GB News
Comments
-
So you think a news channel is bullying people?pangolin said:
That's not what trolling is. Are you thinking of bullying?Stevo_666 said:
I'm pretty sure they don't know Rick personally so hard to see how it's trolling...elbowloh said:
Don't be silly, you don't feed the troll!Stevo_666 said:
Have a word with GB News if you think they're trolling?elbowloh said:
I thought the job was report the news, not be a troll.Stevo_666 said:
I was going to say, the fact that it has certain people in a lather means it's probably doing good jobshortfall said:
Lol, or maybe Rudolf Hucker? Anyway it's good to see that our resident premature ejaculator is getting so worked up about it all, it probably means they're annoying the right people.Stevo_666 said:Too late for Hugh Jarse or Phil McCracken to call in then?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So woke watch is really a focus on the extreme wing of the trans rights lobby. Which is a bit more niche. Then expand it to unconnected other issues and pretend it's all exactly the same.
Also, I don't think you can get away with saying "I'm not going to go down the conspiratorial route" to excuse you then going down the conspiratorial route. "I don't want to say infiltrate, because it sounds conspiratorial". Etc.
Also... "I can understand the perspective that some views are beyond the pale, but those are views we've already resolved". What? How is that consistency?
0 -
I really don't get the whole point of woke watch.
Oh look at these people. They're for equal rights and diversity, in line with UK legislation, what b@stards.1 -
This is just a conspiracy theory. The argument is the same as saying if you buy £5 worth of bananas, the number of bananas in the world is unchanged immediately after the transaction. It's what happens afterwards that matters i.e. you eat them and the seller buys some more from a grower.rick_chasey said:Worth remembering the whole thing about QE is that the amount of liabilities doesn’t change.
It just changes the structure. It makes banks hold more and more reserves with the central bank.
That’s why it’s not supposed to be inflationary because there’s no more private assets in existence as a result - they’re swapping reserves for bonds.
It is not new money being injected into the private sector. It is merely being swapped with something that was already spent into existence.
The main problem (for banks anyway) is they lose a chunk of interest they would have earned on the bonds that were instead swapped for reserves.
The whole point is to change the bond market structure - fewer, say, 5 year bonds - should lower interest which should encourage borrowing and also persuade people to put their money in more risky assets as you’re not gonna get the return in bonds.
So that is why it is done in low interest environments because it is another technique to lower interest rates beyond lowering the actual interest rate which is not possible when you’re at or near zero.
Lowering interest rates and increasing QE increase the money supply. That's the point. I even provided you graphs showing the impact on M4, but you seem to ignore those. Equally, there is plenty of evidence that every time a central bank implies more or less QE, the FX market immediately responds.0 -
The whole thing is just a rebrand of the PC-gone-mad brigade. See also "but you can't say that these days" deployed immediately after saying just that in a nationally broadcast or published medium.elbowloh said:I really don't get the whole point of woke watch.
Oh look at these people. They're for equal rights and diversity, in line with UK legislation, what b@stards.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
What is the conspiracy? What I've described is pretty much a summary of Ben Bernanke's description of the mechanics of QE.TheBigBean said:
This is just a conspiracy theory. The argument is the same as saying if you buy £5 worth of bananas, the number of bananas in the world is unchanged immediately after the transaction. It's what happens afterwards that matters i.e. you eat them and the seller buys some more from a grower.rick_chasey said:Worth remembering the whole thing about QE is that the amount of liabilities doesn’t change.
It just changes the structure. It makes banks hold more and more reserves with the central bank.
That’s why it’s not supposed to be inflationary because there’s no more private assets in existence as a result - they’re swapping reserves for bonds.
It is not new money being injected into the private sector. It is merely being swapped with something that was already spent into existence.
The main problem (for banks anyway) is they lose a chunk of interest they would have earned on the bonds that were instead swapped for reserves.
The whole point is to change the bond market structure - fewer, say, 5 year bonds - should lower interest which should encourage borrowing and also persuade people to put their money in more risky assets as you’re not gonna get the return in bonds.
So that is why it is done in low interest environments because it is another technique to lower interest rates beyond lowering the actual interest rate which is not possible when you’re at or near zero.
Lowering interest rates and increasing QE increase the money supply. That's the point. I even provided you graphs showing the impact on M4, but you seem to ignore those. Equally, there is plenty of evidence that every time a central bank implies more or less QE, the FX market immediately responds.
The money supply increases in the sense borrowing is supposed to increase (which is how the money supply increases), but the QE itself does NOT increase the amount of money in the system.
That is literally why they do QE and not printing money. It's entirely to do the same thing as lowering interest rates i.e. make borrowing more attractive.
That is why there is no mechanistic link between QE and inflation.0 -
It starts with "this person should not have been discriminated against because she thinks that there is a biological sex", which is a reasonable view. Then pretends that is the same thing as the British library or the national trust deciding to look at the slave trade and its role in Britain's history.elbowloh said:I really don't get the whole point of woke watch.
Oh look at these people. They're for equal rights and diversity, in line with UK legislation, what b@stards.
It's dishonest and pernicious.0 -
we could maybe debate the meaning of the word troll but surely that is exactly what GB news is for?Stevo_666 said:
If you really think a news station is trolling then its up to you. I don't care either way, but the reaction on here is amusing.elbowloh said:
Steve, it's you who said that if they're getting people into a lather, they're doing a good job. Sounds like that's trolling to meStevo_666 said:
I'm pretty sure they don't know Rick personally so hard to see how it's trolling...elbowloh said:
Don't be silly, you don't feed the troll!Stevo_666 said:
Have a word with GB News if you think they're trolling?elbowloh said:
I thought the job was report the news, not be a troll.Stevo_666 said:
I was going to say, the fact that it has certain people in a lather means it's probably doing good jobshortfall said:
Lol, or maybe Rudolf Hucker? Anyway it's good to see that our resident premature ejaculator is getting so worked up about it all, it probably means they're annoying the right people.Stevo_666 said:Too late for Hugh Jarse or Phil McCracken to call in then?
I prefer the word trigger. It was set up and designed to trigger a positive reaction from gammons and a negative one from the libtards.
As 70% of the population don't know or care that it exists but 15% are livid and 15% ecstatic then I would argue that it has been 100% successful0 -
Do you not think the purpose of QE has changed? with the GFC it was to put liquidity back into the system. With Covid it became a magic way to self-fund unprecedented levels of peacetime borrowing?rick_chasey said:
What is the conspiracy? What I've described is pretty much a summary of Ben Bernanke's description of the mechanics of QE.TheBigBean said:
This is just a conspiracy theory. The argument is the same as saying if you buy £5 worth of bananas, the number of bananas in the world is unchanged immediately after the transaction. It's what happens afterwards that matters i.e. you eat them and the seller buys some more from a grower.rick_chasey said:Worth remembering the whole thing about QE is that the amount of liabilities doesn’t change.
It just changes the structure. It makes banks hold more and more reserves with the central bank.
That’s why it’s not supposed to be inflationary because there’s no more private assets in existence as a result - they’re swapping reserves for bonds.
It is not new money being injected into the private sector. It is merely being swapped with something that was already spent into existence.
The main problem (for banks anyway) is they lose a chunk of interest they would have earned on the bonds that were instead swapped for reserves.
The whole point is to change the bond market structure - fewer, say, 5 year bonds - should lower interest which should encourage borrowing and also persuade people to put their money in more risky assets as you’re not gonna get the return in bonds.
So that is why it is done in low interest environments because it is another technique to lower interest rates beyond lowering the actual interest rate which is not possible when you’re at or near zero.
Lowering interest rates and increasing QE increase the money supply. That's the point. I even provided you graphs showing the impact on M4, but you seem to ignore those. Equally, there is plenty of evidence that every time a central bank implies more or less QE, the FX market immediately responds.
The money supply increases in the sense borrowing is supposed to increase (which is how the money supply increases), but the QE itself does NOT increase the amount of money in the system.
That is literally why they do QE and not printing money. It's entirely to do the same thing as lowering interest rates i.e. make borrowing more attractive.
That is why there is no mechanistic link between QE and inflation.
What do you think would have happened in the debt markets if the BofE had not stepped in? Obviously nobody knows but do you think rates would have reached 7-8% or doubled? would debt raising have failed and if so what would have been the consequence?0 -
Who knows, SC - i don't know what the point of these counterfactuals are - the markets expect some kind of central bank intervention in a crisis.surrey_commuter said:
Do you not think the purpose of QE has changed? with the GFC it was to put liquidity back into the system. With Covid it became a magic way to self-fund unprecedented levels of peacetime borrowing?rick_chasey said:
What is the conspiracy? What I've described is pretty much a summary of Ben Bernanke's description of the mechanics of QE.TheBigBean said:
This is just a conspiracy theory. The argument is the same as saying if you buy £5 worth of bananas, the number of bananas in the world is unchanged immediately after the transaction. It's what happens afterwards that matters i.e. you eat them and the seller buys some more from a grower.rick_chasey said:Worth remembering the whole thing about QE is that the amount of liabilities doesn’t change.
It just changes the structure. It makes banks hold more and more reserves with the central bank.
That’s why it’s not supposed to be inflationary because there’s no more private assets in existence as a result - they’re swapping reserves for bonds.
It is not new money being injected into the private sector. It is merely being swapped with something that was already spent into existence.
The main problem (for banks anyway) is they lose a chunk of interest they would have earned on the bonds that were instead swapped for reserves.
The whole point is to change the bond market structure - fewer, say, 5 year bonds - should lower interest which should encourage borrowing and also persuade people to put their money in more risky assets as you’re not gonna get the return in bonds.
So that is why it is done in low interest environments because it is another technique to lower interest rates beyond lowering the actual interest rate which is not possible when you’re at or near zero.
Lowering interest rates and increasing QE increase the money supply. That's the point. I even provided you graphs showing the impact on M4, but you seem to ignore those. Equally, there is plenty of evidence that every time a central bank implies more or less QE, the FX market immediately responds.
The money supply increases in the sense borrowing is supposed to increase (which is how the money supply increases), but the QE itself does NOT increase the amount of money in the system.
That is literally why they do QE and not printing money. It's entirely to do the same thing as lowering interest rates i.e. make borrowing more attractive.
That is why there is no mechanistic link between QE and inflation.
What do you think would have happened in the debt markets if the BofE had not stepped in? Obviously nobody knows but do you think rates would have reached 7-8% or doubled? would debt raising have failed and if so what would have been the consequence?
rates are at or near zero so how else can the central bank stimulate demand?
I could turn it around. If fiscal policy had not been so anaemic for the past decade would rates have been at near zero when this crisis came around? If rates were at 4% would we have needed QE? almost certainly not.0 -
It increases the money supply much in the same way that increasing M0 would. As I said, I provided you a graph of M4 demonstrating this.rick_chasey said:
What is the conspiracy? What I've described is pretty much a summary of Ben Bernanke's description of the mechanics of QE.TheBigBean said:
This is just a conspiracy theory. The argument is the same as saying if you buy £5 worth of bananas, the number of bananas in the world is unchanged immediately after the transaction. It's what happens afterwards that matters i.e. you eat them and the seller buys some more from a grower.rick_chasey said:Worth remembering the whole thing about QE is that the amount of liabilities doesn’t change.
It just changes the structure. It makes banks hold more and more reserves with the central bank.
That’s why it’s not supposed to be inflationary because there’s no more private assets in existence as a result - they’re swapping reserves for bonds.
It is not new money being injected into the private sector. It is merely being swapped with something that was already spent into existence.
The main problem (for banks anyway) is they lose a chunk of interest they would have earned on the bonds that were instead swapped for reserves.
The whole point is to change the bond market structure - fewer, say, 5 year bonds - should lower interest which should encourage borrowing and also persuade people to put their money in more risky assets as you’re not gonna get the return in bonds.
So that is why it is done in low interest environments because it is another technique to lower interest rates beyond lowering the actual interest rate which is not possible when you’re at or near zero.
Lowering interest rates and increasing QE increase the money supply. That's the point. I even provided you graphs showing the impact on M4, but you seem to ignore those. Equally, there is plenty of evidence that every time a central bank implies more or less QE, the FX market immediately responds.
The money supply increases in the sense borrowing is supposed to increase (which is how the money supply increases), but the QE itself does NOT increase the amount of money in the system.
That is literally why they do QE and not printing money. It's entirely to do the same thing as lowering interest rates i.e. make borrowing more attractive.
That is why there is no mechanistic link between QE and inflation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_market_operationAn open market operation (OMO) is an activity by a central bank to give (or take) liquidity in its currency to (or from) a bank or a group of banks. The central bank can either buy or sell government bonds in the open market (this is where the name was historically derived from) or, in what is now mostly the preferred solution, enter into a repo or secured lending transaction with a commercial bank: the central bank gives the money as a deposit for a defined period and synchronously takes an eligible asset as collateral.
Central banks usually use OMO as the primary means of implementing monetary policy. The usual aim of open market operations is—aside from supplying commercial banks with liquidity and sometimes taking surplus liquidity from commercial banks—to manipulate the short-term interest rate and the supply of base money in an economy, and thus indirectly control the total money supply, in effect expanding money or contracting the money supply. This involves meeting the demand of base money at the target interest rate by buying and selling government securities, or other financial instruments. Monetary targets, such as inflation, interest rates, or exchange rates, are used to guide this implementation.[1][2]
In the post-crisis economy, conventional short-term Open Market Operations have been superseded by major central banks by quantitative easing (QE) programmes. QE are technically similar open-market operations, but entail a pre-commitment of the central bank to conduct purchases to a pre-defined large volume and for a pre-defined period of time. Under QE, central banks typically purchase riskier and longer-term securities such as long maturity sovereign bonds and even corporate bonds.
Your conspiracy theorist argues that because M4 shrunk after the previous financial crisis, QE didn't have an impact. This misses the point that it didn't shrink as much as it would have done in the absence of QE. So, it wasn't inflationary, but it helped avoid more deflation.0 -
How about you guys start a quantative easing thread or maybe an economics thread?0
-
So it is fine to discuss GB news reporting on woke stuff, but not when they report on economics stuff? Anyway, I've finished with my posting on it.elbowloh said:How about you guys start a quantative easing thread or maybe an economics thread?
1 -
Fair point, but that particular topic seems to invade almost any vaguely political thread.TheBigBean said:
So it is fine to discuss GB news reporting on woke stuff, but not when they report on economics stuff? Anyway, I've finished with my posting on it.elbowloh said:How about you guys start a quantative easing thread or maybe an economics thread?
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Takes a brave man to split out the two. One affects the other, right?rjsterry said:
Fair point, but that particular topic seems to invade almost any vaguely political thread.TheBigBean said:
So it is fine to discuss GB news reporting on woke stuff, but not when they report on economics stuff? Anyway, I've finished with my posting on it.elbowloh said:How about you guys start a quantative easing thread or maybe an economics thread?
0 -
And the woke agenda doesn't?rjsterry said:
Fair point, but that particular topic seems to invade almost any vaguely political thread.TheBigBean said:
So it is fine to discuss GB news reporting on woke stuff, but not when they report on economics stuff? Anyway, I've finished with my posting on it.elbowloh said:How about you guys start a quantative easing thread or maybe an economics thread?
0 -
It wasn't meant to offend. There seem to be lots of threads that have a large amount of economics content.TheBigBean said:
So it is fine to discuss GB news reporting on woke stuff, but not when they report on economics stuff? Anyway, I've finished with my posting on it.elbowloh said:How about you guys start a quantative easing thread or maybe an economics thread?
Might be worth considering having it's own thread.
The fact that it's as dull as dishwater to me is by the by.
2 -
I don't think we're actually disagreeing here.TheBigBean said:
It increases the money supply much in the same way that increasing M0 would. As I said, I provided you a graph of M4 demonstrating this.rick_chasey said:
What is the conspiracy? What I've described is pretty much a summary of Ben Bernanke's description of the mechanics of QE.TheBigBean said:
This is just a conspiracy theory. The argument is the same as saying if you buy £5 worth of bananas, the number of bananas in the world is unchanged immediately after the transaction. It's what happens afterwards that matters i.e. you eat them and the seller buys some more from a grower.rick_chasey said:Worth remembering the whole thing about QE is that the amount of liabilities doesn’t change.
It just changes the structure. It makes banks hold more and more reserves with the central bank.
That’s why it’s not supposed to be inflationary because there’s no more private assets in existence as a result - they’re swapping reserves for bonds.
It is not new money being injected into the private sector. It is merely being swapped with something that was already spent into existence.
The main problem (for banks anyway) is they lose a chunk of interest they would have earned on the bonds that were instead swapped for reserves.
The whole point is to change the bond market structure - fewer, say, 5 year bonds - should lower interest which should encourage borrowing and also persuade people to put their money in more risky assets as you’re not gonna get the return in bonds.
So that is why it is done in low interest environments because it is another technique to lower interest rates beyond lowering the actual interest rate which is not possible when you’re at or near zero.
Lowering interest rates and increasing QE increase the money supply. That's the point. I even provided you graphs showing the impact on M4, but you seem to ignore those. Equally, there is plenty of evidence that every time a central bank implies more or less QE, the FX market immediately responds.
The money supply increases in the sense borrowing is supposed to increase (which is how the money supply increases), but the QE itself does NOT increase the amount of money in the system.
That is literally why they do QE and not printing money. It's entirely to do the same thing as lowering interest rates i.e. make borrowing more attractive.
That is why there is no mechanistic link between QE and inflation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_market_operationAn open market operation (OMO) is an activity by a central bank to give (or take) liquidity in its currency to (or from) a bank or a group of banks. The central bank can either buy or sell government bonds in the open market (this is where the name was historically derived from) or, in what is now mostly the preferred solution, enter into a repo or secured lending transaction with a commercial bank: the central bank gives the money as a deposit for a defined period and synchronously takes an eligible asset as collateral.
Central banks usually use OMO as the primary means of implementing monetary policy. The usual aim of open market operations is—aside from supplying commercial banks with liquidity and sometimes taking surplus liquidity from commercial banks—to manipulate the short-term interest rate and the supply of base money in an economy, and thus indirectly control the total money supply, in effect expanding money or contracting the money supply. This involves meeting the demand of base money at the target interest rate by buying and selling government securities, or other financial instruments. Monetary targets, such as inflation, interest rates, or exchange rates, are used to guide this implementation.[1][2]
In the post-crisis economy, conventional short-term Open Market Operations have been superseded by major central banks by quantitative easing (QE) programmes. QE are technically similar open-market operations, but entail a pre-commitment of the central bank to conduct purchases to a pre-defined large volume and for a pre-defined period of time. Under QE, central banks typically purchase riskier and longer-term securities such as long maturity sovereign bonds and even corporate bonds.
Your conspiracy theorist argues that because M4 shrunk after the previous financial crisis, QE didn't have an impact. This misses the point that it didn't shrink as much as it would have done in the absence of QE. So, it wasn't inflationary, but it helped avoid more deflation.
I don't think there is evidence that you're gonna get hyperinflation from QE, and the impact of QE is much more like the impact of lowering interest rates, with a few peculiarities.0 -
General economics, of course. Technical discussions of QE mechanics, less so.rick_chasey said:
Takes a brave man to split out the two. One affects the other, right?rjsterry said:
Fair point, but that particular topic seems to invade almost any vaguely political thread.TheBigBean said:
So it is fine to discuss GB news reporting on woke stuff, but not when they report on economics stuff? Anyway, I've finished with my posting on it.elbowloh said:How about you guys start a quantative easing thread or maybe an economics thread?
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It's more more trolling than (say) the Guardian putting out it's wokey type views that may offend those Gammons.surrey_commuter said:
we could maybe debate the meaning of the word troll but surely that is exactly what GB news is for?Stevo_666 said:
If you really think a news station is trolling then its up to you. I don't care either way, but the reaction on here is amusing.elbowloh said:
Steve, it's you who said that if they're getting people into a lather, they're doing a good job. Sounds like that's trolling to meStevo_666 said:
I'm pretty sure they don't know Rick personally so hard to see how it's trolling...elbowloh said:
Don't be silly, you don't feed the troll!Stevo_666 said:
Have a word with GB News if you think they're trolling?elbowloh said:
I thought the job was report the news, not be a troll.Stevo_666 said:
I was going to say, the fact that it has certain people in a lather means it's probably doing good jobshortfall said:
Lol, or maybe Rudolf Hucker? Anyway it's good to see that our resident premature ejaculator is getting so worked up about it all, it probably means they're annoying the right people.Stevo_666 said:Too late for Hugh Jarse or Phil McCracken to call in then?
I prefer the word trigger. It was set up and designed to trigger a positive reaction from gammons and a negative one from the libtards.
As 70% of the population don't know or care that it exists but 15% are livid and 15% ecstatic then I would argue that it has been 100% successful"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
you miss my point.rick_chasey said:
Who knows, SC - i don't know what the point of these counterfactuals are - the markets expect some kind of central bank intervention in a crisis.surrey_commuter said:
Do you not think the purpose of QE has changed? with the GFC it was to put liquidity back into the system. With Covid it became a magic way to self-fund unprecedented levels of peacetime borrowing?rick_chasey said:
What is the conspiracy? What I've described is pretty much a summary of Ben Bernanke's description of the mechanics of QE.TheBigBean said:
This is just a conspiracy theory. The argument is the same as saying if you buy £5 worth of bananas, the number of bananas in the world is unchanged immediately after the transaction. It's what happens afterwards that matters i.e. you eat them and the seller buys some more from a grower.rick_chasey said:Worth remembering the whole thing about QE is that the amount of liabilities doesn’t change.
It just changes the structure. It makes banks hold more and more reserves with the central bank.
That’s why it’s not supposed to be inflationary because there’s no more private assets in existence as a result - they’re swapping reserves for bonds.
It is not new money being injected into the private sector. It is merely being swapped with something that was already spent into existence.
The main problem (for banks anyway) is they lose a chunk of interest they would have earned on the bonds that were instead swapped for reserves.
The whole point is to change the bond market structure - fewer, say, 5 year bonds - should lower interest which should encourage borrowing and also persuade people to put their money in more risky assets as you’re not gonna get the return in bonds.
So that is why it is done in low interest environments because it is another technique to lower interest rates beyond lowering the actual interest rate which is not possible when you’re at or near zero.
Lowering interest rates and increasing QE increase the money supply. That's the point. I even provided you graphs showing the impact on M4, but you seem to ignore those. Equally, there is plenty of evidence that every time a central bank implies more or less QE, the FX market immediately responds.
The money supply increases in the sense borrowing is supposed to increase (which is how the money supply increases), but the QE itself does NOT increase the amount of money in the system.
That is literally why they do QE and not printing money. It's entirely to do the same thing as lowering interest rates i.e. make borrowing more attractive.
That is why there is no mechanistic link between QE and inflation.
What do you think would have happened in the debt markets if the BofE had not stepped in? Obviously nobody knows but do you think rates would have reached 7-8% or doubled? would debt raising have failed and if so what would have been the consequence?
rates are at or near zero so how else can the central bank stimulate demand?
I could turn it around. If fiscal policy had not been so anaemic for the past decade would rates have been at near zero when this crisis came around? If rates were at 4% would we have needed QE? almost certainly not.
The purpose of QE in 2020 was not to stimulate demand it was to allow the Govt to borrow £300bn to pay it's bills. And no it is not the same thing.0 -
I seem to recall the GB News thread was set up so as not to pollute the 'things that cheer you up' thread. Maybe you two can get your own macro economics thread and we can chip in when you come up with something new?surrey_commuter said:
you miss my point.rick_chasey said:
Who knows, SC - i don't know what the point of these counterfactuals are - the markets expect some kind of central bank intervention in a crisis.surrey_commuter said:
Do you not think the purpose of QE has changed? with the GFC it was to put liquidity back into the system. With Covid it became a magic way to self-fund unprecedented levels of peacetime borrowing?rick_chasey said:
What is the conspiracy? What I've described is pretty much a summary of Ben Bernanke's description of the mechanics of QE.TheBigBean said:
This is just a conspiracy theory. The argument is the same as saying if you buy £5 worth of bananas, the number of bananas in the world is unchanged immediately after the transaction. It's what happens afterwards that matters i.e. you eat them and the seller buys some more from a grower.rick_chasey said:Worth remembering the whole thing about QE is that the amount of liabilities doesn’t change.
It just changes the structure. It makes banks hold more and more reserves with the central bank.
That’s why it’s not supposed to be inflationary because there’s no more private assets in existence as a result - they’re swapping reserves for bonds.
It is not new money being injected into the private sector. It is merely being swapped with something that was already spent into existence.
The main problem (for banks anyway) is they lose a chunk of interest they would have earned on the bonds that were instead swapped for reserves.
The whole point is to change the bond market structure - fewer, say, 5 year bonds - should lower interest which should encourage borrowing and also persuade people to put their money in more risky assets as you’re not gonna get the return in bonds.
So that is why it is done in low interest environments because it is another technique to lower interest rates beyond lowering the actual interest rate which is not possible when you’re at or near zero.
Lowering interest rates and increasing QE increase the money supply. That's the point. I even provided you graphs showing the impact on M4, but you seem to ignore those. Equally, there is plenty of evidence that every time a central bank implies more or less QE, the FX market immediately responds.
The money supply increases in the sense borrowing is supposed to increase (which is how the money supply increases), but the QE itself does NOT increase the amount of money in the system.
That is literally why they do QE and not printing money. It's entirely to do the same thing as lowering interest rates i.e. make borrowing more attractive.
That is why there is no mechanistic link between QE and inflation.
What do you think would have happened in the debt markets if the BofE had not stepped in? Obviously nobody knows but do you think rates would have reached 7-8% or doubled? would debt raising have failed and if so what would have been the consequence?
rates are at or near zero so how else can the central bank stimulate demand?
I could turn it around. If fiscal policy had not been so anaemic for the past decade would rates have been at near zero when this crisis came around? If rates were at 4% would we have needed QE? almost certainly not.
The purpose of QE in 2020 was not to stimulate demand it was to allow the Govt to borrow £300bn to pay it's bills. And no it is not the same thing. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
That's what i said!Stevo_666 said:
I seem to recall the GB News thread was set up so as not to pollute the 'things that cheer you up' thread. Maybe you two can get your own macro economics thread and we can chip in when you come up with something new?surrey_commuter said:
you miss my point.rick_chasey said:
Who knows, SC - i don't know what the point of these counterfactuals are - the markets expect some kind of central bank intervention in a crisis.surrey_commuter said:
Do you not think the purpose of QE has changed? with the GFC it was to put liquidity back into the system. With Covid it became a magic way to self-fund unprecedented levels of peacetime borrowing?rick_chasey said:
What is the conspiracy? What I've described is pretty much a summary of Ben Bernanke's description of the mechanics of QE.TheBigBean said:
This is just a conspiracy theory. The argument is the same as saying if you buy £5 worth of bananas, the number of bananas in the world is unchanged immediately after the transaction. It's what happens afterwards that matters i.e. you eat them and the seller buys some more from a grower.rick_chasey said:Worth remembering the whole thing about QE is that the amount of liabilities doesn’t change.
It just changes the structure. It makes banks hold more and more reserves with the central bank.
That’s why it’s not supposed to be inflationary because there’s no more private assets in existence as a result - they’re swapping reserves for bonds.
It is not new money being injected into the private sector. It is merely being swapped with something that was already spent into existence.
The main problem (for banks anyway) is they lose a chunk of interest they would have earned on the bonds that were instead swapped for reserves.
The whole point is to change the bond market structure - fewer, say, 5 year bonds - should lower interest which should encourage borrowing and also persuade people to put their money in more risky assets as you’re not gonna get the return in bonds.
So that is why it is done in low interest environments because it is another technique to lower interest rates beyond lowering the actual interest rate which is not possible when you’re at or near zero.
Lowering interest rates and increasing QE increase the money supply. That's the point. I even provided you graphs showing the impact on M4, but you seem to ignore those. Equally, there is plenty of evidence that every time a central bank implies more or less QE, the FX market immediately responds.
The money supply increases in the sense borrowing is supposed to increase (which is how the money supply increases), but the QE itself does NOT increase the amount of money in the system.
That is literally why they do QE and not printing money. It's entirely to do the same thing as lowering interest rates i.e. make borrowing more attractive.
That is why there is no mechanistic link between QE and inflation.
What do you think would have happened in the debt markets if the BofE had not stepped in? Obviously nobody knows but do you think rates would have reached 7-8% or doubled? would debt raising have failed and if so what would have been the consequence?
rates are at or near zero so how else can the central bank stimulate demand?
I could turn it around. If fiscal policy had not been so anaemic for the past decade would rates have been at near zero when this crisis came around? If rates were at 4% would we have needed QE? almost certainly not.
The purpose of QE in 2020 was not to stimulate demand it was to allow the Govt to borrow £300bn to pay it's bills. And no it is not the same thing.
0 -
What's the difference between the gov't borrowing £300bn and the UK public and industry collectively borrowing £300bn?surrey_commuter said:
you miss my point.rick_chasey said:
Who knows, SC - i don't know what the point of these counterfactuals are - the markets expect some kind of central bank intervention in a crisis.surrey_commuter said:
Do you not think the purpose of QE has changed? with the GFC it was to put liquidity back into the system. With Covid it became a magic way to self-fund unprecedented levels of peacetime borrowing?rick_chasey said:
What is the conspiracy? What I've described is pretty much a summary of Ben Bernanke's description of the mechanics of QE.TheBigBean said:
This is just a conspiracy theory. The argument is the same as saying if you buy £5 worth of bananas, the number of bananas in the world is unchanged immediately after the transaction. It's what happens afterwards that matters i.e. you eat them and the seller buys some more from a grower.rick_chasey said:Worth remembering the whole thing about QE is that the amount of liabilities doesn’t change.
It just changes the structure. It makes banks hold more and more reserves with the central bank.
That’s why it’s not supposed to be inflationary because there’s no more private assets in existence as a result - they’re swapping reserves for bonds.
It is not new money being injected into the private sector. It is merely being swapped with something that was already spent into existence.
The main problem (for banks anyway) is they lose a chunk of interest they would have earned on the bonds that were instead swapped for reserves.
The whole point is to change the bond market structure - fewer, say, 5 year bonds - should lower interest which should encourage borrowing and also persuade people to put their money in more risky assets as you’re not gonna get the return in bonds.
So that is why it is done in low interest environments because it is another technique to lower interest rates beyond lowering the actual interest rate which is not possible when you’re at or near zero.
Lowering interest rates and increasing QE increase the money supply. That's the point. I even provided you graphs showing the impact on M4, but you seem to ignore those. Equally, there is plenty of evidence that every time a central bank implies more or less QE, the FX market immediately responds.
The money supply increases in the sense borrowing is supposed to increase (which is how the money supply increases), but the QE itself does NOT increase the amount of money in the system.
That is literally why they do QE and not printing money. It's entirely to do the same thing as lowering interest rates i.e. make borrowing more attractive.
That is why there is no mechanistic link between QE and inflation.
What do you think would have happened in the debt markets if the BofE had not stepped in? Obviously nobody knows but do you think rates would have reached 7-8% or doubled? would debt raising have failed and if so what would have been the consequence?
rates are at or near zero so how else can the central bank stimulate demand?
I could turn it around. If fiscal policy had not been so anaemic for the past decade would rates have been at near zero when this crisis came around? If rates were at 4% would we have needed QE? almost certainly not.
The purpose of QE in 2020 was not to stimulate demand it was to allow the Govt to borrow £300bn to pay it's bills. And no it is not the same thing.-1 -
Seems one brand stood up to the hate mob and made a statement reminding us of its approach and its three principles:
We will not seek to affect the editorial independence of publications or channels;
We will not undermine the commercial value of our society for our members; and
We will ensure our values and principles are clear and undiminished regardless of surrounding content.
This bastion of unwokery is the Co-op0 -
Nothing, both can send people to sleeprick_chasey said:
What's the difference between the gov't borrowing £300bn and the UK public and industry collectively borrowing £300bn?surrey_commuter said:
you miss my point.rick_chasey said:
Who knows, SC - i don't know what the point of these counterfactuals are - the markets expect some kind of central bank intervention in a crisis.surrey_commuter said:
Do you not think the purpose of QE has changed? with the GFC it was to put liquidity back into the system. With Covid it became a magic way to self-fund unprecedented levels of peacetime borrowing?rick_chasey said:
What is the conspiracy? What I've described is pretty much a summary of Ben Bernanke's description of the mechanics of QE.TheBigBean said:
This is just a conspiracy theory. The argument is the same as saying if you buy £5 worth of bananas, the number of bananas in the world is unchanged immediately after the transaction. It's what happens afterwards that matters i.e. you eat them and the seller buys some more from a grower.rick_chasey said:Worth remembering the whole thing about QE is that the amount of liabilities doesn’t change.
It just changes the structure. It makes banks hold more and more reserves with the central bank.
That’s why it’s not supposed to be inflationary because there’s no more private assets in existence as a result - they’re swapping reserves for bonds.
It is not new money being injected into the private sector. It is merely being swapped with something that was already spent into existence.
The main problem (for banks anyway) is they lose a chunk of interest they would have earned on the bonds that were instead swapped for reserves.
The whole point is to change the bond market structure - fewer, say, 5 year bonds - should lower interest which should encourage borrowing and also persuade people to put their money in more risky assets as you’re not gonna get the return in bonds.
So that is why it is done in low interest environments because it is another technique to lower interest rates beyond lowering the actual interest rate which is not possible when you’re at or near zero.
Lowering interest rates and increasing QE increase the money supply. That's the point. I even provided you graphs showing the impact on M4, but you seem to ignore those. Equally, there is plenty of evidence that every time a central bank implies more or less QE, the FX market immediately responds.
The money supply increases in the sense borrowing is supposed to increase (which is how the money supply increases), but the QE itself does NOT increase the amount of money in the system.
That is literally why they do QE and not printing money. It's entirely to do the same thing as lowering interest rates i.e. make borrowing more attractive.
That is why there is no mechanistic link between QE and inflation.
What do you think would have happened in the debt markets if the BofE had not stepped in? Obviously nobody knows but do you think rates would have reached 7-8% or doubled? would debt raising have failed and if so what would have been the consequence?
rates are at or near zero so how else can the central bank stimulate demand?
I could turn it around. If fiscal policy had not been so anaemic for the past decade would rates have been at near zero when this crisis came around? If rates were at 4% would we have needed QE? almost certainly not.
The purpose of QE in 2020 was not to stimulate demand it was to allow the Govt to borrow £300bn to pay it's bills. And no it is not the same thing.3 -
Beat me to it Elbow. Looks like we have cross party consensus on this oneelbowloh said:
That's what i said!Stevo_666 said:
I seem to recall the GB News thread was set up so as not to pollute the 'things that cheer you up' thread. Maybe you two can get your own macro economics thread and we can chip in when you come up with something new?surrey_commuter said:
you miss my point.rick_chasey said:
Who knows, SC - i don't know what the point of these counterfactuals are - the markets expect some kind of central bank intervention in a crisis.surrey_commuter said:
Do you not think the purpose of QE has changed? with the GFC it was to put liquidity back into the system. With Covid it became a magic way to self-fund unprecedented levels of peacetime borrowing?rick_chasey said:
What is the conspiracy? What I've described is pretty much a summary of Ben Bernanke's description of the mechanics of QE.TheBigBean said:
This is just a conspiracy theory. The argument is the same as saying if you buy £5 worth of bananas, the number of bananas in the world is unchanged immediately after the transaction. It's what happens afterwards that matters i.e. you eat them and the seller buys some more from a grower.rick_chasey said:Worth remembering the whole thing about QE is that the amount of liabilities doesn’t change.
It just changes the structure. It makes banks hold more and more reserves with the central bank.
That’s why it’s not supposed to be inflationary because there’s no more private assets in existence as a result - they’re swapping reserves for bonds.
It is not new money being injected into the private sector. It is merely being swapped with something that was already spent into existence.
The main problem (for banks anyway) is they lose a chunk of interest they would have earned on the bonds that were instead swapped for reserves.
The whole point is to change the bond market structure - fewer, say, 5 year bonds - should lower interest which should encourage borrowing and also persuade people to put their money in more risky assets as you’re not gonna get the return in bonds.
So that is why it is done in low interest environments because it is another technique to lower interest rates beyond lowering the actual interest rate which is not possible when you’re at or near zero.
Lowering interest rates and increasing QE increase the money supply. That's the point. I even provided you graphs showing the impact on M4, but you seem to ignore those. Equally, there is plenty of evidence that every time a central bank implies more or less QE, the FX market immediately responds.
The money supply increases in the sense borrowing is supposed to increase (which is how the money supply increases), but the QE itself does NOT increase the amount of money in the system.
That is literally why they do QE and not printing money. It's entirely to do the same thing as lowering interest rates i.e. make borrowing more attractive.
That is why there is no mechanistic link between QE and inflation.
What do you think would have happened in the debt markets if the BofE had not stepped in? Obviously nobody knows but do you think rates would have reached 7-8% or doubled? would debt raising have failed and if so what would have been the consequence?
rates are at or near zero so how else can the central bank stimulate demand?
I could turn it around. If fiscal policy had not been so anaemic for the past decade would rates have been at near zero when this crisis came around? If rates were at 4% would we have needed QE? almost certainly not.
The purpose of QE in 2020 was not to stimulate demand it was to allow the Govt to borrow £300bn to pay it's bills. And no it is not the same thing. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Coincidentally this week I've been re-reading the definitive tome on the principles of macroeconomics, QE and 'balancing the books'. Very informative. And easy to read.
It's called 'Making Money', by Terry Pratchett in the Discworld series.
"Correlation is everything. Did you know it is an established fact that hemlines tend to rise in times of national crisis?"1 -
Any update on viewing figures? I can't see any new ones yet...0
-
.
The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0
