Officially in recession

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shoveling more money into the banks via QE will do not the slightest bit of good if none of it comes out the other end.

The money supply is contracting. The QE money is clearly not emerging from the banks via lending. Therefore there can be no growth from it.

Time for the BOE to bypass the banks and expand the list of purchases far beyond Gilts.

Graham_Devon

We agree hamish! Hoorah!

What do you suggest they do with the fairy money?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We agree hamish! Hoorah!

What do you suggest they do with the fairy money?

Number of options.

The easy, and relatively conservative, one is to just expand the list of eligible assets to be purchased from financial institutions.

The more effective one would be to funnel a Trillion or so into a state owned bank and start lending directly into the economy. Directly create the competition with lending that the market is lacking. Although, bizarrely, that would probably be in breach of some nutty competition law somewhere.

Or just start the helicopter drops..... Put money into the hands of consumers directly via tax refund cheques and let them start spending. That will kick start the economy quickly enough.

Regardless, however you do it, you have to get more liquidity into the economy to get sufficient momentum of spending and growth that it becomes self sustaining.

Plater

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Number of options.

The easy, and relatively conservative, one is to just expand the list of eligible assets to be purchased from financial institutions.

The more effective one would be to funnel a Trillion or so into a state owned bank and start lending directly into the economy. Directly create the competition with lending that the market is lacking. Although, bizarrely, that would probably be in breach of some nutty competition law somewhere.

Or just start the helicopter drops..... Put money into the hands of consumers directly via tax refund cheques and let them start spending. That will kick start the economy quickly enough.

Regardless, however you do it, you have to get more liquidity into the economy to get sufficient momentum of spending and growth that it becomes self sustaining.

Is this the same Hamish that not long ago would strongly disagree with us monetary precious metal bulls about such matters?

You are starting to wake up to the nature of fiat currency and how it has to keep expanding or the system will collapse?

Are you also starting to wake up about the numbers typed into central bank accounts to the tune of trillions of units are just meaningless numbers. They try and call it the money supply but really its just a numbers supply. How many numbers are there? Infinate!

Next shocker Hamish will start waking up to exponential curves and realise that the numbers supply can not be expanded forever, and that it is inevitable that fiat currency will devalue against gold and silver.

It's great to see even the comon folk talk about helicopter drops of numbers on computer screens, and how its all just numbers created out of thin air.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Plater wrote: »

Is this the same Hamish that not long ago would strongly disagree with us monetary precious metal bulls about such matters?.

Well obviously this is the same SLA sock puppet telling us all to buy silver a year ago.....

When it was 34% more expensive than it is today, even in our devalued FIAT currency. .:rotfl:

By the time you remove the VAT, if you'd sold your house and bought silver a year ago, you could buy back half a house today.

Plater

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Well obviously this is the same SLA sock puppet telling us all to buy silver a year ago.....

When it was 34% more expensive than it is today, even in our devalued FIAT currency. .:rotfl:

By the time you remove the VAT, if you'd sold your house and bought silver a year ago, you could buy back half a house today.

Silver has outperformed every asset going, I am very happy with the 20% PA I am getting on my silver.

Any fool can pick on mid term top and then on a dip say look its actually down if you look at these specific times, and yes it is LOWER now that this time last year, which makes it the bargain of the century.

You are forgeting Hamish that when you joined silver was £5 per ounce then it doubled to £10, and you still insisted "gold and silver were going to crash soon 100% guaranteed"

And what happened Hamish? It doubled again, now sitting at £20 and forming a firm base for the next leg up

You always lose Hamish when you try and twist the truth, why dont you just admit you were wrong saying it was going to crash soon 100% guaranteed, then we will leave you alone.

What am I saying Hamish admit he was wrong, yeah right. Even when the bull market is in its 12th year and has a long way to go. I predict you wil keep calling this is the top for gold and silver and keep being just as wrong as you always have been.:rotfl:

Plater

I know Hamish is trying to bring up VAT on silver then go moaning to the mods to deleat our posts. You are the one who should get deleated Hamish until you start admiting you were wrong and you have been giving bad advice.

Wookster

shortchanged wrote: »

Oh OK chucky. Because you're always right.

You can let Hamish give it a go but why not give it a go yourself instead of spouting your usual insults?

Don't expect more than insults from chucky. He's a one theme poster.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Number of options.

The easy, and relatively conservative, one is to just expand the list of eligible assets to be purchased from financial institutions.

The more effective one would be to funnel a Trillion or so into a state owned bank and start lending directly into the economy. Directly create the competition with lending that the market is lacking. Although, bizarrely, that would probably be in breach of some nutty competition law somewhere.

Or just start the helicopter drops..... Put money into the hands of consumers directly via tax refund cheques and let them start spending. That will kick start the economy quickly enough.

Regardless, however you do it, you have to get more liquidity into the economy to get sufficient momentum of spending and growth that it becomes self sustaining.

Ok, so a trillion squids all go into a new bank, which I assume offers low rate lending, and has lending targets.

I can see why this would sort a lot of issues in the housing market (for a VERy short period of time until what I will discuss in a minute takes over). But I'm wondering how sustainable such a bank would be, considering the knock on effects it would have to other markets.

As you say, it would be completely against competition laws. You've just moaned about cartels, and now suggest we railroad over all banks and start a new one with a trillion squids. It would also completely undermine investors in banks, such as pension funds etc and probably cripple them. Amongst a whole heap of other problems.

So I believe that could be ruled out as a none starter...as obviously it simply wouldn't work, and would actually cause a massive problem with investors.

The helicopter theory may work to some extent, and is a much better option if a QE option HAS to be used. Doubt it will happen without severe desperation though.

Personally, I'd rather see no further QE at all. Why? Put bluntly, it didn't work did it. It only held things off for a while. I'd rather get this whole thing done and dusted instead of being sqeezed further every year in the name of "making things better".

Plater

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ok, so a trillion squids all go into a new bank, which I assume offers low rate lending, and has lending targets.

Why not make it 100 trillion squids, it only involves hitting the zero key two more times