Ignorance, all is ignorance

Yes, yes but in the hands of the pizza professor it becomes prescriptive rather than descriptive.

It’s an interesting post in that firmly makes Murphy directly responsible for basically the entirety of what has occurred since 2020

We will have an economic crisis in 2020 as a result of coronavirus.

Wrong – we had an economic crisis because of the reaction to Coronavirus being pushed by various interested parties

There can now be no doubt of that; the likelihood that this epidemic can now be contained seems to be very low indeed.

Oddly Respiratory viruses and the containment thereof was widely considered to be best accomplished through herd immunity – rather than an act of criminality without historical parallel in the form of lockdown

The evidence from China is that the impact on productivity and the economy at large is enormous. Whether we can survive the impact of this epidemic without major economic consequences arising is largely dependent upon the effectiveness of the planning that the government undertakes now. What is apparent is that at present there are a few signs that this planning is taking place.

We had existing planning and then panicked and went for a policy that was the greatest crime in human history – a policy Murphy thinks should still be in situ now, which combined with his support for Hamas confirms as probably one of the most evil men in history

We can hope for it in the forthcoming budget, but the signs are, so far, not good.

The long term consequences of the expenditure on COVID are likely to be economic collapse – and this fat F%^&er thinks we should have spent more?

The key issue that the government has to decide upon is who will bear the economic consequences of what is to happen. I have already indicated in my first post on this issue that I think that the consequences of this epidemic will fall upon three clearly identifiable groups, which are individuals, businesses and government. However, when appraising who will bear the cost the criteria are slightly different.

It is unacceptable that individuals bear the cost of this crisis. There is simply too little economic resilience within the population as a whole for that to be the case. Far too many people have too few savings to survive major periods of economic inactivity without massive prejudice to their short-term and long-term well-being.

Unfortunately they are – every single taxpayer will be bearing the cost of the policies you supported for probably centuries.

In addition, it is unacceptable that many businesses should fail through no fault of their own but that is what will happen unless the government steps in to prevent the major economic downturn that might happen this year. Cash flow issues will cripple many companies.

I agree with this to an extent – any lockdown supporter should have their assets immediately seized and auctioned to compensate victims, while those who presided over this calamity should ideally face a gallows.

In that case it would seem that consequences of what might happen will fall, in the first instance, on the government.

As I explained in my previous post, the government can afford to bear a substantial cost from this epidemic precisely because it alone in the economy can suffer a cash flow crisis without risk arising. That is because the government of a country like the UK which has its own central bank and its own currency always has the means to create as much cash as their economy needs. This is, if ever there was a time to do so, the moment to appreciate that fact and use that ability.

The inflationary consequences of this have been utterly calamitous – Murphy is directly responsible for the death of thousands and the poverty of millions

But that is not to say that there are no costs to an epidemic: clearly there are. In that case the question has to be asked as to who should bear that cost. There are three groups who should.

Firstly, landlords should. I have already suggested that should the epidemic spread, then as a matter of statutory right, any tenant should be provided with a minimum three-month rent-free period to ease the stress upon them whilst this crisis lasts. I would suggest that the grant of that extension should be automatic to anyone who does not make a due payment of rent on the required date during the period of the epidemic. They should be automatically granted this extension by the landlord without having to make any further application or to complete any additional paperwork.

Any temporary measure has long term consequences – this kind of extension of tenants rights has led to near complete collapse of rented property provision (for example) in both Scotland And Wales – well done!!

I stress that the cost of this will fall directly upon the landlords in question. I am quite deliberately suggesting that they should bear the heaviest burden of dealing with the epidemic. The reason is simple and is that whatever happens they will still have an asset at the end of this period, and no other sector can guarantee that at present. As a consequence, they have the greatest capacity to bear this cost. And, if it so happens that some landlords do fail as a consequence, the assets that they have owned will still exist after this failure and so the economy can manage the consequences of this.

Never waste a good opportunity

Second, I suggest that the costs of this crisis fall upon the finance sector. This is because, as I have also noted in my previous post, I think that anyone who has a mortgage or loan (including a lease) that they cannot afford to meet during the course of the epidemic period should be granted an automatic three-month extension to their loan period, which period might again be extended if the epidemic lasts longer than is expected. Once more, I suggest that there should be no need to apply for this extension: a simple default should be enough to trigger it. I am not, in this case, suggesting that the interest owing not be due, though: it could be settled at the end of the loan. What I am saying is that cash flow must be eased.

What these two straightforward recommendations suggest is that it is those with wealth, and not those with low incomes or tight cash flows, who should bear the burden of this crisis. That meets any definition of justice that I know of. But in both cases I am also being realistic: the value of financial assets of banks and other lenders is being preserved by this recommendation when if loan waivers were not in place it is likely that they would be prejudiced, whilst the value of land assets is not in any way diminished as a result of there being a rent-free period imposed for an external reason. To be blunt, given the risk that both the financial and rental sectors face as a result of an epidemic the proposed automatic waivers leave them in a better position than they would be in without them.

What I find interesting is that his policies were to a certain degree followed – people were insulated from the consequences of the over-reaction. We are still paying the cost and will be for generations.

And what of government, which is the third party to suffer a loss? Its risk can be covered by coronavirus quantitative easing.

A plan of this sort is urgently needed, and now.

And perhaps now we can see where the UK went wrong in handling Coronavirus – a fifth grade ignorant with no understanding of economics, business or politics set the tone for the response.

We’re certainly up the creek and ‘I see no paddles’

Of course, what Smurf really means is that he desires an economics that doesn’t reveal the contradictions and impossibilities in his own thinking.

Wrong, Timmy. If there is one thing that is certain, it is that he is blissfully unaware of the contradictions and impossibilities in his own thinking. That’s what makes Richard Murphy Richard Murphy.

We need a weather system that prioritises the needs of people.

I’d like a theory of quantum mechanics that cares about puppies.