# Tee Hee

What is the alternative to this? It is, of course, quantitative easing. If the government announced a £100 billion bond buying programme to fund the emergency energy price support that it is providing over the next year, using the precedents of 2009 and 2020 as wholly justifiable excuse, the market would not be phased. And what would immediately happen as a result is that the pressure on sterling would be reduced, considerably.

The way to increase the value of sterling is to print more sterling.

It’s the way ‘e tells ’em.

## 22 thoughts on “Tee Hee”

1. Well here in the Fourth Reich we are busy solving real actual shortages of real actual stuff by printing money.

Therefore brexit proves it works. Or something.

2. > phased

Fazed. I’m seeing a lot of people making this mistake recently.

3. Since inflation is just money demand by price setters in Sterling, why isn’t supplying more Sterling the glaringly obvious solution?

4. @question mark

Because for: a=the total value of an economy, b=the number of tokens to express that value, x=the resultant value per token,

x can be expressed as x=a/b .

From this can be inferred that for a given value of a, any increase in b will diminish the value of x.

@W.Connolley I think the term “phased” is correct here, since the concepts of Captain Potato would only work in an alternate reality, in which his mind certainly lives..

5. “William Connolley
October 11, 2022 at 10:26 am
> phased

Fazed. I’m seeing a lot of people making this mistake recently”

It’s the opposite problem I have – I read a lot so don’t know how a lot of words I read are pronounced. The ‘I don’t know how words I’ve heard are spelled’ is a problem affecting the yours.

I don’t know why Murphy is doing it – except likely just piss poor care not taken when editing.

Everything he posts has a first draft feel to it.

6. Dear Mr Connelley,

Trot over to that nice Mr. Murphy’s blog and point out to him directly the incorrect usage of the word “phased”. I predict that he will accuse you of being a troll and give you short shrift in no time flat.
Go on. I dare you.

Kind regards
Henry Crun Esq.

PS. Saw you perform in Manchester some years ago, shame about the Parkinson’s but you can still spin a funny yarn.

7. Grikath

Have you ever heard of the Cambridge Capital Controversy? If you measure value in dollars, then why not print more dollars to buy abundant energy being throttled by greedy producers demanding more dollars?

8. “If you measure value in dollars, then why not print more dollars to buy abundant energy being throttled by greedy producers demanding more dollars?”

Are you sure you can’t crowbar in some reference to grasping Jews into that little bit of fascist/socialist (same difference really) ranting?

9. If you are camping in the wilderness, why are you on here? There must be tons of things you could do there more interesting than making fatuous statements here. Is it snowing on Snoqualmie Pass yet?

10. Since inflation is just money demand by price setters in Sterling, why isn’t supplying more Sterling the glaringly obvious solution?

Because inflation isn’t “just money demand by price setters in Sterling”, which really should be, in and or itself, glaringly obvious.

11. In the precedent years of 2009 and 2020 it wasn’t the government that bought bonds. What am I missing? Ah Ritchie.

12. My six year old grandson could see the fallacy in Spud’s suggestion. How is the Ground-apple still employed anywhere?

13. QE is not money printing. It’s an asset swap, i.e., cash for bonds. The Bank of Canada did a series of Twitter posts to illustrate the difference:

[quote]
We bought the bonds with settlement balances – a kind of central bank reserve – not with bank notes.

What’s the difference?

Unlike cash, we can remove those reserves from the system. And you can see that we’ve been doing just that.
[end quote]

14. [quote]
Repeat after me: QE is an asset swap. No net increase in “money.” Gov’t securities exchanged for reserves. Gov’t securities are cash equivalents.
[end quote]

15. The thing about phoenices is that you need plenty of accelerant to make sure they don’t rise again.

16. “Unlike cash, we can remove those reserves from the system. ”

‘Can’ is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that statement.

17. QE is someone in the money business giving money to someone else in the money business. When you are in the money business, the natural home of that money is the markets. Which explains why the the stock markets and the property markets rose dollar for dollar and pound for pound in correlation to QE. None of it went to the on-paper destination, durable assets and working capital of companies not in the money business. Bubbles anyone?

18. abundant energy being throttled by greedy producers

To be fair Comrade ? has a point here. The production of energy is being throttled, but it’s not at the behest of those who would produce it but rather at the behest of those who maintain you can run a modern 24/7/365 economy on intermittent sunbeams and breezes, some of whom are indeed producers of windmills et al…

19. @ TomJ

Largely not the _producers_ of windmills etc., more the owners of large amounts of cheap land that otherwise has no productive value wanting some of that doggle to boon in their direction.

20. Unfortunately the environmentalists are not motivated by money. Yes there are hangers on who can see the cash [cough]Lord Seldom Glummer of BSE Burger[cough] but the real thrust is from the true believers. They think they are doing God’s Work (or Gaia’s) and thus they are the most evil of people – those who think they know the ‘truth’ and are prepared to force everyone else to submit to their version of it, ‘for your own good’ naturally…………