Richard Murphy says:
February 6 2026 at 9:48 am
The injection of funds to benefit the wealthy has created artificial prices
So, err, more money creation has produced inflation then. Except, of course, that whole and stout denial that inflation hsa had anythng to do with money creation….
The next part of the exchange is even better!
A policy which he supported back in 2009 and felt was the answer to all societal ills!!
One story he can keep straight is the idea that Epstein was linked to Mossad and by extension the ‘Israeli genocide’. Heil Richard Murphy – neo-nazi and Anti semite. I guess he would have been at Dachau after all. What position in the TKV he would have held who knows?
And this from Spud at his most puerile while (once again) predicting a market crash
“it would be great if Trump’s fortunes went the same way”
He really is just an angry frustrated impotent baby, wah-ing about how ‘unfair’ everything is.
The natural home of money is the markets. A cash injection into the financial system will obviously boost property and listed stocks. Stimuli should be paid to orgs that will use them to perform work.
I’m all in favor of QE. I doubled, admittedly off a very low base, my wealth in three years.
I never understood the claim that there was a cash injection into the financial system. The organisation that got first dibs on spending the money created was government.
It goes around, gets wasted, margins get taken, welfare gets paid and it ends up in banks etc after a while but the injection is to the government first as I understood it
“The organisation that got first dibs on spending the money created was government.”
I’ve been banging on about this for ages on here, and no one will explain to me why the BoE buying govt debt in 2009-11 was solely a bailout for the banks, whereas the BoE buying government debt in 2020/21 allowed the government to pay for the covid nonsense, but wasn’t a bailout for the banks. In both cases the BoE created money out of thin air and bought government debt in the market, thus allowing the government to issue loads of debt it probably wouldn’t have been able to in an unmanipulated market. And of course at far lower levels of interest.
Jim, I think in 2009 the Bank of England only bought gilts from the banks, thus flooding them with the cash they needed (and the new gilts the government was issuing like a drunken sailor were bought by non-banks), but in 2020 the Bank of England bought gilts in the bond market, from anyone.
So in 2009 a deliberate side-effect of QE transferred cash specifically to the banking sector, but 2020 didn’t.
But I can’t find anything saying that, so it might well be complete bollocks.
Not wholly. In 2009 the banking system as a whole was short gilts. So the buying wasn’t from them – rather, from insurance and pensions.
Other than that, you’re quite right:
So slightly more drunken sailor in 2020 than 2009, but not significantly (and if you look over 3 years there’s even less difference, because net government debt issuance stayed high the year after the banking crisis, but halved the year after lockdown).
sources:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/fziu/pusf
https://www.dmo.gov.uk/media/lcsh1zku/annual-gross-and-net-issuance-report-historic-26-nov-25.xls
Precisely. There’s no difference from the practical ‘how it worked’ perspective. In each case the State got to spend loadsamoney it couldn’t have gotten if the BoE wasn’t hoovering up everything in the gilt market. The effect on the banks was secondary to the effect of allowing the State to keep the spending taps full on, despite having a global financial crisis (2009-11) and locking a good third of the workforce in their houses and paying them to do nothing (2020/21).
The difference in outcome (ie no real inflation rise in 2009/11 vs inflation off the charts in 2021-24) is the economic situation in each case. In 2009/10 loads of debt money was wiped out. Banks had made bad loans they weren’t going to get back, so the money supply was falling. Printing money in that situation isn’t too inflationary. It just pumps money back in that was disappearing out of the system somewhere else. 2020/21 was a completely different ball game. Banks weren’t facing bad loans, if anything they were facing people paying them off with their ill gotten covid gains. Savings were through the roof because no one could spend anything other than on Netflix and Amazon tat delivered to their doors. There was a wall of pent up demand just waiting for the opportunity to buy something, and once the lockdowns ended everyone went mental, buying anything and everything in sight. With the obvious resulting inflation.
What the BoE did was exactly the same in both cases. The change in outcome was down to the initial state of the economy in each case.
One thing we can be sure. There is no such thing as an artificial price.
Although Murphy is, as always, wrong, I have to inform you that there is such a thing as an artificial price since most multinational firms have to invent “transfer prices” every time they transfer part-finished or intermediate goods across national borders in order to pay the correct amount of taxation in each country but some countries tax authorities claim the “right” to determine the level of these transfer prices and set them at a level that does not match any price in the real world.
Probably the best-known example is the pre-1973 oil price where the tax reference price was a multiple of production cost so that BP had hundreds of £millions of tax losses in the UK because the selling price of refined petrol at a UK petrol station was lower than the artificial price landing at Milford Haven (as did Shell etc)