Very well done from the Spudda here

I cannot stress this appreciation enough. Money is, in our fiat world, cost free for a government. And I think this appreciation is now becoming more commonplace. As I argued:

This new cost-free money supply has meant the effective near elimination of official interest rates as governments can no longer charge for what they can create for free, and at will. In other words, what Keynes could not have foreseen was the ending of interest rate policy as a mechanism for controlling the economy, although that is what has actually happened.

We’re right in hte middle of one of the most successful pieces of monetary policy ever, QE. This is used as proof that monetary policy does not work.

Very well done there, vry wll dne.

13 comments on “Very well done from the Spudda here

  1. If we’re right in the middle of an untried action then it’s perhaps a little optimistic to predict any positive outcome at all, let alone the best.

    The gods of the copybook headings are still to deliver their verdict on QE.

  2. The blog immediately below that is nicely titled:

    “The FT shares my pessimism about markets”

    The US may have the Sage of Omaha, but we’ve got the Sage of Ely and his unimpeachable investment opinions

  3. This will be the same Richard Murphy who only the day before argues that an interest rate rise will have a devastating effect on the economy?

  4. ‘The fact is that then new economy has to be built on the basis that there is going to be little interest return. And what this means is that monetary policy is, and will remain redundant as a tool for macroeconomic policy management. The focus will now be on fiscalism; that is the use of spending and tax to manage the economy. There will be no choice: these will be the only tools we have.’

    Cometh the hour, cometh the man, as the saying goes. He reads like a screed from Oswald Mosley – an absolute moron. Lest we forget this classic Comment on TRUK from one of his most fanatical cheerleaders:

    ‘I am afraid that if you want to make sweeping statements of the kind that you made in your comment you really should read up on the evidence base so that you are speaking from an informed position rather than just an ill-informed diatribe. There are a lot of very well-informed and sharp progressive commentators on Richard’s blog (including Richard himself) and you WILL get found out if you hold forth from a position of ignorance.’

    Apparently presented without irony…..

  5. Off topic: I get a lot of stick for pointing out women cannot be soldiers. You can put them in uniform but only at the price of debasing the entire Armed Forces. Well, this woman seems to have failed to grasp the basic concept:

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6221608/army-bullying-female-recruit-cry-facebook/

    Needless to say, the debasement continues unabated:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5695311/Foul-mouthed-Army-instructor-faces-court-martial-reducing-female-recruit-tears.html

    There is a simple lesson here – if you are in the Armed Forces and you try to do your damned job, the Top Brass will not protect you.

  6. I get a lot of stick for pointing out women cannot be soldiers.

    Some women, and men, cannot make the standard to be soldiers. More women, and more men, could make the standard but it would be so mush wasted effort they should not bother. Some women, and some (but a significantly greater proportion of) men are at or can readily make the standard to be soldiers.

    Unfortunately, the best way we have developed of working out which category people fit in is to put them through basic training.

    As a note, neither being foul-mouthed or “making soldiers cry” are in the job description for NCOs, even in basic training (although they are commonly applied techniques). And, frankly, videoing it and then sticking it on Facebook is the height of fucking stupidity.

    As an aside, the first time I saw a sailor (started RN before shifting pongo-wise) reduced to tears by a superior* was a young bloke being hectored mercilessly (and unnecessarily) by a WRNS officer.

    * Had previously seen blokes reduced to tears by bad news and non-sea service WRNS reduced to tears by “I wasn’t going to even asked because I would only get in to trouble”.

  7. Oh, as a note, the Daily Mail article (whatever credence you wish to assign to that) says that the possible court martial would be for videoing it and putting it on Face-ache. Which is, as well as stupid, wholly inappropriate behaviour for an instructor. Especially what I presume to be a basic training one. Who are supposed to be from among the best of our junior NCOs.

  8. Surreptitious Evil – “Some women, and men, cannot make the standard to be soldiers.”

    The sleight of hand here is to suggest there are equal numbers in each group – and to assume that the only qualification for being a soldier is passing the physical standard. Which virtually all women can’t do anyway.

    “Unfortunately, the best way we have developed of working out which category people fit in is to put them through basic training.”

    No. The best way we have developed of working this out is to check to see if the soldier is male and if he is, put him through basic while rejecting everyone else who is not. That kind of worked for 2000 years or so.

    “As a note, neither being foul-mouthed or “making soldiers cry” are in the job description for NCOs, even in basic training (although they are commonly applied techniques).”

    Then there is something wrong with the job description as that has been pretty much the usual applied technique for a large part of the past few hundred years. You know, when the British Army actually fought and won.

    “And, frankly, videoing it and then sticking it on Facebook is the height of fucking stupidity.”

    That I agree with.

    Surreptitious Evil – 2Oh, as a note, the Daily Mail article (whatever credence you wish to assign to that) says that the possible court martial would be for videoing it and putting it on Face-ache.”

    Sure. But we know that is not true.

  9. But we know that is not true.

    “Know” clearly means something different to you than it does to me. There is currently no court martial. Therefore we do not and cannot ‘know’ what the charges are likely to be.

    Although I’d guess that “conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline” would make it in there somewhere. It usually does.

  10. Surreptitious Evil – ““Know” clearly means something different to you than it does to me. There is currently no court martial. Therefore we do not and cannot ‘know’ what the charges are likely to be.”

    Maybe. Maybe not. We know what offends the Mail and it is not the filming so much.

    “Although I’d guess that “conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline” would make it in there somewhere. It usually does.”

    I would assume it would too. And that’s the point. He made a girl cry. That is what outrages the Mail.

  11. “The sleight of hand here is to suggest there are equal numbers in each group”

    Slightly ironic as no one read it that way!

Leave a Reply

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