Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2023 14:22:46 GMT
The Pandemic response spending was funded entirely by QE. The last tranch of additions to the Asset Purchase Programme were in 2020-£450bn. A figure approximating to the total Pandemic response spend. By this stage QE had finally transitioned from a Liquidity stimulus in response to a global Credit Freeze, to blatant funding of Government spending. Indeed the Governor of the Bank of England made it explicitly clear that had UK Treasury faced market sentiment then AS THEY DO NOW, they would have failed to raise the funds .:- "Laying bare the scale of the national emergency at the early stages of the pandemic, Andrew Bailey said the government would have struggled to finance the running of the country without support from the central bank. Asked in an interview with Sky News what would have happened had the Bank not intervened, Bailey said: “I think the prospects would have been very bad. It would have been very serious.” “I think we would have a situation where, in the worst element, the government would have struggled to fund itself in the short run.” G JUne 2020 The HoL Economic Affair Committee , in their report "Quantitative easing: a dangerous addiction?" ( July 2021) said that the only QE effect which had any certainty was an increase in wealth disparity. These remarks feature in its conclusions :- "We sympathise with the Bank of England that it has had to meet its mandate in an economic environment in which its independence has been more difficult to define compared to when operational independence was granted in 1997. Dealing with the economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic means the Bank necessarily working more closely with HM Treasury to ensure policy is complementary. However, HM Treasury has not helped to clarify its relationship with the Bank in its ambiguous answers to us. Furthermore, adding additional roles to the Bank risks it losing focus on its primary responsibility to control inflation." "While the evidence on quantitative easing’s economic impact is mixed, we note that central bank research tends to show quantitative easing in a more positive light than the academic literature. We conclude, on balance, that the evidence shows quantitative easing has had limited impact on growth and aggregate demand over the last decade. To stimulate economic growth and aggregate demand, quantitative easing is reliant on a series of transmission mechanisms that operate primarily in and through financial markets. There is limited evidence to suggest that these increase bank lending or investment, or boost consumer spending by wealthy asset holders. " "Quantitative easing’s precise effect on inflation is unclear, and the magnitude of recent quantitative easing on future inflation has not yet been established. However, we heard that the latest round of quantitative easing could have an inflationary effect as it coincides with substantial government spending, bottlenecks in supply, and a recovery in demand after the COVID-19 pandemic." ( ie-that last tranche of QE probably WAS inflationary ) I have read those comments before - but - as is often the case- they remain pretty speculative in that few firm conclusions are reached. There was nothing speculative about Bailey's comments !!! |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jul 19, 2023 14:28:18 GMT
Earlier increases in Borrowing to fund higher Public Spending did not have that effect at all - eg the Furlough scheme. The Pandemic response spending was funded entirely by QE. The last tranch of additions to the Asset Purchase Programme were in 2020-£450bn. A figure approximating to the total Pandemic response spend. By this stage QE had finally transitioned from a Liquidity stimulus in response to a global Credit Freeze, to blatant funding of Government spending. Indeed the Governor of the Bank of England made it explicitly clear that had UK Treasury faced market sentiment then AS THEY DO NOW, they would have failed to raise the funds .:- "Laying bare the scale of the national emergency at the early stages of the pandemic, Andrew Bailey said the government would have struggled to finance the running of the country without support from the central bank.Asked in an interview with Sky News what would have happened had the Bank not intervened, Bailey said: “I think the prospects would have been very bad. It would have been very serious.” “I think we would have a situation where, in the worst element, the government would have struggled to fund itself in the short run.” G JUne 2020 The HoL Economic Affair Committee , in their report "Quantitative easing: a dangerous addiction?" ( July 2021) said that the only QE effect which had any certainty was an increase in wealth disparity. These remarks feature in its conclusions :- "We sympathise with the Bank of England that it has had to meet its mandate in an economic environment in which its independence has been more difficult to define compared to when operational independence was granted in 1997. Dealing with the economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic means the Bank necessarily working more closely with HM Treasury to ensure policy is complementary. However, HM Treasury has not helped to clarify its relationship with the Bank in its ambiguous answers to us. Furthermore, adding additional roles to the Bank risks it losing focus on its primary responsibility to control inflation." "While the evidence on quantitative easing’s economic impact is mixed, we note that central bank research tends to show quantitative easing in a more positive light than the academic literature. We conclude, on balance, that the evidence shows quantitative easing has had limited impact on growth and aggregate demand over the last decade. To stimulate economic growth and aggregate demand, quantitative easing is reliant on a series of transmission mechanisms that operate primarily in and through financial markets. There is limited evidence to suggest that these increase bank lending or investment, or boost consumer spending by wealthy asset holders. " "Quantitative easing’s precise effect on inflation is unclear, and the magnitude of recent quantitative easing on future inflation has not yet been established. However, we heard that the latest round of quantitative easing could have an inflationary effect as it coincides with substantial government spending, bottlenecks in supply, and a recovery in demand after the COVID-19 pandemic." ( ie-that last tranche of QE probably WAS inflationary ) Whilst I agree that QE was massively overdone and our children, grandchildren, etc will be paying the cost of that then Bailey is factually incorrect We saw BoE intervene in the LDI crisis, briefly switching back to what was effectively QE, and that stabilised gilt yields. They made quite a tidy profit from 'buying low' and 'selling high' in the LDI intervention (opposite being the case when they were buying gilts at ridiculously high prices (low yields)). www.bankofengland.co.uk/speech/2023/march/andrew-hauser-opening-remarks-at-university-of-chicago-booth-school-of-business-workshopNB I am most certainly not saying BoE should use QE for anything and everything and have been highly critical of their 'over use' of QE in the past. However, a CB is not a household and it is possible for a CB to fund govt "investment" (much more preferable to funding spending on bailing out banks, etc). If UK unilaterally overdoes it then the £ would drop. However, if all countries agreed to Green QE then as per times of other QE then FX markets would view all currencies pretty much the same. Even unilaterally we could do a bit more than we're doing now and BoE's mandate could be tweaked to 'yield curve targeting' - only used in extremes. Rishi+Hunt have changed investment criteria for pension funds and life insurance sector which will 'crowd in' more investment but a blast from the past covering some LAB ideas:
(Corbyn+McDonnell era) "Labour hints at giving Bank of England green mandate if elected"www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/17/labour-bank-england-green-mandate-john-mcdonnell-carneyGreens/LDEMs/others have had plenty of ideas as well, although some err on the nutter side they are useful for debate and 'watered down' a bit could be helpful. EG 1-3p on VAT and specific taxes on "meat" etc (something Clive Lewis supports). "Tax escalator" for air travel* is something a few folks have mentioned (maybe also LDEMs??) where by folks get one cheap annual holiday but frequent flyers have to pay a lot more (or travel less). Again from 2019: "Time for politicians to make 'stark choices' over climate change"www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/01/time-for-politicians-to-make-stark-choices-over-climate-changeReeves is promising new nuclear (CON are finally doing that), more renewables (CON are doing that but could do more), insulating some homes (CON are doing that but could do more) but is also saying there is no money (ie she's unlikely to do anything 'radical' and just be 'continuity CON'). I'm fully aware of the downside of excessive QE but with gilts at more 'normal' yields then, in conjunction with 'tweaks' to the fiscal rules to allow more Green investment, then BoE's mandate could be tweaked to allow BoE to be the 'buyer of last resort' - just for a good cause for a change! NB as per discussion with c-a-r-f-r-e-w then the Green investments could+should more than pay back the investment (ie the RoI would be > the interest rate on the debt = +ve return for taxpayers). In terms of size then no need to go crazy but Reeves could easily bring back the 'pinky promise' for £28bn/year starting as soon as LAB come into power (and I'm fairly sure the inflation background will be very accommodative for that at the time - folks can check OBR, BoE, independent forecasters, etc to see that). There is a massive cost attached to "do nothing" (or at least "not do enough") and our kids/grandkids will be paying that price if our politicians don't up their game and stop pretending they can't do anything more than they are currently doing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2023 14:42:05 GMT
Whilst I agree that QE was massively overdone and our children, grandchildren, etc will be paying the cost of that then Bailey is factually incorrect We saw BoE intervene in the LDI crisis, briefly switching back to what was effectively QE, and that stabilised gilt yields. They made quite a tidy profit from 'buying low' and 'selling high' in the LDI intervention (opposite being the case when they were buying gilts at ridiculously high prices (low yields)). If Bailey believed that HMG would not have raised the Pandemic funding in the market place ( without BoE ready to buy the gilts) I'm not going to argue with him. The BoE intervention after Kwateng was a specific response to the LDI problem-itself a feature of the Pensions industry which was not regulated effectively and left exposure to post QE market sentiment.Kwarten/Truss didnt know about it !!! Its time now to return to pre 2007 days when Governments funded their spending by presenting credible and sustainable programmes to their voters and their prospective Gilt buyers. The 15 years of Monetary Stimulus and ultra low interest rates has ENDED . And look at the mess it has left as it is unwound. Finance Ministers must live in the real world now where their Debt has to be justified and sustainable. And about time too. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 19, 2023 14:45:13 GMT
But we didn’t have much general inflation in the years following the banking crisis, Because :- a) Government did not pair QE with fiscal stimulus-the reverse in fact. Well Brown did use a stimulus, but it wasn’t very big - given it was hundreds of billions of QE on top, you didn’t need much additional stimulus. And it clearly was inflationary where supply was constrained, suggesting that the reason it wasn’t more generally inflationary was because of the ability to soak up the stimulus b) Government reduced Deficits Sure but they were still quite a lot higher than before the crash for years c) By and large Banks chose to hold the proceeds of QE as excess reserves rather than increasing their pace of lending and thereby creating money Yes, that’s one way it can keep the inflation down, and it still has another beneficial effect as the BoE say by keeping interest rates down. But anyway, we are not necessarily talking about the sort of sums we were with the banking crisis and Covid, trying to avoid a general economic meltdown. We are just talking about funding some cheaper, greener energy etc. So the inflationary effects might be rather more modest and it may even be helpful since the money supply is shrinking. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jul 19, 2023 14:45:14 GMT
I have read those comments before - but - as is often the case- they remain pretty speculative in that few firm conclusions are reached. Yeah, I mean regarding getting more growth out of it, it’s true that QE might be done better, to direct funds to where they might better be used instead of too much of it going to inflate asset prices etc.. But we didn’t have much general inflation in the years following the banking crisis, and if you look at the money supply now it has been falling for a while now.
Which is a large part* of the reason why folks like myself think BoE have already overdone it. www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/auyn/qnaThe above chart also highlights a comment from colin. Of course don't know what would happened had BoE not conducted QE after the banking crisis but note money supply did not increase much between 2010-15. Had BoE not stepped in then perhaps money supply would have collapsed and we'd have been in a debt-deflation spiral. However, after 2015 then 'fiscal contraction (austerity) + money expansion (ongoing QE)' caused foreseeable consequences with inflation in asset prices. * The other main reason being the impact of BoE rate hikes on mortgages and 'pass-thru' to renters. UK (along with Ireland) have a massive % of people on short-term fixed rate mortgages and that issue has been covered ad nauseam WRT to the 'delayed' hit to households and hence the 'rear view mirror' approach of BoE. /photo/1 |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,643
|
Post by steve on Jul 19, 2023 14:46:43 GMT
Sunak refuses to rule out reshuffle on Friday amid speculation shake-up could follow byelection defeats. Rearranging the deck chairs after the titanic sank
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jul 19, 2023 14:56:06 GMT
Whilst I agree that QE was massively overdone and our children, grandchildren, etc will be paying the cost of that then Bailey is factually incorrect We saw BoE intervene in the LDI crisis, briefly switching back to what was effectively QE, and that stabilised gilt yields. They made quite a tidy profit from 'buying low' and 'selling high' in the LDI intervention (opposite being the case when they were buying gilts at ridiculously high prices (low yields)). I'm not going to argue with him. The BoE intervention after Kwateng was a specific response to the LDI problem-itself a feature of the Pensions industry which was not regulated effectively and left exposure to post QE market sentiment.Kwarten/Truss didnt know about it !!! Its time now to return to pre 2007 days when Governments funded their spending by presenting credible and sustainable programmes to their voters and their prospective Gilt buyers. The 15 years of Monetary Stimulus and ultra low interest rates has ENDED . And look at the mess it has left as it is unwound. Finance Ministers must live in the real world now where their Debt has to be justified and sustainable.And about time too. IMO a modest amount of Green QE (but only if BoE have to be 'buyer of last resort' and only at sensible rates of interest such as >4.5% on long-end gilts) is justifiable and would be sustainable - with a load of assumptions about credible 'day-day' spending, realising the NHS is not sustainable in it's current form, etc. I certainly don't want BoE buying gilts < 1.5% yield (as they did in the past) or spending £100s billions. However, there is a cost of "do nothing" (not enough and not fast enough) about the Climate Crisis. If we don't borrow to invest then we won't be investing anywhere near enough, fast enough, IMO. NB Via 'crowding in' then I don't expect taxpayers to fund much of the investment anyway. Lots HMG could do via 'reform' and I don't think we need to 'boost it (inflation) like Biden' - although I'm very glad he has pushed rWorld into raising their game to compete. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 19, 2023 15:14:51 GMT
Whilst I agree that QE was massively overdone and our children, grandchildren, etc will be paying the cost of that then Bailey is factually incorrect We saw BoE intervene in the LDI crisis, briefly switching back to what was effectively QE, and that stabilised gilt yields. They made quite a tidy profit from 'buying low' and 'selling high' in the LDI intervention (opposite being the case when they were buying gilts at ridiculously high prices (low yields)). If Bailey believed that HMG would not have raised the Pandemic funding in the market place ( without BoE ready to buy the gilts) I'm not going to argue with him. The BoE intervention after Kwateng was a specific response to the LDI problem-itself a feature of the Pensions industry which was not regulated effectively and left exposure to post QE market sentiment.Kwarten/Truss didnt know about it !!! Its time now to return to pre 2007 days when Governments funded their spending by presenting credible and sustainable programmes to their voters and their prospective Gilt buyers. The 15 years of Monetary Stimulus and ultra low interest rates has ENDED . And look at the mess it has left as it is unwound. Finance Ministers must live in the real world now where their Debt has to be justified and sustainable. And about time too. Colin, this isn’t really how the world works. A lot of money is magicked up out of thin air in the private sector: much of the money the banks lend, they do not actually have. (They only need to have a small fraction of it, which is why it’s called fractional reserve lending). Governments have realised they can do the same, if they control the currency, so long as they control ill-effects, and if they don’t then those that do will eat their lunch. The EU tried it your way and they gave up because the Anglo way was better. Biden is going for a big stimulus in green energy, computing etc., which appears to be dragging the EU along and if we don’t join in we will likely be struggling. We also need to race because of the environment. QE did not suddenly cause inflation after all these years, it was clearly the energy crisis etc., especially given the money supply is falling. And with the money supply falling, we risk serious stagflation if we tighten. (Thatcher also showed the same thing back in her first term, btw). |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,392
|
Post by neilj on Jul 19, 2023 15:23:23 GMT
Mayoral polling, a little out of date but Khan will be hoping for a boost now the tories have selected someone even tories don't want
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jul 19, 2023 15:27:17 GMT
Because :- a) Government did not pair QE with fiscal stimulus-the reverse in fact. Well Brown did use a stimulus, but it wasn’t very big - given it was hundreds of billions of QE on top, you didn’t need much additional stimulus. And it clearly was inflationary where supply was constrained, suggesting that the reason it wasn’t more generally inflationary was because of the ability to soak up the stimulus b) Government reduced Deficits Sure but they were still quite a lot higher than before the crash for years c) By and large Banks chose to hold the proceeds of QE as excess reserves rather than increasing their pace of lending and thereby creating money Yes, that’s one way it can keep the inflation down, and it still has another beneficial effect as the BoE say by keeping interest rates down. But anyway, we are not necessarily talking about the sort of sums we were with the banking crisis and Covid, trying to avoid a general economic meltdown. We are just talking about funding some cheaper, greener energy etc. So the inflationary effects might be rather more modest and it may even be helpful since the money supply is shrinking. a/ Brown stupidly cut VAT and IMO also stupidly bailed out everyone to their full 100% of deposits rather than using the FSCS cap. Companies didn't pass on the VAT cut (so it hit HMT revenues) and people with loads of money in bank accounts were 100% bailed out by future taxpayers. b/ Current/future taxpayers are stuck with the PFI cost from Brown (estimated at £200billion in 2018 money) www.nao.org.uk/reports/pfi-and-pf2/#PFI was even worse than QE given the effective interest rate taxpayers are being forced to pay for Brown's "off balance sheet" spending c/ We largely agree on that one. There is an issue of timing and I'll expand on the reasons why tax hikes now need to be carefully targeted in case the 'cure' is worse than the problem. 1/ The 'feather' in 'rocket and feather pricing' is settling and whilst we need to ensure that doesn't happen in the future then 'consumption tax hikes' will probably be passed on and hence be both inflationary and make CoL crisis worse (ie bad idea at the moment) 2/ Income or corporation tax hikes. IMO never a good idea due to Global Laffer Curve and the need for UK to be competitive. High income taxes (absolute and relative basis) being a disincentive to work and pay tax in UK (I appreciate others disagree) 3/ Even normalising CGT between 'rent seeking' and income is currently bad timing as a property market crash from a rush for the exit before CGT change is risky. However, once property prices start rising again then I'd be in favour of hiking CGT to same rate as income taxes. I appreciate some people think Brown was amazing but beyond keeping UK out of the Eternal Recession Mechanism 2 (Euro) then IMO he left a huge mess and totally spassed the NICE decade where we could and should have made smart investment decisions for the future rather than making the public sector 'fat' and leaving future generations with the cost of the disastrous PFI expansion and some of the stupid decisions he+Darling made in 2008. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,392
|
Post by neilj on Jul 19, 2023 15:29:55 GMT
This is the problem that Sunak has in a nutshell.
He won't reach out beyond his own narrow (and getting narrower) political base
More evidence he is looking at trying to consolidate his base to try and reduce the scale of losing
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jul 19, 2023 15:36:42 GMT
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,643
|
Post by steve on Jul 19, 2023 15:44:52 GMT
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,643
|
Post by steve on Jul 19, 2023 15:46:50 GMT
neiljRefuk seems too high
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,573
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 19, 2023 16:08:24 GMT
I read this earlier today and hard not to feel sickened. Driving 123 mph one-handed so he could film himself on a mobile - surely this sentence will be appealed. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,643
|
Post by steve on Jul 19, 2023 16:17:28 GMT
pjw1961The Attorney General has the power to apply for leave to appeal sentences for this offence ti the Court of Appeal where she is of the opinion that the sentence is ‘unduly lenient’. Prentis is only a marginally adequate barrister appointed as a political hack but I think even She would be hard pressed to consider this sentence as appropriate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2023 16:20:00 GMT
Colin, this isn’t really how the world works. It is the way IT IS working:- Fed /BoE/ECB all ceased new QE purchases and in various stages of reducing bond holdings. QE has ended. Finance Ministers will no longer have a Central Bank standing by to purchase their new borrowing. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 19, 2023 16:29:16 GMT
Colin, this isn’t really how the world works. It is the way IT IS working:- Fed /BoE/ECB all ceased new QE purchases and in various stages of reducing bond holdings. QE has ended. Finance Ministers will no longer have a Central Bank standing by to purchase their new borrowing. Temporarily they might scale it back, but they will likely use it again where they consider it necessary. Especially if others do. The EU tried it your way and avoided using QE - they caved in the end. And trying to control inflation by scaling back in this way, when the money supply isn’t the problem, is because government failed to do it the better way: reducing energy prices. Governments that control inflation in saner ways will find it easier to invest. Genie is out of the bottle but it’s early days, and as governments get the hang of it they will likely use it better (And hopefully not hamper it by letting energy prices go crazy) |
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Jul 19, 2023 16:34:48 GMT
I read this earlier today and hard not to feel sickened. Driving 123 mph one-handed so he could film himself on a mobile - surely this sentence will be appealed. these are the sentencing guidelines which the Judge must apply you will see 18 years is the top of the range, if the person pleaded guilty at the first opportunity the sentence must be reduced by 33% (if, as seems likely, this was someone with no previous convictions the Judge would make the starting point 12 years, then increase it to take account of the aggravating features of the offence, in this case likely up to the suggested maximum of 18 and then have to reduce it by a third. You will also see that offences arising out of the same incident should be attract concurrent sentences. I think many people are unaware of how much a Judge's discretion is limited in respect of sentencing! |
|
|
|
Post by moby on Jul 19, 2023 16:42:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jul 19, 2023 16:44:25 GMT
Not sure if this latest Deltapoll has been shared. If not, it would be remiss of us to overlook it!
Apparently there is a recent YouGov poll knocking about which shows Sunak hitting his all time low approval ratings.
I'll try and dig it up, unless the redoubtable neilj gets there first, that is!!!
🤔😆👯
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,392
|
Post by neilj on Jul 19, 2023 16:47:48 GMT
Not sure if this latest Deltapoll has been shared. If not, it would be remiss of us to overlook it! Apparently there is a fecent YouGov poll knocking about which shows Sunak hitting his all time low approval ratings. I'll try and dig it up, unless the redoubtable neilj gets there first, that is!!! 🤔😆👯 Well done...only 24 hours late 😀 |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 19, 2023 16:55:58 GMT
Well Brown did use a stimulus, but it wasn’t very big - given it was hundreds of billions of QE on top, you didn’t need much additional stimulus. And it clearly was inflationary where supply was constrained, suggesting that the reason it wasn’t more generally inflationary was because of the ability to soak up the stimulus Sure but they were still quite a lot higher than before the crash for years Yes, that’s one way it can keep the inflation down, and it still has another beneficial effect as the BoE say by keeping interest rates down. But anyway, we are not necessarily talking about the sort of sums we were with the banking crisis and Covid, trying to avoid a general economic meltdown. We are just talking about funding some cheaper, greener energy etc. So the inflationary effects might be rather more modest and it may even be helpful since the money supply is shrinking. a/ Brown stupidly cut VAT and IMO also stupidly bailed out everyone to their full 100% of deposits rather than using the FSCS cap. Companies didn't pass on the VAT cut (so it hit HMT revenues) and people with loads of money in bank accounts were 100% bailed out by future taxpayers. b/ Current/future taxpayers are stuck with the PFI cost from Brown (estimated at £200billion in 2018 money) www.nao.org.uk/reports/pfi-and-pf2/#PFI was even worse than QE given the effective interest rate taxpayers are being forced to pay for Brown's "off balance sheet" spending c/ We largely agree on that one. There is an issue of timing and I'll expand on the reasons why tax hikes now need to be carefully targeted in case the 'cure' is worse than the problem. 1/ The 'feather' in 'rocket and feather pricing' is settling and whilst we need to ensure that doesn't happen in the future then 'consumption tax hikes' will probably be passed on and hence be both inflationary and make CoL crisis worse (ie bad idea at the moment) 2/ Income or corporation tax hikes. IMO never a good idea due to Global Laffer Curve and the need for UK to be competitive. High income taxes (absolute and relative basis) being a disincentive to work and pay tax in UK (I appreciate others disagree) 3/ Even normalising CGT between 'rent seeking' and income is currently bad timing as a property market crash from a rush for the exit before CGT change is risky. However, once property prices start rising again then I'd be in favour of hiking CGT to same rate as income taxes. I appreciate some people think Brown was amazing but beyond keeping UK out of the Eternal Recession Mechanism 2 (Euro) then IMO he left a huge mess and totally spassed the NICE decade where we could and should have made smart investment decisions for the future rather than making the public sector 'fat' and leaving future generations with the cost of the disastrous PFI expansion and some of the stupid decisions he+Darling made in 2008. Yeah, I don’t think Brown did the best of stimuli, but despite that he did see quite a rapid recovery in growth. Makes you wonder what might have happened with a better stimulus. I don’t think Brown was amazing, and being rather right wing, he and Blair seemed more interested in the private sector taking over, but he did have a good response to the Crunch. Re: tax, not sure of the best way to do it, but of course if you are stimulating the economy with some investment, and then counter any resulting inflation with tax, you aren’t necessarily leaving people worse off overall if they benefitted from the stimulus first. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2023 17:00:41 GMT
It is the way IT IS working:- Fed /BoE/ECB all ceased new QE purchases and in various stages of reducing bond holdings. QE has ended. Finance Ministers will no longer have a Central Bank standing by to purchase their new borrowing. Temporarily they might scale it back, but they will likely use it again where they consider it necessary. Especially if others do. The EU tried it your way and avoided using QE - they caved in the end. And trying to control inflation by scaling back in this way, when the money supply isn’t the problem, is because government failed to do it the better way: reducing energy prices. Governments that control inflation in saner ways will find it easier to invest. No idea what any of that means. QT has ended for Western economies. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 19, 2023 17:04:18 GMT
Temporarily they might scale it back, but they will likely use it again where they consider it necessary. Especially if others do. The EU tried it your way and avoided using QE - they caved in the end. And trying to control inflation by scaling back in this way, when the money supply isn’t the problem, is because government failed to do it the better way: reducing energy prices. Governments that control inflation in saner ways will find it easier to invest. No idea what any of that means. QT has ended for Western economies. It means that because they didn’t take care of energy properly they are scaling back QE to hamfistedly try and contain inflation that way. This situation is unlikely to persist, whereupon they can use QE again. (And part of the ECB rationale for reducing QE now is to give more room to use it in future) |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jul 19, 2023 17:05:55 GMT
neilj
Come on then, smarty-pants, where's the latest YouGov poll showing Sunak's all time low approval ratings???
🤔😉😋
P.S. Maybe I missed the Deltapoll then.
There's a whole lot of scrolling going on at the moment! Impending by-elections tomorrow the only thing keeping me hanging on in there in terms of UKPR, really.
Real votes and "real people" turning out tomorrow.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,643
|
Post by steve on Jul 19, 2023 17:13:37 GMT
wb61 Depending on when the offence of causing death by dangerous driving occurred the maximum sentence was 14 years before June 2022 since then it's been a maximum not a mandatory life sentence.The other exceptionally serious and aggrevating elements would mitigate any leniency for a guilty plea The tariff maximum is 18 years however this didn't prevent the judge imposing a life rather than a determinate sentence , that way even if the defendant pleaded guilty they would serve a minimum of the full 12 years imposed , a 12 year minimum on a life sentence in these circumstances would in my opinion be unduly lenient even given the guilty plea 15 years minimum term would seem appropriate. I strongly suspect that's what will happen. This was within the judges remit and can be appealed by the attorney general. As it stands with time served on remand the individual could be released from prison at the age of 28 .
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,643
|
Post by steve on Jul 19, 2023 17:20:49 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2023 17:30:56 GMT
neilj Come on then, smarty-pants, where's the latest YouGov poll showing Sunak's all time low approval ratings??? 🤔😉😋 P.S. Maybe I missed the Deltapoll then. There's a whole lot of scrolling going on at the moment! Impending by-elections tomorrow the only thing keeping me hanging on in there in terms of UKPR, really. Real votes and "real people" turning out tomorrow. Scrolling?!? Hope your not missing some of the really, really (really?) good stuff.  |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,392
|
Post by neilj on Jul 19, 2023 17:32:05 GMT
neilj Come on then, smarty-pants, where's the latest YouGov poll showing Sunak's all time low approval ratings??? 🤔😉😋 P.S. Maybe I missed the Deltapoll then. There's a whole lot of scrolling going on at the moment! Impending by-elections tomorrow the only thing keeping me hanging on in there in terms of UKPR, really. Real votes and "real people" turning out tomorrow. Sometimes it's best to teach some one to fish rather than give them a fish But as your my special friend have a mackerel |
|
