The QE programme has come to an end. The total government cash requirement is to be funded by financial markets. And, in addition, QE may begin to be unwound.
But this is the man who has spent a decade telling us that QE will never be unwound. That the debt, because it is owned by the BoE, does not in fact exist and is not part of that national debt.
What, possibly, could have changed?
The requirements of his argument, obviously.
Summarise this, and the massive reversal of economic policy that the end of QE, rising interest rates, and QE reversal simultaneously represent look likely to create a significant fall in assets values, across the board in the UK, with the US looking likely to do much the same.
Given that the man whines incessantly about wealth inequality why is he complaining about this?
If you’re going to start with the premise – whatever a Tory government does must be incorrect* – it’s entirely consistent.
*Not saying of course that that isn’t an entirely valid position to take.
Applause!
Gaurav says:
January 28 2022 at 12:38 pm
I thought you said QE would never be unwound?
Reply
Richard Murphy says:
January 28 2022 at 1:21 pm
I did
And for precisely the reasons I note I very much doubt it will be for long
In other words, I will be proved right
@BraveFart
On a par with his exchange with one of my sock puppets…
Sock Puppet – You’ve said that no-one moves country just because of tax but what about [long list of the wealthy who did just that]
Spud – Have you never heard of the exception that proves the rule?
Has he just taken a punt on rising interest rates and remortgaged his dwelling to the max? Is the devoted public intellectual Spud afraid of negative equity?
BraveFart
My worry is there is a lot of evidence pointing to him being the stopped clock on this occasion.
If QE unwinding goes badly then my guess is either Biden or Johnson would be quite happy to kick the can down the road until we’re well over the cliff and turn the printing presses back on.
He really is the most repellent bastard. Utterly shameless. I often wonder how he lives with himself and come to the conclusion that he’s mentall ill.
He thinks proves is related to proof, when in fact it means to test
I sneeze in threes @7.54. A sincere THANK YOU! My English teacher at school used to use that phrase, and it didn’t make any sense to me at the age of 12 and it didn’t for the next fifty years. And then I read your comment.
look likely to create a significant fall in assets values, across the board in the UK
This will simply not happen, at least with house prices. All parties are now middle-class parties and the consequences for them would be utterly catastrophic.
The exception that proves the rule used to baffle me too. I don’t recall when in life I eventually realised that the word ‘prove’ can also mean to put something to the test. Otherwise the exception would disprove the rule, as in the case of the tax exiles mentioned above.
The exception proves the rule in another sense: if there is an exception it proves there must be a rule that it is an exception to. For example, if you are told that in exceptional circumstances holiday requests can be approved within 10 days, you can deduce that normally they take longer.