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

Generali

DiggerUK wrote: »

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.
..._

This post is a prime example. You don't understand the difference between fiscal and monetary policy let alone privatisation receipts and the impact of efficiency on an economy.

Yet all of this twaddle you state as if it were Fact.

Clueless.

antrobus

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

I'd be surprised if total had decreased ...

Then you're going to be surprised.

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

...but Ive not found a source to say either way. ...

Here's one referenced earlier in the thread;

Generali wrote: »

The money supply has been falling though.

https://timetric.com/index/money-supply-m4-boe/

Or you could mosey along to the Bank of England itself, which provides oodles of monetary data on all kinds of aggregates.

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/iadb/index.asp?SectionRequired=A&first=yes&HideNums=-1&ExtraInfo=false&Travel=NIxSTxTAx&levels=1

The fact is the M4 Money started to fall in October 2010. It's only recently levelled off and started growing again. (As of June 2013.)

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

....I think the 500% increase illustrates my point even if its not actively used money, not sure if BOE is part of that 3tn

Reserve balances and M4 Money supply are two very different things.

antrobus

DiggerUK wrote: »

Then it is obvious from my quote on page 9 of Carneys speech, ....

What's obvious from your citation of that quote is that you have no idea of the difference between capital and liquidity.

OffGridLiving wrote: »

Not trying to be rude here, but I have to say 'give up digger, you clearly have no real idea of what you're talking about'.....

Generali wrote: »

This post is a prime example. You don't understand the difference between fiscal and monetary policy let alone privatisation receipts and the impact of efficiency on an economy.

Yet all of this twaddle you state as if it were Fact.

Clueless.

I'm trying to resist the temptation to say the same kind of thing. It's getting difficult.:)

DiggerUK

Generali wrote: »

........You don't understand the difference between fiscal and monetary policy.........

It is not the difference between monetary and fiscal policy I raise, neither am I confused by the two. It is the links between them I emphasise. Government policies do not proceed in a void without the two.
With no tax increases on the horizon, little silver left to flog off, and no profitable wars on the agenda, that only leaves borrowings as the way to increase government revenue.

QE has gone to repair banks balance sheets, and little has been passed on in loans to business. Government austerity flies in the face of the spending and stimulus being pursued, 'Help to Buy' is one, proposed 'HS2' another. But if they want to stimulate growth, then they have to pay for it. Selling gilts is the only game in town for them to play.
If there are other ways for a state to raise revenue beyond the four I mentioned, then speak up.

QE, or raising borrowings, two sides of the same debased coin.
Both not ending any time soon.
..._

DiggerUK

antrobus wrote: »

What's obvious from your citation of that quote is that you have no idea of the difference between capital and liquidity......

Again I have no confusion, but the only way the banks can now gain liquidity in a crisis is from the lender of last resort.....which is the BOE, who gets it from.....chuggers on the high street? or QE?

All the BOE has done is accept that the banks are incapable of raising and holding the necessary liquidity. The profits are left privatised, the risk is collectivised.
..._

antrobus

DiggerUK wrote: »

Again I have no confusion, but the only way the banks can now gain liquidity in a crisis is from the lender of last resort.....which is the BOE, who gets it from.....chuggers on the high street? or QE?

All the BOE has done is accept that the banks are incapable of raising and holding the necessary liquidity. The profits are left privatised, the risk is collectivised.
..._

I'm sorry. None of that makes much sense. None of your contributions to this thread make much sense.

DiggerUK

antrobus wrote: »

I'm sorry. None of that makes much sense. None of your contributions to this thread make much sense.

OK, you tell all the good people here, exactly where the banks will get their liquidity from in a rush, now that Carney has told them they don't need to hold liquid assets......Wonga!
..._

sabretoothtigger

Government policies do not proceed in a void without the two.
With no tax increases on the horizon, little silver left to flog off, and no profitable wars on the agenda, that only leaves borrowings as the way to increase government revenue.

I agree with that point and Ive read it a few times, its fairly simple that BOE had enabled government overspending and the deficit.
So the BOE is affecting fiscal policy in that way

I cant imagine the new BOE gov being a hardliner, because it would jar with gov policy. Any move in the direction would be a threat surely, the interview process must have been very influenced by politics ?

DiggerUK

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

.......... BOE had enabled government overspending and the deficit.So the BOE is affecting fiscal policy in that way...I cant imagine the new BOE gov being a hardliner, because it would jar with gov policy. Any move in the direction would be a threat surely, the interview process must have been very influenced by politics ?

In all the debates about BOE 'independent' decisions, the role of the Treasury is little discussed.....I wonder if they discuss business on the golf course!!

I suspect that what they would have done, was ensure that Carney knows his onions, and had the ability to sell his soul to the devil, in pursuit of any vainglorious ambitions to be declared a god in his lifetime.
After all, to go to ones grave after being number 1 at two central banks, must give him a lot of bragging rights amongst his peers. Maybe even a knighthood!

The public stance of government will be to maintain austerity, whilst at the same time desperately finding ways to kickstart the economy with Keynesian stimulus. To do that they need to borrow, QE, or it's doppelganger, is here to stay.

As an aside, the endgame in the crisis at the coop will be interesting.
..._

Generali

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

I agree with that point and Ive read it a few times, its fairly simple that BOE had enabled government overspending and the deficit.
So the BOE is affecting fiscal policy in that way

I cant imagine the new BOE gov being a hardliner, because it would jar with gov policy. Any move in the direction would be a threat surely, the interview process must have been very influenced by politics ?

The job of the BoE, in part, is to support Government policy in areas over which they have influence: financial markets (especially for bonds and cash), monetary policy, FX rates (often), maintaining the currency, providing banking services to the Government and holding currency reserves. That doesn't mean the Gov'ner has to support the Government itself.

TBH, my guess is Carney doesn't give a damn about the day-to-day trivia of British party politics. He's probably a conservative person: IME central bankers are. That doesn't make him a Tory though.