We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
BoE to start printing money
Comments
-
Graham_Devon wrote: »It doesnt really matter if it's constant or not. It's still new money available (or thats the theory and how they are selling it).
Either way, its the same as printing money.
It is new money to replace money that was lost, so neutral if it works.'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
You doomies can't take anything as good news. How can MORE money be bad? I've read a lot about this in the Sun, two paragraphs all about money and stuff. Basically, if we print more money, we have more money. It's so simple. More money to spend, more money on wages, more money on everything. Therefore, ipso bleedin' facto, we have extra money in our pockets. If I had a fiver yesterday, then today I might have a tenner.
And how can that be bad? Lighten up dudes.
Ask a Zimbabwean. Or someone from Japan.
Stevie, it's not neautral. Neutral would be just that. But this isn't neutral, because it' free's up money. If it was neutral it would just keep us all with the same wealth.
It doesn't. It gives more wealth when all those businesses get the loans, when people get loans to buy a car, increasing their assets and so on.
BTW. This isn't doom coming from me. I would rather see this whole mess cleaned up sooner rather than later.
What I don't want is hyperinflation and my children, their children and their children paying for this through increased taxes to pay off the debt mountain which was described as "now off the richter scale" today.
For me, it's not about now. It's about how we are going to be paying for this for decades to come. You only have to look at Japan to see what has happened there, and how long they have been paying for things.0 -
er what? I don't need to ask anyone. I have a fiver today and I'm broke and tomorrow I have a tenner. Therefore I am not so broke. This my friend is how I get to be a millionaire. Just you wait and see.Graham_Devon wrote: »Ask a Zimbabwean.0 -
er what? I don't need to ask anyone. I have a fiver today and I'm broke and tomorrow I have a tenner. Therefore I am not so broke. This my friend is how I get to be a millionaire. Just you wait and see.
Will make no difference really if your tenner tommorow is what your fiver is worth today. Which is what generally, throughout histroy, printing money has shown to be the result.
However your tenner tommorow would probably be worth 3 quid in real terms. Making you better off today.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Ask a Zimbabwean. Or someone from Japan.
Stevie, it's not neautral. Neutral would be just that. But this isn't neutral, because it' free's up money. If it was neutral it would just keep us all with the same wealth.
It doesn't. It gives more wealth when all those businesses get the loans, when people get loans to buy a car, increasing their assets and so on.
I don't mean neutral compared to now I mean neutralish to before the CC, which probably actually means having less money in circulation (than then) because asset prices have dropped and we wouldn't wish to have the crazy lending habits of then anyway.'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
How can a tenner be worth three quid? What happened to the other six quid?Graham_Devon wrote: »Will make no difference really if your tenner tommorow is what your fiver is worth today. Which is what generally, throughout histroy, printing money has shown to be the result.
However your tenner tommorow would probably be worth 3 quid in real terms. Making you better off today.0 -
Isn't this printing money, the policy that got Zimbabwe into such a mess?
No and yes. The term "printing money" is wrong and the banknote printing presses will not go into overdrive. Instead, the Bank will create new money at the stroke of a computer key. Only the Bank can do that, because everyone accepts its electronic money as a means of payment. It is, after all, what all of us see on our bank statements when they are in credit.
But UK quantitative easing does belong to the same family of policies as the actions of Robert Mugabe.
The difference is its degree. The Bank is determined to meet its 2 per cent inflation target.
That's from the financial times. Now, I'm not drawing comparisons here, because this stage of QE will not be quite as big as it could be, though I have no qualms in saying I predict it will get there.
"The supply of money is not growing quickly enough," Mr King said.
The inflation target will still be paramount but the MPC will monitor and aim to influence the growth of money and credit in the economy by buying assets, including a large number of government bonds.
By creating money to make these purchases, it will direct money into the economy via the bank accounts of those selling the assets.
If Mr King is saying it's creating money, I'm pretty sure we can go along with that.0 -
-
Yes. But I am also making a point by arguing from the opposite angle. It amuses and educates me.Graham_Devon wrote: »Can you put me out of my misery
Are you taking the pee!? Please tell me if you are
0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »BTW. This isn't doom coming from me. I would rather see this whole mess cleaned up sooner rather than later.
What I don't want is hyperinflation and my children, their children and their children paying for this through increased taxes to pay off the debt mountain which was described as "now off the richter scale" today.
For me, it's not about now. It's about how we are going to be paying for this for decades to come. You only have to look at Japan to see what has happened there, and how long they have been paying for things.
The problem is Deflation is deadly, Purch and Dopester don't think this will counter the deflation threat at all never mind Hyper. My own view is that we should have done it earlier and dropped rates earlier, it was obvious what was going to happen last summer(when commodities started to fall) but the MPC (apart from one) were too afraid of inflation to act. Let us hope it finds a route somewhere between the two extremes :beer:'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards