Lord Turner hints at Helicopter Drop

CLAPTON

ILW wrote: »

I was more thinking of diverting money away from investments such as BTL (which produces very little employment) to more innovative and employment intensive type businesses. This will generally only happen through the banking system.

when some-one borrows 100,000 to buy a BTL presumably some-else receives 100,000
what do you think happens to it.

ILW

CLAPTON wrote: »

when some-one borrows 100,000 to buy a BLT presumably some-else receives 100,000
what do you think happens to it.

100k sounds a lot for a sandwich.

Loughton_Monkey

ILW wrote: »

100k sounds a lot for a sandwich.

... don't speak too soon. CPI figures are out tomorrow!

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

when some-one borrows 100,000 to buy a BLT presumably some-else receives 100,000
what do you think happens to it.

That's a bit too simplistic.

You could simply be merely transfering deeds, rather than money. Just because someone buys a house at 100k, it doesn't mean the previous owner gets 100k. They could be 98k in debt on the property.

Hence 98k hasn't really done much at all, just numbers on a screen.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's a bit too simplistic.

You could simply be merely transfering deeds, rather than money. Just because someone buys a house at 100k, it doesn't mean the previous owner gets 100k. They could be 98k in debt on the property.

Hence 98k hasn't really done much at all, just numbers on a screen.

please tell me you don't really mean this!

chewmylegoff

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I hadn't put you down as a "grade A" student of the Gordon Brown school of economics, but this was his strategy for enough years to bankrupt the country.

The money does in fact "boost the economy" as defined by GDP (turnover) but given it goes to that segment of society with a large propensity to buy foreign goods, it's a bit like a 'drug'. Gives you 5 minutes of enjoyment after which you are 'down' from where you started.

Following the same strategy, I could sit down with Mrs LM and lament that our retirement income is 'fixed' and not enough to cover spending. To "solve" this, should I instruct her to go to Oxford Street and spend £X0,000's on new clothes/jewellery? It would give me perhaps £200 extra 'income' from cashback on the credit card!

An extreme example, I know, but in economic terms that's exactly what throwing money at the "f3ckless who will just spend it" does.

don't get me wrong, it think it's a !!!!!! idea, but the theory behind it is that you give people money and that they spend it.

it would seem to work better as a concept when you are running a budget surplus though (as i think the aussies were when they did it) rather than just borrowing more and more money to try to make it look like your retail sector isn't dead.

sabretoothtigger

Theres a woman on the Fed
I did not realise, does she bring any sense to the table hrmm

Fed's Raskin Cites Need For Blend Of Self, Government Regulation
By Jon Kamp BOSTON--Correct financial oversight requires a blend of regulation both at financial-services firms and at the government level, but institutions have the main responsibility, Federal Reserve Board Gov. Sarah Bloom Raskin said Tuesday. "In order to do financial regulation correctly you need both elements," she said, speaking at a conference on regulation in Boston, hosted by Suffolk University. She said she doesn't put her faith in institutions or regulations alone, and said regulation is best done in a "coupled" manner. But it has to start within the institutions, she said. "The primary responsibility of regulation lies with the institution, not with the regulator," Ms. Raskin said. "We want in our institutions to foster a culture of compliance." She said a self-regulated system on its own doesn't foster this culture. She also talked about the possibility that regulators can stifle financial innovation if their efforts go too far, but suggested financial regulators have been working in a measured fashion. She said she has seen regulators come into institutions where there have been risk-management failures and multiple breakdowns in internal audits, monitoring and testing of transactions. Meantime, Ms. Raskin also said she's seen a "disturbing uptick" in operational failures at financial institutions involving people, processes and procedures.

(END) Dow Jones Newswires October 16, 2012 13:38 ET (17:38 GMT)

CLAPTON

chewmylegoff wrote: »

don't get me wrong, it think it's a !!!!!! idea, but the theory behind it is that you give people money and that they spend it.

it would seem to work better as a concept when you are running a budget surplus though (as i think the aussies were when they did it) rather than just borrowing more and more money to try to make it look like your retail sector isn't dead.

I thought the idea was to print the money rather than borrow it.

sheffield_lad

Looking at the inflation figures we may well be able to print more of it!

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

when some-one borrows 100,000 to buy a BTL presumably some-else receives 100,000
what do you think happens to it.

In the UK people buy status symbols like BMW's , go on skiing holidays or fit granite worktops in their kitchens. So very little is "invested" in a productive sense that benefits the UK economy.