tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post4089067658698471995..comments2024-03-28T12:23:39.665+00:00Comments on Coppola Comment: Monetary Snake OilFrances Coppolahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-19457145284549514392015-09-11T20:34:28.009+01:002015-09-11T20:34:28.009+01:00Dan H,
This explains why banks don't lend rese...Dan H,<br />This explains why banks don't lend reserves<br />http://www.3spoken.co.uk/2014/07/on-nature-of-banks-payment-clearing.html?m=1Randomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04445772572707818311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-4545114212329603202015-09-01T11:19:44.813+01:002015-09-01T11:19:44.813+01:00Hello
1. Absolutely. Public spending builds stuff...Hello<br /><br />1. Absolutely. Public spending builds stuff. My argument merely that claim of being able to do so without associated borrowing or inflation is wrong. <br />2. not sure what you mean by monetary effects, but yes to extent PQE associated with particular capital allocation decisions (build this, not that) it can hope to increase supply of productive public investments. The track record of national development banks is mixed, and I would expect a certain amount of bad projects, but NDB could be a good idea on net. I even think showering some countercyclical PQE financing on the NDB could be a good idea. <br /><br />PaddyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-50427535007009340592015-09-01T11:10:54.598+01:002015-09-01T11:10:54.598+01:00This entirely makes sense (even to a layman), but ...This entirely makes sense (even to a layman), but I had the following responses:<br /><br />1. You assume this is primarily a monetary policy. But isn't the policy more about getting stuff built? And even if the monetary effects will be unwound immediately by inflation targeting, surely the buildings, factories, houses, etc. remain standing?<br /><br />2. Whilst the net effect of PQE might be neutralized, that is not the same as saying there will be no monetary effect on the economy. PQE would replace a blanket approach to monetary policy, which applies to all sectors of the economy, with a nuanced policy which discriminates. This would encourage productive aspects of the economy which need a leg up (e.g. house building) at the expense of less productive/damaging bits, which don't (e.g. buy to let).<br /><br />I'd be very interested in your thoughts. Sorry if I posted this several times, something was up with the website.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-31541708642461571602015-08-31T14:46:05.561+01:002015-08-31T14:46:05.561+01:00I'll back off mildly from this comment. I'...I'll back off mildly from this comment. I've browsed a number of articles out there, and I don't think anybody is particularly coherent on this subject. There are a number of dimensions to be strung together in a methodical explanation of the various QE versus/cum fiscal permutations. The Mitchell post is OK, but on second reading not great and even mildly confused. That said, I have nothing further to offer myself.JKHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06322177539880818556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-73580412837923141042015-08-31T10:21:01.789+01:002015-08-31T10:21:01.789+01:00Another post by Bill Mitchell that people should p...Another post by Bill Mitchell that people should probably read:<br />http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=31711Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09106739466558486588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-48932113862471480762015-08-30T18:29:16.394+01:002015-08-30T18:29:16.394+01:00I've already told you that asset price inflati...I've already told you that asset price inflation does not flow through into general inflation, but you still keep saying it. And bizarrely you cite an article by me in The Week in support of your argument: I presume you didn't notice that I was the author. I know what I wrote in that piece. It says absolutely nothing about asset price inflation feeding through into general inflation. <br /><br />No-one is disputing that QE boosted asset prices. Indeed that was its purpose. Where you go wrong is in assuming that a) asset price inflation causes consumer price inflation b) central banks should control asset price inflation. Neither is true, and none of the pieces you cite support this argument. <br /><br />Murphy & Hine's paper is very seriously flawed. Here is my analysis of it from 2011:<br /><br />http://www.coppolacomment.com/2011/09/doomed-assessment.html and http://www.coppolacomment.com/2011/09/new-name-for-old-game_30.htmlFrances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-86854629853049401432015-08-30T16:40:31.453+01:002015-08-30T16:40:31.453+01:00Just to add a little more flesh to my arguments:-
...Just to add a little more flesh to my arguments:-<br /><br />http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-swaps/<br /><br />www.financeforthefuture.com/GreenQuEasing.pdf<br /><br />See Appendix 2 of Murphy’s and Hine’s paper then the following:-<br /><br />http://bankunderground.co.uk/2015/08/14/very-much-anticipated-ecb-qe-had-a-big-impact-on-asset-prices-even-before-it-was-officially-announced/#more-445<br />Schofieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06135158699917324267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-83319301054766992292015-08-30T15:35:52.537+01:002015-08-30T15:35:52.537+01:00In a nutshell Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the ...In a nutshell Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the United States central bank, failed to recognize that he had the wrong “Invisible Hand” model. He should have been operating on the Darwinian one that aims to reconcile Individualism with Mutualism through Multi-Selection Theory. He should not have relied upon the Adam Smith “Invisible Hand” model that attempts to pretend that reliance upon Individualism alone ensures that an economy will self-balance for the common good. In consequence Greenspan failed to use the Federal Reserve’s powers to stop an inflationary house bubble being blow by the private banks. He also failed to realise that house price inflation would pass-through into abnormal inflation because this was masked by the fact that the United States had become the de facto “deficit” spender of last resort for the global economy(applicable to the UK also as a continuing reserve currency and “deficit” spender):-<br /><br />http://theweek.com/articles/455261/americas-greatest-export-debt<br /><br />Moving to the BoE it too under its adherence to the Neoliberal “addiction” to the wrong “Invisible Hand” of Adam Smith failed to tackle the general pass-through inflation implications of allowing a house price bubble although it has partially redeemed itself under Mark Carney. As an arm of government the BoE should have been telling both Red and Blue Neoliberal politicians that if they were not prepared to engage in fiscal spending to meet the large pent up demand for affordable homes they must move to rationing/ price controls via tight mortgage loan underwriting standards to avoid house price inflation (so yes in one sense we are agreeing about the ineptitude of politicians but I’m saying they swallowed the wrong Kool-Aid model Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand”).<br /><br />PQE should, therefore, be regarded as a form of political work-around mechanism to get around the national addiction to the wrong “Invisible Hand” model. The success in using it lies I believe in coupling it with appropriate restraints to avoid triggering abnormal inflation (as I’ve suggested in the case of meeting pent up demand for affordable homes) and setting a positive rate of interest on any state “savings” scheme. <br /><br />http://www.professormarkvanvugt.com/images/files/DarwinJEBOfinal.pdf<br /><br /><br /><br />Schofieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06135158699917324267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-83337089695214110732015-08-30T12:01:01.803+01:002015-08-30T12:01:01.803+01:00Schofield,
The people you should be blaming for h...Schofield,<br /><br />The people you should be blaming for house price inflation are politicians. Show me the politician who thinks falling house prices are a good thing. When underwriting standards are tight, then politicians complain about "market failure" and demand that banks loosen up. <br /><br />One of the big problems with an independent central bank in my view is it lets politicians off the hook. You've clearly bought the "everything's the fault of the central bank" myth. <br /><br />House price inflation doesn't "ripple through" general inflation. Ten years ago the Western world had the largest housing bubble in history. But inflation was low and stable. The central banks were not asked to prevent house price inflation. They were responsible for controlling consumer price inflation, and they did their job. <br /><br />What was neglected was financial stability. Central banks now have been clearly tasked with maintaining that. But they still are not responsible for preventing house price inflation. <br /><br />Building more homes can't be assumed to bring down house prices. Look at Ireland in the mid-2000s.Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-52046248085283688912015-08-30T03:35:41.024+01:002015-08-30T03:35:41.024+01:00You and Paddy are making the assumption that the B...You and Paddy are making the assumption that the BoE is not part of the problem in containing inflation when it is blatantly obvious that house price bubbles are caused in part by a failure of central banks including the BoE to run "tight" underwriting standards. Part of their reason for doing that is clinging onto the dogma of Neoliberalism that markets self-equilibrise. That belief in my view is to cover the fact that those who wish to dominate others for heir own selfish advantage want to bury the issue of political equality under the spurious myth of markets achieving the common good through the workings of an Invisible Hand. <br /><br />Whilst from an MMT perspective Corbyn's PQE can be regarded as a work-around one of the uses Corbyn wants to put it too is to launch a large programme of affordable homes construction which would clearly also be part of the solution to contain house price inflation. The BoE's failure to fully contain house price inflation and therefore ripple-through general inflation works against Corbyn's affordable homes objective because the BoE is targetting a reduction in demand through interest rate rises. On the face of it this would appear an argument to remove central bank quasi independence although I find myself supporting Ann Pettifor's arguments this would not be a good idea.Schofieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06135158699917324267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-41968766663053298332015-08-30T00:40:40.502+01:002015-08-30T00:40:40.502+01:00JKH, the proper term for "helicopter drop&quo...JKH, the proper term for "helicopter drop" is "Basic Income" :)<br />Here is my take:<br />PQE does work by creating money, but then so does all bank lending and govt spending. If it was "borrow and spend" it would be the same.<br />But it is certainly different from QE, which an asset swap (bonds for reserves) and has little effect on anything. Calling it "People's QE" is misleading.<br />Although the mainstream refers to QE as "money printing." And Murphy has gotten all political.Randomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04445772572707818311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-29175153087571419982015-08-30T00:15:37.484+01:002015-08-30T00:15:37.484+01:00This Murphy fellow is just too thin-skinned, Franc...This Murphy fellow is just too thin-skinned, Frances.<br /><br />His comments about you on his blog are thin-skin paranoia and not worth worrying about.<br /><br />I happened to read that Bill Mitchell post - an unusual thing for me to do. It's quite good in the sense of pointing out the basic distinction between legitimate QE as monetary policy and "people's QE" as fiscal policy.<br /><br />And I don't regard "Snake-Oil" as a particularly over the top epithet in this particular case.<br /><br />In the context of monetary and fiscal matters, I haven't seen a term more pathetic than "helicopter drop" until running into "people's QE".JKHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06322177539880818556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-47832185364554842142015-08-29T21:16:23.979+01:002015-08-29T21:16:23.979+01:00Actually current investment spending is actually i...Actually current investment spending is actually increasing costs over and above the surplus it creates.<br />Much of it is because of European energy and climate policy.<br />I am sorry but it is screaming off the charts.<br />You can only distribute a industrial surplus when you actually create a net surplus.<br />This is clearly not happening as energy intensity and most importantly final consumption is following a negative trend.<br />We can see this in action when observing the pitiful exchanges of electrical energy between Ireland and the UK.<br />Neither have a surplus to trade with eachother as they have nothing to give.<br />Only the flow of energy between surplus France and the UK is working as they have more recent legacy nuclear units.<br />The UK policy is to impose industrial / finance capital laws on top of essentially diffuse rather then concentrated energy production.<br />This is simply unprecedented. <br />The loss of energy production last year was possibly bigger then the 1942 Battle of Atlantic Low point.!!'<br />The policy is to simply impose scarcity so as to maintain concentration.<br />We are currently witnessing the true face of capitalism as defined by Bolloc and Chesterton.<br /><br /><br /><br />The Dork of Corkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03352247603806622458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-52424244626252357742015-08-29T21:16:20.089+01:002015-08-29T21:16:20.089+01:00Actually current investment spending is actually i...Actually current investment spending is actually increasing costs over and above the surplus it creates.<br />Much of it is because of European energy and climate policy.<br />I am sorry but it is screaming off the charts.<br />You can only distribute a industrial surplus when you actually create a net surplus.<br />This is clearly not happening as energy intensity and most importantly final consumption is following a negative trend.<br />We can see this in action when observing the pitiful exchanges of electrical energy between Ireland and the UK.<br />Neither have a surplus to trade with eachother as they have nothing to give.<br />Only the flow of energy between surplus France and the UK is working as they have more recent legacy nuclear units.<br />The UK policy is to impose industrial / finance capital laws on top of essentially diffuse rather then concentrated energy production.<br />This is simply unprecedented. <br />The loss of energy production last year was possibly bigger then the 1942 Battle of Atlantic Low point.!!'<br />The policy is to simply impose scarcity so as to maintain concentration.<br />We are currently witnessing the true face of capitalism as defined by Bolloc and Chesterton.<br /><br /><br /><br />The Dork of Corkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03352247603806622458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-41565870363382084792015-08-29T21:16:10.801+01:002015-08-29T21:16:10.801+01:00If the policey is to reintroduce agrarian energy d...If the policey is to reintroduce agrarian energy density then fine - but you must you must introduce distribution mechanisms also<br /><br />What we are witnessing is the worst of both systems.<br />We are observing the concentration of a smaller pie.<br />This is pure high criminality of the worst kind.The Dork of Corkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03352247603806622458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-45962739689495086712015-08-29T21:12:51.461+01:002015-08-29T21:12:51.461+01:00What's most depressing is the reaction of ordi...What's most depressing is the reaction of ordinary people when you propose to give stuff away free of charge<br />(for example giving mortgage serfs the house without condition given the corrupt nature of the transactuon) which would have untold psychological and physical benefits for the person, family and society.<br />Something very great was lost when the Christian heritage vanished from these Isles.<br /><br />People cannot grasp the parable of the loaves and the fishes, the water into wine etc.<br />It's so sad really.<br />All is lost<br />Civilizations collapse has happened already I fear but as we are not sentient people we failed to notice.<br />The Capitalist materialist religion cannot produce the goods now(it's Opiate) and will morph into its true demonic form.<br /><br />The Dork of Corkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03352247603806622458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-86580227592473701662015-08-29T20:47:48.419+01:002015-08-29T20:47:48.419+01:00On that note of reconciliation may I counter your ...On that note of reconciliation may I counter your slight pessimism by requesting you duet 'don't give up' with Richard Murphy on your blog, the one with Gabriel and Bush.<br /><br />HugoHugo Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12705056750207255618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-10776059444004467102015-08-29T20:06:22.108+01:002015-08-29T20:06:22.108+01:00The connected capitalists are desperate to keep ab...The connected capitalists are desperate to keep abundant products scarce (Think of the Irish water debacle) while wasting vast amounts of energy chasing tokens (UK and Irish transport energy use is on the rise again......<br />I am afraid the problem is far deeper then many naive socialists realize - obviously the problem is the London scarcity Dragon itself.<br />Was it not that Mick fellow who slayed the beast ?<br /><br />The UK is a vast rentier structure with little to no domestic production.<br />It has been increasingly that way inclined since the enclosure period.<br />If anything it seeks to drag the whole world down with it.The dork of corkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01169780628052433662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-58920654968222366272015-08-29T19:25:01.494+01:002015-08-29T19:25:01.494+01:00If the policey is to reintroduce agrarian energy d...If the policey is to reintroduce agrarian energy density then fine - but you must you must introduce distribution mechanisms also<br /><br />What we are witnessing is the worst of both systems.<br />We are observing the concentration of a smaller pie.<br />This is pure high criminality of the worst kind.The Dork of Corkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03352247603806622458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-23975403975846934722015-08-29T19:19:22.161+01:002015-08-29T19:19:22.161+01:00Actually current investment spending is actually i...Actually current investment spending is actually increasing costs over and above the surplus it creates.<br />Much of it is because of European energy and climate policy.<br />I am sorry but it is screaming off the charts.<br />You can only distribute a industrial surplus when you actually create a net surplus.<br />This is clearly not happening as energy intensity and most importantly final consumption is following a negative trend.<br />We can see this in action when observing the pitiful exchanges of electrical energy between Ireland and the UK.<br />Neither have a surplus to trade with eachother as they have nothing to give.<br />Only the flow of energy between surplus France and the UK is working as they have more recent legacy nuclear units.<br />The UK policy is to impose industrial / finance capital laws on top of essentially diffuse rather then concentrated energy production.<br />This is simply unprecedented. <br />The loss of energy production last year was possibly bigger then the 1942 Battle of Atlantic Low point.!!'<br />The policy is to simply impose scarcity so as to maintain concentration.<br />We are currently witnessing the true face of capitalism as defined by Bolloc and Chesterton.<br /><br /><br /><br />The Dork of Corkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03352247603806622458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-60365384448213891802015-08-29T18:14:17.139+01:002015-08-29T18:14:17.139+01:00No-one has said that investment spending isn't...No-one has said that investment spending isn't a viable vehicle for growth. Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-47613833887620164332015-08-29T18:12:41.240+01:002015-08-29T18:12:41.240+01:00Hugo,
Your view of this seems to be refreshingly ...Hugo,<br /><br />Your view of this seems to be refreshingly different. I agree with a lot of what you've said. I suppose it's just my anti-political nature but I really don't like playing Gideon at his own game. I want openness, honesty and transparency. This doesn't deliver that. <br /><br />I don't think the political argument adds up anyway. The same people who want the government to "balance the books" because they believe this will preserve their wealth also object to deficit monetisation because they believe it will erode their wealth. And however you look at it, PQE is deficit monetisation or as these people prefer to call it, "money printing". I've had so many arguments with people about this....<br /><br />I object to the foreign sector holding gilts because they have no incentive to hold them as a long-term store of value, unlike UK residents. They do not use sterling as a currency either now or in the future, they do not pay taxes in the UK and they do not benefit from government spending. Therefore they are far more likely to dump their holdings if the UK government does something they don't like, such as running a large deficit. We really don't need to be dictated to by foreign investors. However, ending foreign holdings of gilts means closing the trade deficit, which isn't going to happen any time soon. So I am dreaming, really.<br /><br />But NIB bonds don't have to be sold to foreigners. They can be sold to the people who will benefit from the investments. UK residents should invest in their own future. Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-55212637712686528032015-08-29T17:34:40.311+01:002015-08-29T17:34:40.311+01:00Francis
Thank you for taking the time to answer m...Francis<br /><br />Thank you for taking the time to answer me. I should say first that I don’t presume to know exactly what PQE really would be in practice, and nor does the voting public. That’s why it’s politically excellent, worthy of Gideon’s own play book. It’s a communication tool that links the idea fiscal activism, which I think we all broadly agree is needed, with an existing policy whilst circumventing the deficit narrative. We are not going to beat that one soon, so lets not play away from home at the City ground.<br /><br />So, despite fully recognizing that the BoE does not need to buy bonds to finance investment, I say let the BoE buy the bonds if need be. I agree there is demand for sterling safe assets, so one day maybe Jeremy will write a letter to the BoE telling it to set a floor and let it work out the amount, but if he ever got to write that letter the terms of this debate will have already moved far on.<br /><br />It’s not the purchasing of the bonds that gets you off ZLB. I never meant to imply that. It’s the stimulatory effect of the actual investment, creating expectations of growth, wot does that. PQE creates coupon payments, because either 1. The BoE sells treasuries to cover purchases of NIB bonds or 2. It never actually has to buy them because it credibly promised to do it.<br /><br />I have no view on the yield curve. The bank flattened it to give the gov’t spending power under an orthodox fiscal thinking cap. The gov’t declined the offer, but found itself spending automatically via the stabilisers. Thank heaven for those, but it wasn’t the kind of spending we really wanted to have to do. Of course the gov’t has no spending limit. They will never ever admit that. EVER. <br /><br />I can see you want a NIB, and one free of the BoE’s clutches. But a NIB is just another journal in the treasury book, and it’s the treasury who won’t play ball right now, not the bank.<br /><br />P.S Why are you so scared of the foreign sector holding gilts?<br />Hugo Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12705056750207255618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-91908572089045160092015-08-29T16:40:26.767+01:002015-08-29T16:40:26.767+01:00It's absolutely absurd to pretend that PQE isn...It's absolutely absurd to pretend that PQE isn't a viable vehicle for growth because of the BoE's inflation targettting remit when the BoE itself allows inflation leakage on private banks lax underwriting standards, for example, previously mortgages for homes for personal consumption now lax loan to income underwriting on Buy-to-Let house mortgages. The vendors of homes are often in a windfall position from their sales to push up market prices as they spend. The lax underwriting standards are, of course, a consequence of a flawed belief system that markets always self-equilibrise. This was the famous flaw in his thinking that Alan Greenspan admitted to in appearance before a congressional committee in the immediate aftermath of e 2007/2008 Financial Crash.Schofieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06135158699917324267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-23954845738476004852015-08-29T16:32:41.263+01:002015-08-29T16:32:41.263+01:00Hugo,
I'm no fan of QE. But I think your endo...Hugo,<br /><br />I'm no fan of QE. But I think your endorsement of PQE as an alternative is highly questionable.<br /><br />You tie together additional bond issuance to finance investment with a Bank of England large asset purchase programme. It is not at all clear to me why these two need to be tied together at all. I agree that the BoE should stand ready to buy these bonds if necessary to set a floor under their price, but it already does that for government bonds anyway - that is how the target interest rate is maintained. If setting a floor is all PQE is supposed to do, that would be fine. But that is not what Jeremy Corbyn and Richard Murphy are selling. <br /><br />Why do you think that increased government spending for investment is impossible unless the Bank of England buys bonds? Surely there is sufficient demand out there for sterling safe assets for a major investment programme to be financed without the BoE doing anything at all. <br /><br />Why do you think that bond purchases are necessary to raise rates above ZLB? Surely a very large investment programme funded by new debt issuance would have the same effect? You are essentially saying that fiscal stimulus has no effect. That's a rather extreme monetarist position, if you don't mind my saying so. <br /><br />PQE cannot provide private income via coupons. Issuing bonds would by itself, but PQE presumes that the Bank of England would purchase them - in which case the private sector would not receive the income, it would be remitted back to the Treasury. For me this would be a lost opportunity. People on fixed incomes need safe savings vehicles delivering stable returns. Bonds issued by a NIB for infrastructure development and other projects could potentially provide this. Keep them out of the BoE's clutches, please. <br /><br />Why do you want to flatten out the yield curve - especially if you envisage there being some degree of private sector ownership of these bonds, as your comment about coupon income seems to suggest? Surely people should have the right to receive additional return for tying up their money for long periods? <br /><br />If these bonds are sold only to UK residents, as they should be, then in my view they should deliver above-market returns. After all, the residents will spend this money into the UK economy, either now or in the future, so the returns are actually monetary stimulus. All this stuff about keeping interest rates down assumes that the government has constraints on money issuance. It doesn't. <br />Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.com