I noted yesterday that The Telegraph thinks that:
if we have to do QE again .. it would surely be better to inject the money directly into the veins of the real economy.
It was explicit support for People's QE. And as they also said:
QE as we know it is dead. It is an urgent national imperative to craft a radically new form before the next crisis hits.
So the time will come when George Osborne will have no choice but adopt the idea.
In that case let's open the book now: what's he going to call it?
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:
Based on the experience of rebranding the minimum wage as “the living wage” he’ll probably call it “(Hard Working) People’s Q E”
🙂
His idea of QE is the money that goes to Landlords who benefit hugely from Benefits!
This is what a Telegraph columnist thinks. I have not seen a Telegraph editorial supporting QE. It is generally regarded that only a leading article (editorial) gives a newspaper’s view.
He is an editor
Strategic QE?
From a future Queen’s speech: That’s why my government has today announced an Economic stimulus package to boost entrepreneurship, stimulate home building and make Britain a global leader in the fight against climate change. Or summat like tha’.
Very Serious People’s QE?
I like that
Well if the minimum wage is anything to go by, he won’t change the old policy but he’ll call it National People’s QE.
He’ll probably go for a boring name, such as “structural QE”, or might impishly tie it in with the Tories’ (laughable) attempt to re-brand themselves as a “Workers Party”, by calling it “Strivers’ QE”.
Whatever the name, all those, such as Yvette Cooper (and even Governor Mark Carney, and Andrew Neil, of course), who spent energy inveighing against “printing money”, are going to have very red faces (if that were possible in A.N.’s case!), and look pretty stupid.
” … all those, … who spent energy inveighing against “printing money” … ”
which will make a long list;
“are going to have very red faces”
What is so infuriating is that they have the brass necks to finally support it with no shame. And I wouldn’t be at all surprised to hear them say that this is now a mainstream idea that they themselves invented years ago, while everyone else was floundering.
I would be very interested in how he would use it: I can’t see him using it to actually help real people. Investing in vanity projects such as luxury travel infrastructure for the fabulously wealthy is more likely.
So “Rich People’s QE” would probably be the answer if he were afflicted with a sudden compulsion to be honest.
Whatever he calls it you can be sure the letters “Q” and “E” won’t be in the name.
‘Help-to-Spend’
A serious question in this rose, if we expect the next crash with 5 years, will it smell as sweet?
You could argue that he already has, in a half-hearted way. He called it Help to Buy and phase 1 was explicitly directed at stimulating new house-building (phase 2 just increased house prices). Launched in April 2013 the cost was indirectly covered by the first BoE transfer of interest received on assets bought through QE.
I’m no fan of Osborne but he understood that the government would lose the coming election if he did not take some action to stop economic collapse.
I’m still puzzled – the Bank for International Settlements and the whole central banking system, including the Bank of England, is shrouded in elitism, complexity, secrecy and outright fraud when it comes to the creation, issuance and controlling of 95% of the world’s money supply. All my concerns can be found here http://www.thebcgroup.co.uk/austerity.pdf.
So my question is very simple – when sovereign governments have proved in the past that they can issue their own debt-free and interest-free money through their treasuries based on their countries’ wealth and potential (the Greenback Dollar and the Bradbury Pound being very successful examples of this common sense principle which didn’t lead to any sort of inflation) why go through the complexities of PQE (which still involves the full compliance of this corrupt central banking system)when a simple return to the Bradbury Pound would provide the liquidity needed for a prosperous and sovereign British economy free from the criminality and greed of the banksters and the City of London?
Because the Bradbury Pound is illegal under current EU rules?
Shall we start and end there?
This is not an issue I am willing to engage with further: it is too remote from a realistic option to spend time on
Richard, my friend, the same mindset that is behind the creation of the European Union is the same mindset that is behind the Bank for International Settlements and the whole debt-creating central banking system.
I hardly think you can say that actual historical precedents which worked extremely well can be classed as ‘too remote….to spend time on’. If you can’t debate this with me openly then I think this is a very poor show and suggests that your argument for PQE cannot stand up to rigorous intellectual close scrutiny. I hope you will change your mind.
I have a finite time a day
And so I have choices to make
I have made my choice clear on this one, even if you disagree with it
Investment in Infrastructure. 3i. Oh, that is taken already…
Money Financed Tax Cuts
Sickeningly likely
I believe that has been done before. In the early 2000s, the US government urged the Japanese government to create a quite staggering amount of money, which they did. A good proportion of this money was turned into US Dollars and used to fund the Bush government’s tax cuts.
I will have to try and find the details on the internet again sometime. This story passed by almost completely unnoticed.
That was QE
I can’t see how you think that ended up in dollars
He’ll probably call it the People’s Tax Cut – and then slash corporation tax some more.
It should be called the WISHDI 2010:
What
I
Should
Have
Done
In
2010
🙂
if it happens it will be 6 months before the next general election-we’ve already seen the Tories hold back on austerity in the lead up to the election and then pretend the mild improvement was a result of austerity (you couldn’t make it up).
If we’re going for acronyms, how about ADWSWTTI?
Austerity
Didn’t
Work
So
We’re
Trying
This
Instead
“Ease To Grow”
I don’t know what he’ll call it, but I’m pretty sure its introduction will be preceded by the words ‘due to our sound management of the economy…’
Osborne will go on the telly and with a straight face declare matter-of-factly that PQE was always a part of the Tory ‘long term economic plan’.
You watch.
Sovereign QE.
Financial Underpinning Current Wealth Investment Trust
Try
Sovereign Wealth Easement Assets Trust (SWEAT)
Financial Investment Authority Trust (FIAT)
Financial Licenced Economic Easement Commission Executive Directive (FLEECED)
Finance Authority Recovery Trust (FART)
Finance Leverage Organizational Policy (FLOP)
Directed Investment Corporation
As long as it siphons money and resources to his sponsors, Gideon will go for it.
MAASTRICHT TREATY ‘TITLE VI’
Economic and Monetary Policy
CHAPTER 1
ECONOMIC POLICY
ARTICLE 104
1. Overdraft facilities or any other type of credit facility with the ECB or with the central banks of the Member States (hereinafter referred to as ‘national central banks’) in favour of Community institutions or bodies, central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of Member States shall be prohibited, as shall the purchase directly from them by the ECB or national central banks of debt instruments.
HOWEVER RICHARD
2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to publicly-owned credit institutions which, in the context of the supply of reserves by central banks, shall be given the same treatment by national central banks and the ECB as private credit institutions.
THEREFORE RICHARD, ALL J.C. HAS TO DO, IS TO ORDER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PUBLICLY OWNED CREDIT INSTITUTION AS SUGGESTED BY BRYAN GOULD IN 1993 WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT JUSTIN’S BRADBURY WOULD DO, AND HERE IN BLACK AND WHITE ARTICLE 104.1 EXPRESSLY PERMITS IT – SO IT IS NOT AS YOU HAVE BEEN LED TO BELIEVE “ILLEGAL”.
Richard, a question:
Why not use PQE to fund a 100% tax break for anyone with an income under, say, the national median?
Because that is not investment and that is what I have suggested using PQE for
You are suggesting a minimum income
I address the issue in upcoming book
“As long as it siphons money and resources to his sponsors, Gideon will go for it.”
I’ve been trying to get “siphon economy” into common parlance for ages.
Q.E. II
SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED BY FOLLOWING ABRAHAM LINCOLN’S 1865 GREENBACK PLAN BASED ON DAVID RICARDO’S 1823 PLAN FOR A TRULY NATIONAL BANK OF ENGLAND
1. Money is the creature of law and the creation of the original issue of money should be maintained as the exclusive monopoly of national Government.
2. Money possesses no value to the State other than that given to it by circulation.
3. Capital has its proper place and is entitled to every protection. The wages of men (however) should be recognised in the structure of and in the social order as more important than the wages of money.
4. No duty is more imperative for the Government than the duty it owes the People to furnish them with a sound and uniform currency, and of regulating the circulation of the medium of exchange so that labour will be protected from a vicious currency, and commerce will be facilitated by cheap and safe exchanges.
5. The available supply of Gold and Silver being wholly inadequate to permit the issuance of coins of intrinsic value or paper currency convertible into coin in the volume required to serve the needs of the People, some other basis for the issue of currency must be developed, and some means other than that of convertibility into coin must be developed to prevent undue fluctuation in the value of paper currency or any other substitute for money of intrinsic value that may come into use.
6. The monetary needs of increasing numbers of People advancing towards higher standards of living can and should be met by the Government. Such needs can be served by the issue of National Currency and Credit through the operation of a National Banking system.
7. The circulation of a medium of exchange issued and backed by the Government can be properly regulated and redundancy of issue avoided by withdrawing from circulation such amounts as may be necessary by Taxation, Redeposit, and otherwise.
8. Government has the power to regulate the currency and credit of the Nation.
9. Government should stand behind its currency and credit and the Bank deposits of the Nation. No individual should suffer a loss of money through depreciation or inflated currency or Bank bankruptcy.
10. Government possessing the power to create and issue currency and credit as money and enjoying the right to withdraw both currency and credit from circulation by Taxation and otherwise need not and should not borrow capital at interest as a means of financing Governmental work and public enterprise.
11. The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of the consumers.
12. By the adoption of these principles the long felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied.
13. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts, and exchanges.
14. The financing of all public enterprise, the maintenance of stable Government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration.
15. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own Government.
16. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.
17. Democracy will rise superior to the money power.
THE ONLY FORM OF FAIR TAXATION IS TO USE TAXATION CORRECTLY – THAT IS TO RETIRE MONEY FROM CIRCULATION ONCE IT HAS BEEN CREATED FREE OF DEBT AND INTEREST AND SPENT INTO CIRCULATION TO SERVE ITS PROPER FUNCTION AS A PUBLIC SERVANT NOT TO BE USED AS A BLUNT VENAL INSTRUMENT FOR DEPLETING ESSENTIAL PURCHASING POWER.
POST SCRIPT
As mentioned earlier, most people don’t know that Maastricht 104.1 expressly forbids any sovereign government from expanding the issue of its own M0 [notes and coins] and getting out of trouble as Britain did in August 1914 by issuing £500,000,000 Debt Free / Interest Free Treasury Notes or Bradbury’s which prevented the Bank of England having to be declared BANKRUPT (AGAIN) this was QUANTITATIVE EASING without borrowing from similarly bankrupt banks.
As John Bradbury — who was Secretary to the Treasury — later made clear: “Honesty, even if deemed stupid, is a far better basis for credit than the most adroit finesse.”
Re “Tax Havens” in 1694 Guernsey & Jersey refused to relinquish the right to issue their own money free of debt and interest — because if you do not borrow money (under a PSBR) there is no necessity to levy taxes to pay the Rentier’s their tribute) hence rich people started moving there to avoid capita£ punishment. Rentiers would have us believe as do their Shills Cameron, Osborne and Ian Duncan Smith that THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE as did T.I.N.A. Thatcher who said to Ken Palmerton “interest on our debts is money we owe to ourselves” to which he replied: ‘but why must we remain masochists?’
MAASTRICHT(I) AKA MASS-TRICK(I) RICHARD WHEN IT COMES TO ESTABLISHING THIS: “COURAGEOUS STATE” YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE ONE IF YOU IGNORE THE MISTAKES OF THOSE WHO, FOR A WHILE, DID ESTABLISH ONE. WHICH WAS DELAYED FOR A WHILE BECAUSE THEY LISTENED TO THE GRAND PARENTS OF THOSE WHO CAME UP WITH MAASTRICHT/MASS-TRICK(II)
Thomas Jefferson, realized that both he and the other Founding Fathers had also been misled, by their advisers, writing the following to former Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin, in 1815: “The treasury, lacking confidence in the country, delivered itself bound hand and foot to bold and bankrupt adventurers and bankers pretending to have money, whom it could have crushed at any moment.”
YOU NOW HAVE A CLEAR MANDATE SO YOU SHOULD BE FULLY CONFIDENT IN THE COUNTRY AND OUR PEOPLE AND GO FULL SPEED AHEAD, BY CRUSHING THE OPPOSITION WITH THE FACTUAL EVIDENCE AND FORCE THEM TO ABANDON AUSTERITY SORRY AUS-TORY-TY.
David
On the web CAPITALS are considered to be shouting at someone
I don’t much like being shouted at
And I have no mandate to do anything, anyway
He’ll call it Big Society.