This is a headline from the Daily Telegraph today:
In fairness, this is not Corbynomics' People's Quantitative Easing which involves printing money to create investment: this is printing money to create internal consumption that is being called for here. I have rejected that option for the UK although it is promoted by the likes of Simon Wren-Lewis precisely because if we were to do it almost all the benefit would flow to China via a short term spending spree with no long term benefit to the UK at all. What we need is investment, of which we are desperately short and not consumption, of which we have too much fuelled by debt right now. That is precisely why China needs the opposite use f0r newly printed money to us right now.
But, and I stress the point (which I last made very recently), when monetary policy has effectively ceased to exist in many economies (and because of the excessive debt it has in many ways in China's now) and when the fiscal options are limited and there remains a need to tax because tax has desirable attributes like redistributing income and wealth and repricing market failure then new fiscal policies are needed.
In China they have had excessive investment so they need helicopter money.
We have had a shortfall of investment. We will need People's Quantitative Easing.
But have little doubt: these types of quantitative easing are where we are heading now, and in the vast majority of cases it will be People's Quantitative Easing that will be needed.
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:
“although it is promoted by the likes of Simon Wren-Lewis precisely because if we were to do it almost all the benefit would flow to China via a short term spending spree with no long term benefit to the UK at all”
I assume that Simon Wren-Lewis doesn’t think the policy be promotes would have no long term benefit to the UK, and that there should be a comma between “Wren-Lewis” and “precisely”.
I am bemused as to what Simon Wren-Lewis does think the benefits of his suggestion are
I can’t see them right now
And why he thinks helicopter money better than PQE
I think that the Telegraph have inadvertently paid you a compliment, Richard. They have used the term ‘Corbynomics’ in the headline – not because it is technically correct (it isn’t) but because it is more recognisable and likely to attract more readers to the story.
All government spending works by crediting bank accounts I.e. creating money.
A certain amount of money is printed but this is separate.
What are the Telegraph on about?