The Bank of England wants to boost the economy and is going to pump money into making the wealthy wealthier again through conventional QE. It’s even going to do some QE with commercial debt. But People’s QE did not get a look in.

And what of Labour’s commitment to People’s QE through a national investment (all of it outlined in the Green New Deal and my book The Courageous State) which was the big original idea in Corbynomics? According to the Guardian Jeremy Corbyn said:

it would be better to borrow because interest rates are so low than go for the “people’s quantitative easing” plan advocated by Corbyn in his last leadership election.

So, no commitment from him to debt constraint.

No commitment either to making sure that government debt is not simply a boost for private wealth.

And definitely no attempt to cut banks out of the funding mix to constrain the City of London.

No, nothing like that at all.

Just the same as ever relationship of fear between Labour and the bond dealers. It’s as if Gordon Brown is riding again.

All that really is, to put it mildly, incomprehensible barring one thing, which is Jeremy Corbyn can’t now admit it was a good idea all along. He’d rather abandon Labour principles and support the City than do that.

10 gilt yields 0.6%. RPI is 1.4% or so.

Paying investors less than inflation enriches investors now?

17 thoughts on “Wait, what?”

  1. I was listening to an old Radio 4 In Our Time this morning about George Fox and the founding of Ritchie’s favoured Quakerism.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01f67y4

    I was very struck by some of parallels between Fox and the LHTD – born into a turbulent time, sense of destiny, a thwarted desire to be one of the Establishment leading to a conclusion that the big nobs must be cut down to size, lack of qualifications, Messianic self-belief, a fundamental conviction that the “new way” will have no faults and will be better than what he have now despite the evidence.

  2. plus endless screeds of text aiming to convert those seeking a solution to whatever the ill-defined trouble is

  3. This is hilarious and is like something out Brasseye – Jeremy Corbyn – ‘the ally of the City’ – It’s a shame so many mental hospitals have been closed – there’s an urgent need for sectioning of probably 15% of the population, including this guy who really needs to be in a straijtacket by Close of play today..

  4. Fox advocated not taking things purely on self-declared or divine authority, but examining the arguments and discussing the issues.

  5. Hang on a moment, I’m getting confused.

    So Corbyn, after all, is a neoliberal too? Murphy has already been denounced as a neoliberal by the Corbynistas.

    Are there any non-neoliberals left?

  6. He seems to be getting his knickers in a twist about terminology. What the Bank and Chancellor appear to be doing is quite close to his suggestion of “PQE”. In effect, the Bank is going to lend the government lots of money and the government is going to spend on building stuff.

  7. In any Leftist Movement eventually everyone is denounced as being one of the bogeymen du jour (in this case a neoliberal), by someone further to the Left.

    If the Left had an ounce of self awareness they might learn something from this pattern, but being mentally ill they don’t.

  8. “http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-36983852”

    So if ‘Black Lives Matter’ could someone tell me who kills most blacks in the UK and USA? On which basis who should blacks be talking to about stopping killing blacks?

    Just wondering.

  9. Quite delicious to watch the increasingly erratic and embittered meltdown of a man once so near the top, who has ended up in an unimpressive end terrace in Ely, without material influence outside the squad of stool inspectors on his own blog, firing off insults and polemic indiscriminately in all directions.

  10. I found this quite hootworthy interaction on Murphy’s blog. I have no idea if james is real or a pisstaker:

    james g says:

    August 5 2016 at 7:21 am

    Is there a difference between accounting and economics? And if so, how does using accounting limit an understanding of economics?

    Reply

    Richard Murphy says:

    August 5 2016 at 11:18 am

    It can severely limit it

    Understanding both is a massive advantage

  11. 10 gilt yields 0.6%. RPI is 1.4% or so.
    Paying investors less than inflation enriches investors now?

    If you bought the gilts when they were yielding 0.8%, and they’re now yielding 0.6%, their capital value has (presumably) increased. But most people who hold gilts (e.g. pension funds) do so for the income they generate, and that hasn’t changed at all. And if you sell them to realise their enhanced capital value, you’ll only get a return of 0.6% when you reinvest it, so you’re no better off.

  12. >And if you sell them to realise their
    >enhanced capital value, you’ll only get
    > a return of 0.6% when you reinvest
    > it, so you’re no better off.

    par bonds have a greater “convexity” than premium bonds trading above par. So, (all other things being equal not the least of which is being a tax free pension fund and not paying tax on the capital gain), one is always better off realizing cap gain on an above market coupon bond and investing the new greater principal amount in the lower coupon par priced bond of the same maturity

  13. @VP

    “It’s a shame so many mental hospitals have been closed – there’s an urgent need for sectioning of probably 15% of the population”

    Ha ha that made me chortle. It’s actually true, too.

Leave a Reply

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