Quantative Easing: Threat or Menace?

5 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rev Pesky
Quantative Easing: Threat or Menace?

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. 


Rev Pesky

Here is my response to the above post, also from the Jeremy Corbyn thread. There are others who have commented there, and I hope they will repost their comments here.

Rev Pesky wrote:

Here's s simple explanation of quantative easing that illustrates the problem with it.

I have twenty dollars in my right-hand pants pocket. I loan that twenty dollars to my left-hand pants pocket. How much money do I have now? Forty dollars, according to quantative easers. The twenty dollars that is now in my left-hand pants pocket, plus the twenty dollars owed to my right-hand pants pocket.

Whether that quantitavely eased money is given over the the banks to shore up their capital requirements, or whether it's used to build a railway, at some point it has to be turned into real money that is able to buy products.

Here's a question for quantative easers. Is there a limit on the amount of money you can create this way? If not, why not just create several hundred trillion dollars and pass it out to the world's population. If there is a limit, what is the limiting factor?

And by the way, I could care less about Mark Carney. In any case, he's not the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Stephen Poloz is. Now, there's a good job; for the last several years it has consisted of announcing increases in interest rates, then reversing direction when the US Fed announced therre wouldn't be any increases. He's getting paid good money for this. 


RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

We should not have the lending laws we have.


Good questions Pesky. There should have been no money created but too late now.


We all fucked.


anybody who uses or reproduces for use this statement  "pig that looks no better with lipstick" or anything similar to it can't be taken seriously on any issue or idea.

there should be nothing but mockery and condemnation for trite and trivial thinking not worth going past the words for anything further.


It's just unbelievable that people would even consider QE as anything but a cash grab by the elites by shuffling money around...as I've often stated...macro economic policy is not progressive......the consequences of an anything but outrage to QE is going to be catastrophic.....scary times!