If there is agreement on an economic issue in the UK it is that we need more investment.
Whether in housing, energy, infrastructure, training, business, R&D, or more we are short of investment. It is one of the major reasons why we may be facing a new economic downturn. A lack of investment is one of the drivers of the shortage of demand we now face in this country.
The point on which there is much less agreement is how this investment should be funded, so let me suggest an answer to that.
My enquiries of the Bank of England suggest that this year £20.1 billion of the quantitative easing funding owned by the Bank of England will be redeemed and require reinvestment. This is in two broadly equal tranches, one this month and another in September.
Now just suppose that instead of this sum being used to buy gilts already in issue in the market place it was instead used to buy the loans issued by a new National Investment Bank tasked with creating national infrastructure. Under Maastricht rules we know these would need in the first instance to be offered to the markets, but just suppose that £20.1 billion was at the very least made available to underwrite these issues in case the market did not have the appetite for them. What would happen then?
First, there would be funding available to kick start investment.
Then there would be job creation - and if at least some of this fund was used for green energy and retro-fitting some of those jobs could be in every constituency of the UK.
And there would be a venture capital fund for concentrated investment in new opportunities in UK technology - which would be so much more useful than scatter gun R&D relief.
And co-ordinated housing could be built.
All by simply saying we won't continue with conventional QE and its support for financial markets but that we would instead use QE for the benefit of the people of this country, and its business and its innovation and skills.
Is that really so hard a choice to make?
And it is entirely legal and possible to do it, 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:
Buy me a coffee!
@RichardMurphy – 1) Why would the Bank of England need to BUY the loans from the National Investment Bank if the National Investment Bank can create the money as private banks do?
2) Why would the market not have the appetite to absorb this 20.1 billion? Wouldn’t that be a massive lost opportunity for them?
3)Will there be a government committee tied to or at the National Investment bank that decides the allocation of this money? Wouldn’t want this to be going to silly PFI projects.
a) It is not an actual bank – more an investment fund
b) It may have the appetite
c) I would hope so
Richard, Any kind of “QE” will do so long as it does not include INTEREST or Private Banks
Would it be naive of me to suggest that a portion of that money would be well invested if it were used to incentivise research and development in our universities on green energy and climate change mitigation (particularly where the two overlap) and sponsor links between those universities and the British manufacturing industry?
And how about the creation of technical, scientific and administrative apprenticeships within the public sector to create a steady flow of employees trained to the minimum standards expected by employers in the technological age?
And what if you said, for instance, that those apprenticeships included training in the basic ‘nuts and bolts’ of the organisation, so that (for instance) Environment Agency apprentices were trained in the operating procedures for local flood defences, offering a vastly increased personnel reserve at times of crisis. Or porters and HCA’s in the health service?
I’m probably over-simplyfying.
I see no reason why dedicated funds cannot be used for these purposes