The End of the Beginning for QE in the US...?

DiggerUK

Thrugelmir wrote: »

.......Current estimates are that European banks will contract lending by some 2.4 Trillion euros to meet the requirements of Basel 3 by 2019. ......

But there are no legal requirements on any state to implement Basel in full, or in part.
It's all a 'Pirates Code' excercise. No government is bound by any of the recommendations, it's for them to decide what is 'in their best interests'

The name of the game now is to disguise government stimulus in any form.....so long as it is not called QE.
QE has been discredited in the eyes of Jonathan and Jayne Public.

Just think how government stimulus can be provided without calling it QE......HS2, a few nuclear power plants, carpet half a dozen counties with windmills, Boris Island. A substantial raise in minimum wage has been suggested in certain quarters.
..._

Generali

DiggerUK wrote: »

But there are no legal requirements on any state to implement Basel in full, or in part.
It's all a 'Pirates Code' excercise. No government is bound by any of the recommendations, it's for them to decide what is 'in their best interests'

The name of the game now is to disguise government stimulus in any form.....so long as it is not called QE.
QE has been discredited in the eyes of Jonathan and Jayne Public.

Just think how government stimulus can be provided without calling it QE......HS2, a few nuclear power plants, carpet half a dozen counties with windmills, Boris Island. A substantial raise in minimum wage has been suggested in certain quarters.
..._

Completely clueless. It's not even worth discussing this.

antrobus

DiggerUK wrote: »

But there are no legal requirements on any state to implement Basel in full, or in part......_

There will be when the new EU Bank Capital Requirements Regulation and Directive gets passed. Effective date 1 Jan 2014 apparently.

sabretoothtigger

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Perhaps that's because much of what we import is costing more.

I think this indicates weakness in the currency not as a cause of it

DiggerUK wrote: »

Just think how government stimulus can be provided without calling it QE......HS2, a few nuclear power plants, carpet half a dozen counties with windmills, Boris Island. A substantial raise in minimum wage has been suggested in certain quarters.
..._

Depends where the funding comes from. If the Chinese paid then its their risk. If gov pays while running a deficit and BOE has bought their debt then its fairly clearly traced to QE

I think you are talking relaxing gov regulations to promote more business, if its privately funded then it should not be negative for the currency though some may argue we are poorer in other ways if windmills are on our horizon. Personally I dont object, uk energy supply falling would cause inflation inversely I think

has not led to an increase in the money supply, and thus there is no inflation risk.

I disagree with that because there is an increased risk. The total money available has increased, to say its ok because gov or gov related organisations control a larger proportion doesnt make it float ok with me. I think it explains low growth.
Its fair to say the quality of sterling has decreased

antrobus

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

.... The total money available has increased, to say its ok because gov or gov related organisations control a larger proportion doesnt make it float ok with me. I think it explains low growth....

The "total money" available has decreased since 2010. 'Notes and coins' , presumably M0, isn't "total money".

sabretoothtigger

I'd be surprised if total had decreased but Ive not found a source to say either way. I think the 500% increase illustrates my point even if its not actively used money, not sure if BOE is part of that 3tn

DiggerUK

antrobus wrote: »

There will be when the new EU Bank Capital Requirements Regulation and Directive gets passed. Effective date 1 Jan 2014 apparently.

Then it is obvious from my quote on page 9 of Carneys speech, that nobody has bothered to inform him, or he is acting in a way that breaches your assumptions, or they don't apply to UK banks, or he is just going to ignore them.
The EU has proposed a mix of regulations and directives which can be delayed until July 2014, or even longer if the fancy takes them.

"However, the Basel III agreement cannot be fully incorporated into the EU legislation. This agreement is not itself a law but a set of internationally agreed guidelines and standards."
..._

DiggerUK

Generali wrote: »

Completely clueless. It's not even worth discussing this.

That doesn't even rise to the level of an insult, it's a non repsonse. Who are you claiming is "clueless" anyway.
..._

DiggerUK

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

.....Depends where the funding comes from. If the Chinese paid then its their risk. If gov pays while running a deficit and BOE has bought their debt then its fairly clearly traced to QE
I think you are talking relaxing gov regulations to promote more business, if its privately funded then it should not be negative for the currency.............

QE is a new term for government stimulus that is intense. But just like Hoover Dam type projects, are still funded the same way.
Those sources don't change; taxes, selling family silver, war booty, or borrowings through gilts.

I think your suggestion that projects can be privately funded is wishful thinking. Name of the game today is privatise the profit, collectivise the risks.
..._

Generali

DiggerUK wrote: »

That doesn't even rise to the level of an insult, it's a non repsonse. Who are you claiming is "clueless" anyway.
..._

You.

You have no idea of what is printing money, what is Government debt, what is a regulatory change.

You have no idea what you are on about. It's risible.