Anyone make any sense of this?

First, how to live with this: the slower growth society is here, which may be a good thing if, second, we learn that we do not need to constrain government spending as a result and, third, realise that all these savers need somewhere to put their money – which is ultra-low interest paying government gilts created by running a deficit to supply what people really want, which is government services.

People want to save in low interest instruments?

23 thoughts on “Anyone make any sense of this?”

  1. I think this is that thing where you add 1 and 1 and get -5.6124, or something.

    How we get to balance less increase in production with unlimited greater consumption by government, that’s an interesting one. What produces the goods the State consumes?

  2. …and seventh, we move into a phase of gobbledygook QE where C and I are entirely subsumed into G.

    /pause

    How was it for you?

  3. @ tim
    It makes sense when you realise that the savers will put their money in gilts despite wanting a return on their money because they are not offered a choice – except bank accounts that charge them for “looking after” their money.and where large depositors will be “bailed in” to any bank failures.
    Murphy is not saying that savers *want* to save in low interest instruments – but that they will be forced to do so.
    You may ask “why not corporate bonds” – but Murphy will abolish tax relief on interest paid so no investment-grade company will want to issue bonds if it can avoid doing so and gilts will dominate the “safe” investment scene.

  4. If I had no food for a week and a rat wandered by I might eat it. By Richies logic that would mean I wanted to eat rats.

  5. “the slower growth society is here…[and]…we do not need to constrain government spending as a result…”

    Doesn’t he realise that a failure to constrain government spending is the cause of the slower-growth society?

    Or that in the slower-growth society there probably won’t be an savers “looking for somewhere to put their money”, because they’ll be too busy trying to scrape together enough to pay their taxes? (which for some reason don’t seem to be included in that “slower growth” thing).

    It’s a waste of time trying to reason, though, isn’t it.

  6. The thing that got me was this bit:

    “…to supply what people really want, which is government services.”

    We already have them.

    The government doesn’t need more money to provide binmen, police services and education. They simply need to spend less of our money on the frivolities such as government sockpuppets posing as charities (CRUK, ASH, Drink Aware [England|Wales…], Kids Company,) pare back the Houses (get rid of the Ministry of Fun e.g.,) stop funding the EU as much as it is (if that means getting out, then…,) HS2 – what’s that about then…

    So much money to be saved, yet Muphry wants to raid more money out of my wallet to pay for “services” that in all likelihood we either (a) don’t need or more importantly (b) don’t want.)

  7. The only way people will be investing more, much more into “ultra-low interest paying government gilts” is if they are forced to.

    See Fronte Nationale for fascism.

  8. “services” that in all likelihood we either (a) don’t need or more importantly (b) don’t want.)

    How would you know want you want or need ? Get the fuck back in line

  9. you just know he’s trying to twist this into justification for (X)QE in some form, I would assume that the next step is that the bonds the savers want are QE bonds then most probably we are back to using them to pay for your pension or some such nonsense

  10. Remember, this is the guy who thinks that everything produced by the private sector is “just fripperies”.

  11. Remember, this is the guy who thinks that everything produced by the private sector is “just fripperies”.

    Being a Quaker and a socialist you wouldn’t expect any other opinion. Large private dwellings in Norfolk seem to be the exception though, for some reason.

  12. The conundrum is, if you make sense of the words, then the result makes no sense. This is a murphaloon!

  13. Stuart MacLennan says:
    December 9 2015 at 11:46 am

    “I think that you have misrepresented my argument quite considerably, Richard. At no point do I make any of the arguments identified my own. I simply highlight that the arguments in favour of tax competition are entirely consistent with the free-market neoliberal consensus, with which I (for the record) am extremely uncomfortable. The only argument I make is that it is both conceptually and practically unsound for the Chancellor to seek to clap-down on tax competition all the while seeking to improve Britain’s competitiveness by slashing Corporation Tax.”

    haha, what a moron Richie is.

Leave a Reply

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