I have suggested that if the government was to create £50 billion of new money in the next year then the worst of the poverty crisis that we are facing could be averted. In response it has been suggested to me that the cost of interest as a result of doing so might not be affordable. This, I very strongly suggest, is not true, as data shows.
First, it is important to note that I am using Office for Budget Responsibility data: the argument I am making is based on official data.
The Sage then goes on to use interest and inflation rates calculated – or forecast – assuming the absence of £50 billion of new, fresh, cash in the system to prove the interest rate cost of £50 billion of new, fresh, cash in the system.
Err, no. That ain’t the way to do it.
There is no poverty crisis.
1. As our gracious host has commented, ‘poverty’ is measured in the UK as ‘relative poverty’. Thus nothing much has changed.
2. The major cost increases are due to either electricity costing much more, which is a desired goal of the “greens”, coupled with the stupidity of having retail price caps; or to having pissed away borrowed billions doing stupid things over covid, which was something much supported by idiots of a similar mindset to the greens
So – quelle surprise! – the oaf is talking bollocks.
You seen his latest Tim: ‘Being polite to those intent on harm is not morally necessary’ – at least he’s honest about where his rudeness comes from.
VP, unless it’s about being polite to him, in which case he’ll report you to your regulator
1. As our gracious host has commented, ‘poverty’ is measured in the UK as ‘relative poverty’. Thus nothing much has changed.
It’s become even worse than that. We kept pointing out that ‘relative poverty’, defined as subsisting on less than 80% of median income, wasn’t really poverty as any normal person understood it, and that absolute poverty was living on less than $1.50 (PPP adjusted) per diem. So JRF and their fellow travellers produced a new definition of ‘absolute poverty’ based on less than 60% of median income. It’s the economics of the madhouse.