This is the continuation of a discussion that started in the Jeremy Corbyn thread. Rather than start it with my own post, I'll begin by quoting sherpa-finn, who brought it into the other thread. The very first part of his post, highlighted in bold italics is a comment I made.
"Quantitative easing is quantitative easing, and that's a pig that looks no better with lipstick."
Not sure what your issue is here with QE. Its an accepted anti-austerity strategy that pumps more money into a stagnant / failing economy through the Central Bank rather than the usual running up of deficits. The "People's" qualifier underlines that in this version the new cash injections will be invested in infrastructure and public services, - not bailing out of the banks as has been done in recent memory.
I have seen three regular criticisms of the PQE approach:
- its not needed at the moment: with interest rates low, the Gov't would do better to just borrow money on teh market than print it;
- its unwise for Gov't to direct the Central Bank to any specific courses of action (arms length, and all that). This is the "Mr Carney would not be pleased" argument.
- People's QE is a socialist boon-doggle to fund gov't expenditures that would not otherwise be possible through conventional fiscal approaches. ( A Tory favourite.)
From afar, I would have had you pegged as a PQE enthusiast, Rev. But maybe you are more concerned about Mr Carney's sensibilities than I.