Bean made clear that the Bank of England’s policy is to impose a 5% pay cut on the UK, as fairly as it thinks possible by the use of interest rates and QE, which means just about as unfairly as it is possible to be.
This, he said, is the goal because unless a cut in income is imposed the cost of war will not be suffered by the economy, and suffer it we must.
Nowhere else is doing this.
We do not need to do it.
Nor should we be imposing hardship, as he agreed was the inevitable outcome, and on which he dismissed the concerns Danny and I have.
He had no argument to back up his claim that we must suffer. He just said we must.
How’s real GDP doing? Real GDP being the aggregate of all incomes of course. So, how much is there to go around?
Never mind, blokes.
While the ECB and Jeremy Hunt gang-rape our wallets, sell Northern Ireland to the EU, sabotage our country’s energy base and pay hordes of retarded welfare scroungers to move here and rape our kids, there is some good news!
The Conservative Party just wished me a Happy Ramadan.
Sorry, BoE not ECB (very difficult to tell these thieves apart)
Prof Charlie Bean, formerly of the Bank of England and deputy director there for monetary policy, spilt the beans about what the Bank of England is doing this morning when dismissing the opinions of a certain Danny Blanchflower on Radio 4’s Today programme at around 8.15am.
Blanchflower, based on everything I have read looks utterly deluded and his willingness to partner with Murphy, arguably the least knowledgeable economic commentator extant in cyberspace, seems to confirm this assessment. Why shouldn’t he be dismissed as a fruitcake?
Nor should we be imposing hardship, as he agreed was the inevitable outcome, and on which he dismissed the concerns Danny and I have.
Perhaps because he has read your voluminous output and concluded that your policies, based as they are on the management of Zimbabwe between 2000 and 2009 or contemporary Turkey made your concerns somewhat incredible?
He had no argument to back up his claim that we must suffer. He just said we must.
I’d argue that people who are directly responsible for the crisis, like Hard Left MMT advocating academics, whose philosophy is as close to pure evil as possible, SHOULD be suffering so sympathy is extremely limited.
Steve
kek
On Murphy’s piece…
I missed the piece de resistance from him.
So what did we learn? It is that a dogmatic, unelected, profoundly unrepresentative and deeply privileged group have decided that it is their job to impose hardship on society. And, because they have the means to do so, that is what, with totally sadistic motive, they intend to do.
He’s describing the Trade Unions, Public Sector, judiciary, the Human Rights industry, academia – indeed almost the entirety of the political left there – although he is too stupid to realize that.
Professor Bean can at least take some comfort in the fact that Murphy did not label him a fascist, Murphy’s tiresome and cliched epithet du jour.
V-P
I’d add my pet peeves, the Greens, as well.
VP – we can’t live with them.
If you turn the economy off and on like you’re doing a hard reboot on a dodgy computer it will have some negative consequences. For example, people getting poorer.
Beano sees these consequences and wishes to supply an “equitable” distribution of the pain. Same old interference in the market, in other words.
During lockdown output dropped by more than 5%, so we are collectively more thjan 5% poorer. Certain groups (RMT, ASLEF, CPS, etc) think that they and they alone should be exempted – junior doctors want a big pay rise in “real terms” just when everyone in the private sector is getting a pay cut in “real terms”.
So Bean doesn’t need an argument for why we “should” be poorer – he states the fact that we *are* poorer. Murphy and Blanchflower prefer to ignore reality