Nope, still not got it, has he?

The second key assumption is that whatever happens in the future the government will do no more QE, even though the report admits that one third of all government debt is now owned by the government and that the debt in question has, effectively, been cancelled.

It hasn’t been cancelled. The BoE is actively discussing when it is going to stop replacing it as it matures. That is, when it will reverse QE. The asnwer being, of course, when they think it is going to cause inflation not to do so. The only alternative, at that point, to reversing QE would be raising taxes. You know, to stop the inflation.

He really is incapable of seeing things in the round, isn’t he?

9 comments on “Nope, still not got it, has he?

  1. If you mix together quintessential dimness, a disinclination to do your homework before pontificating and a tendency to jump to conclusions, this is the kind of heady cocktail you get.

  2. He loves to pour scorn on those who compare national economics to household economics. But how is “You don’t have to worry about how you’re going to pay for it, just print the money and tax away inflation later” any different to “You don’t have to worry about how you’re going to pay for it, just put it on your credit card and earn more money later”?

  3. I’ve changed my mind. Ritchie is a genius (of self promotion and marketing). He’s never “wrong”, just has unique/unpopular/visionary thinking. He’s never not read economics, he’s discovered new ideas no-one has ever thought of before despite coming to the opposite conclusion.

    If you point out he’s wrong/stupid/poorly read/hypocritical/a cunt he just calls you a neoliberal or tells you to buy one of his books.

    Genius.

  4. In his world he is of course correct and everyone else who disagrees is wrong.
    He’d make a great psychological case study. Any postgrad students want to try?

  5. “He loves to pour scorn on those who compare national economics to household economics.”

    This is a favourite tactic of pseudo-Keynesians, apparently taking their cue from Krugman. But the fact that nations have a significantly greater borrowing capacity than households could ever have doesn’t mean that they can borrow endlessly, or that they don’t have to service their debt.

  6. We know he is delusional, in his case the delusions appear to be multiple, contradictory and capable of being presented well to others.
    Bit like Hitler without the popular support or joined up thinking Hitler had.

  7. “He loves to pour scorn on those who compare national economics to household economics.”

    Yet seems to think if not insist that the accounting principles and rules for a small business are the same as for a soveriegn nation

  8. the fact that nations have a significantly greater borrowing capacity than households could ever have

    Is that true? Many households with a recent mortgage will be borrowing a substantial multiple of their income. Can a nation do that successfully?

    (genuine question from an economic novice.)

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.