Ah yes, quantitative easing, where you have to have a stable economy to start the process (people don’t like buying Government bonds in recessions). However, it decreases the value of the pound, causes inflation (which of course when wages aren’t rising due to recession means people are poorer). Oh, and of course, quantitative easing only tends to benefit the very rich and creates further inequality. But if that’s the way you like it then you’ll be happy to know we did create more money, £275 billion in 2011.
I’m not blaming Labour for the financial crash, all I said was they handed over the deficit. You’re blaming the Conservatives for increasing the debt that they were passed on, even though they’ve obviously tried to reduce it.
And I want people to know about me that yes we will have to take difficult decisions but as we do that we take the country through to better times ahead we will always look after the needy, the disadvantaged, the elderly, the frail and the poorest of our country. That is the sort of person I am, that is the sort of Prime Minister I would be, that is the sort of party this party is today and we“re never going back
You’re still free to take him seriously, of course.
I feel duty bound to point out that someone published a story about him putting his cock in a dead pig’s mouth and he hasn’t sued anyone for it.
Ah yes, quantitative easing, where you have to have a stable economy to start the process (people don’t like buying Government bonds in recessions). However, it decreases the value of the pound, causes inflation (which of course when wages aren’t rising due to recession means people are poorer). Oh, and of course, quantitative easing only tends to benefit the very rich and creates further inequality. But if that’s the way you like it then you’ll be happy to know we did create more money, £275 billion in 2011.
I’m not blaming Labour for the financial crash, all I said was they handed over the deficit. You’re blaming the Conservatives for increasing the debt that they were passed on, even though they’ve obviously tried to reduce it.
Which is why McDonnell’s People’s QE is an upgrade.
Do you create money to put people in debt (literally the only reason money is created, QE or otherwise) or do you create it for infrastructure?
I think the mechanics of running a country are slightly more complex than simple idioms about roof-fixing. We built the NHS after a hugely costly war when we were up to our ears in debt.
If we want to talk about the concept of prevention being better than cure, then yes, I’m very much a believer in that. Dave isn’t. Ask Sfcsim and his neighbours for details.
Ah yes, quantitative easing, where you have to have a stable economy to start the process (people don’t like buying Government bonds in recessions). However, it decreases the value of the pound, causes inflation (which of course when wages aren’t rising due to recession means people are poorer). Oh, and of course, quantitative easing only tends to benefit the very rich and creates further inequality. But if that’s the way you like it then you’ll be happy to know we did create more money, £275 billion in 2011.
I’m not blaming Labour for the financial crash, all I said was they handed over the deficit. You’re blaming the Conservatives for increasing the debt that they were passed on, even though they’ve obviously tried to reduce it.
Which is why McDonnell’s People’s QE is an upgrade.
Do you create money to put people in debt (literally the only reason money is created, QE or otherwise) or do you create it for infrastructure?
If a government wants to make infrastructure a priority, why does it need to do it this way? Removing the independence from the BoE is a very dangerous thing to do, and certainly with a Government of Corbyn and McDonnell, funding all their pet projects.
If a government wants to make infrastructure a priority, why does it need to do it this way? Removing the independence from the BoE is a very dangerous thing to do, and certainly with a Government of Corbyn and McDonnell, funding all their pet projects.
How so? The BoE has only been independent since Blair’s time. What historical problems did we have as a consequence of a BoE with less government control?
You’ve just argued that QE only benefits the rich, so it’s not worth the effort. It’s not the tool that’s at fault. Someone can use a knife to cut someone free or cut someone up. The same applies here.
Nah, not a sensible decision.
The alternative has been working just lovely, hasn’t it?
“Let’s create loans in the vain hope that someone taking out the loan is going to do something for social good (as long as they get to exploit the situation in some way).”
My issue is giving someone like McDonnell the combination to the safe - that is the biggest problem. Allowing an amateur like that to influence monetary policy is scary.
I didn’t argue that because QE benefits the rich it’s not worth doing. I was surprised someone like KRG would support inequality between rich and poor through QE. QE has it’s place in monetary policy, but only as part of a wider set of policies to remove the threats that come with it.
You mean wages are outstripping inflation unless you work in the public sector. Some of us haven’t had a payrise in 5 years. And they wonder why they can’t get graduates to teach maths and science!
My issue is giving someone like McDonnell the combination to the safe - that is the biggest problem. Allowing an amateur like that to influence monetary policy is scary.
Then you’ve got issues with the idea of our democracy in general. Osborne never had any experience of being a chancellor. You can still find a video of him on morning telly telling people how to avoid tax. Brown didn’t have any experience either. Due to the way that our system works, and the public’s reluctance to change the status quo, most incoming chancellors are going to be learning on the job because their party have been out of power that long.
Challenge for you. Find me one chancellor that has ever had experience of doing the job before. McLeod, Barber, Healey, Howe, Lawson, Lamont and Major didn’t, and that takes us all the way back to 1970.
I didn’t argue that because QE benefits the rich it’s not worth doing. I was surprised someone like KRG would support inequality between rich and poor through QE. QE has it’s place in monetary policy, but only as part of a wider set of policies to remove the threats that come with it.
Maybe he’s not thinking of using the money the same way, Cherts.
My issue is giving someone like McDonnell the combination to the safe - that is the biggest problem. Allowing an amateur like that to influence monetary policy is scary.
I didn’t argue that because QE benefits the rich it’s not worth doing. I was surprised someone like KRG would support inequality between rich and poor through QE. QE has it’s place in monetary policy, but only as part of a wider set of policies to remove the threats that come with it.
I will agree on one thing, I don’t have a huge deal of faith in McDonnell either.
The point about money creation is just that the idea that their is a finite sum of money is a myth. As is a lot of the stuff surrounding the deficit and national debt.
Harking on about the mess Labour left us in (which was far more to doubt with the global financial crisis) 6 years later whilst giving the current government and free reign, or praising their 2010 plan (which they have failed to hit any of their targets on) seems daft.
Any way, this is veering away from Brexit. So, perhaps we should let it lie here, for now.
The point about money creation is just that the idea that their is a finite sum of money is a myth.
There’s got to be a finite amount of value tho, ain’t there?
reminds of the film margin call when they realised that there was indeed a finite amount of value, which happened to be a lot less than they thought it was.
