Glorious Ritchie!

What an idea!

And if necessary the countries of Europe and beyond will have to demand that banks deposit their cash in Treasury deposit receipts with central banks (as happened in the UK in the second world war) to ensure resources are taken out of the feral economy and made available for the public good at a time of national and international crisis.

Let\’s just confiscate the money from the banks!

It\’s worth having a look at what was actually done in WWII though. From Ritchie\’s own source:

A second group of direct quantitative credit controls involves keeping a portion of the cash resources of commercial banks immobilized at the discretion of the central bank. Two leading examples of this technique were the use of the Treasury Deposit Receipt (TDR) in the United Kingdom during and after World War II and the \”special account procedure\” adopted in Australia in 1941. Both were means of immobilizing the increased liquidity deriving from wartime government expenditure.

Allow me to unpick that last sentence for you. Governments were spending so much, borrowing so much to do so rather than taxing, that there was huge stimulus running through the economy. Not so much for Keynesian reasons, but because the government was fighting for its life. There were thus very large inflationary pressures. The credit controls were a way of reducing such inflationary pressures by immobilising some of the banks\’ liquidity.

The direct issue of Treasury Deposit Receipts at a nominal rate of interest to banks in the United Kingdom began in July 1940. They were not negotiable in the market nor transferrable between banks, but they could be tendered in payment for government bonds (and tax certificates); hence, during the war years they had a limited degree of liquidity. The Bank of England communicated to the banks collectively the amount of the weekly call, which was divided among them in proportion to their deposits. After the war, TDR\’s were replaced by treasury bills; in order to reduce the consequent high liquidity of the banks, there was a \”forced funding\” of \"{poundsterling}\" 1,000,000,000 of treasury bills in November 1951, which were required to be invested in Serial Funding Stocks.

Quite, this was a way of reducing the inflationary pressure of the overly-massive stimulus being caused by the borrowing and spending to fight the war.

So, note, this immobilisation of funds was an anti-inflationary move.

Now, what is it that we\’re worried about today? Yes, you\’ve got it, deflation. In fact Ritchie worries about deflation. Yet what Ritchie is proposing is that we should use an anti-inflationary policy to deal with deflation.

Yes, this at the same time as we\’re doing quantitative easing, low interest rates, loose monetary policy, vast fiscal stimulus, all the things we\’re doing so as to try and avoid deflation and goose inflation up a little bit so as to escape from the debt trap.

The man is actually proposing the 100% wrong policy. The one 100% against absolutely everything else we\’re trying to do.

Me, I think he\’s going for the brass ring, the peerage. If Maurice Glassman can get one, why not Ritchie?

8 thoughts on “Glorious Ritchie!”

  1. Is this part of the save-the-world plan he knocked together between lunch and teatime?

    “feral economy” – FFS.

  2. What tbe fuck is the “feral economy”? As for crises, there will always be crises, mainly because numpties like Murphy will be in charge.

    He really does believe that the State owns your wealth, your assets, you.


  3. Feral economy is the latest leftist bogey term that saves having to credit your opponent with actual ideas that need thought and counter arguments, it’s no surprise that it’s caught on quickly at CiF, where it will probably replace ‘neo-liberal’ as the insult of choice.

  4. Didn’t US War Bonds serve much the same purpose? They weren’t so much to raise money as to suck cash out of an over-heating economy.

    Part of that of course was caused by a dearth of consumer goods to spend money on, what with almost all production being turned over to war materiel.

    There’s so much more in this article to criticise though – for instance

    “Forcing new investment policy onto funds that have been exposed to feral policies, such as pension funds, can reclaim these assets for ordinary people.”

    We have an excellent privatised superannuation scheme in Australia. A minimum % of your wages must go to an approved investment company, and you can’t access it (easily) until retirement. But you choose which company it goes to, can transfer it at any time, if you die it belongs to your estate, and it is a purely private account, the money still belongs to you. These sorts of proposals come up regularly here – every time some idiot can’t find funding for their pet project, it’s “we should require super funds to invest x% in Aust infrastructure/development/etc”. And every time I think “you’ll direct my fund manager to invest my money into your hair-brained scheme over my dead fucking body”.

  5. “why should revenue maximisation be the sole aim of tax policy? ”

    Sadly for many revenue, maximisation for the treasury is not the sole aim (bad though this would be), rather it is to take as much as possible from those deemed to be “rich”. You only have to listen to spiteful little shits like Arnald to see what the main purpose of taxation is in their eyes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *