Venezuela.
Let me just consider that.
First what does 'native faith' mean? Is there something rather sinister in this comment? I am not sure, but think the possibility is real.
And then that suggestion that £120 billion can be collected: no one has said it; least of all me; least of all Jeremy. We have both pointed out the scale of the issue (I have heard him do so). But has anyone said we could get it all? Of course not: I have estimated £20 billion could be raised for an investment of £1 billion, or more. But The Times has just made the claim that all will be collected up.
As it has also made up the claim that the Bank of England will underwrite deficits. Did QE of £375 billion mean that? No, of course not. So why does People's QE mean what QE did not? It does not. All the BoE will do is buy debt - as most central banks in the world are doing right now. It so happens that People's QE directs the funds raised to the real economy, does deliver jobs in every constituency, and does so at the lowest possible cost. But if there is risk it will remain fairly and squarely with the Treasury (although anyone who believes that there is a difference between the Treasury's risk and Bank of England risk is, anyway, living in cloud cuckoo land, but let's ignore that point).
And the reference to Venezuela? Irrelevant; of course. Referencing the Fed, BoJ, the ECB and the Juncker investment plan would have made sense. Venezuela reveals a leader writer out of touch with reality. But I guess this is what debate is all about for The Times: lies, damned lies, and more damned lies.
CORRECTION
My apologies: I have relocated the piece. Native is naive in the original on line so I guess it is in print. The misreading was mine. We all make mistakes sometimes. Apologies.
But at least I did not say the Pope is not a catholic.
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:
It would be crazy to expect reasonable analysis from this Murdoch-owned paper. The Times is probably the weakest broadsheet newspaper published in the UK in terms of integrity and quality of reporting. Even the Telegraph is better – at least it is an honest right-wing paper rather than pursuing a right-wing line while hiding behind a veneer of respectability, as The Times does.
I agree Howard
But it strikes home when you realise the nonsense they’re writing is, to some degree, personal
I read ‘native’ as a typo for ‘naive’.
Richard,
I think native probably should mean naive, but of course none of that reduces the impact of this quite nasty piece of non-journalism. A once respected paper gone completely to the dogs.
Maybe it’s supposed to say “naive faith”
Most of the media appear to be running a scare campaign, they are looking ludicrous to me now re the Corbyn campaign. But you know what, expect hem to lie. and lie, and lie again – I gave up reading the mainstream media seriously years ago. I dip in now again just if I see the odd article I wish to follow, or just to see how they cover an issue. Its the total irresponsibility of incorrect reporting that I just cant deal with anymore!!
This is very mild when compared to the torrent of abuse that will flow from the right-wing press when, as now seems almost certain, Jeremy Corbyn is elected leader. Punches are being pulled now because they want him to win. And if he remains as leader until the run-in to the next election, apocalypse will be promised to scare the wits out of voters. And if he wins a combination of corporate capitalists, hedge funds, private equity and wealthy individuals (ably assisted by the army of highly-paid advisers and lackeys they retain and suborned politicians and public officials) will target bond yields, the exchange rate and capital outflows to create a situation of total crisis. Anyone who thinks that those who beleive they are entitled to amass huge riches by ripping off the general prublic will concede graciously to the force of reason and democracy is in for a big surprise. And I would have my doubts about the willingness of the ‘deep state’ in Britain to accept the outcome of the democratic process were Labour led by Corbyn to win.
Paul, I think your analysis is spot on. The world of big finance will try to undermine it.parasitic vigilante bond dealers could try to rule the roost. But what Jeremy needs to say is what Bill Mitchell says about this:
” The private bond markets are only empowered in national debt markets where the government issues its own currency, if the government plays the charade that they have to issue debt and that debt has to be issued on the terms set by private bond dealers”.
Like gold, the private bond dealer is a ‘barbarous relic.’
The Economist is now conceding that Jeremy will win, but is asserting that elements within Labour will oust him before the next election. It regrets that those who will elect him will not be ousted so easily. This is nothing less than sedition.
Too true Simon, which makes it all the more a pity that Corbyn’s team have apparently declined the proposed meeting with Prof. Mitchell.
I suspect that is pure logistics right now: the need is to win at present
I too agree that this scenario would be the greatest danger to PM Corbyn if he were to come about. Still, we’ve got the best part of five years to think about sidelining the private bond dealers and hedge funds…
Private bond dealers and hedge fund a danger? Not at all…
St Louis US Federal Reserve
The same goes for UK £ sterling (and any other nation that creates its own currency).
Agreed
Chris Mullins’s ‘delicious fantasy’ is getting closer by the day.