We propose that the government legislates to empower the Bank with the ability to make payments directly to the household sectorThe Guardian
Now the Bank of England needs to deliver QE for the people
Mark Blyth, Eric Lonergan and Simon Wren-Lewis
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Mark Blyth, Eric Lonergan and Simon Wren-Lewis — Now the Bank of England needs to deliver QE for the people
Now the Bank of England needs to deliver QE for the people
Mark Blyth, Eric Lonergan and Simon Wren-Lewis
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Because of course the government and parliament themselves can't do that directly.
ffs.
"Don't let the politicians touch the money!"
Honestly, watching all the stupid developments in Europe I almost can agree with that, just send free money to every citizen.
Because of course the government and parliament themselves can't do that directly.
Because of course the government and parliament themselves won't do that directly.
The only viable way around this seems to be getting politicians off the hook for a vote they don't want to take by delegating some fiscal policy to the "grownups" along with monetary policy.
Actually, Milton Friedman backed this after his initial monetarism failed in the US under Volcker, so the right shouldn't have a problem with it.
It's a combination of stupidity, ideological bias, and oligarchic democracy. Probably the only way to "fix" this is another depression or another war, or both. :(
"Honestly, watching all the stupid developments in Europe I almost can agree with that, just send free money to every citizen."
With the amount decided by who? A bunch of stupid unelected economist types who haven't any more clue what they are talking about than the politicians.
Who made them Solomon? And who gets rid of them when they inevitably get it wrong?
It's another one of those neat, plausible and wrong concepts that the Fabian Left can't get enough of.
They're just as much into autocracy as the right.
The only advantage to this is that the technocrats might actually take action. Contemporary politics in the US, UK and EZ are paralyzed by the resurgence of economic liberalism under the neoliberal order. It might be the only way to avoid a debt-deflationary depression at this point with the next recession hits. How long has it been since 2007 now? It's becoming overdue judging from historical cycles.
Going into another recession without having addressed the previous debt overhang could be disastrous given the mounting level of social unrest and the heated geopolitical climate. Dysfunction is one thing but breakdown is another.
A society can put up with a fair amount of dysfunction before order breaks down but we are getting there and the increase in repression is evidence that TPTB realize it and are preparing the security apparatus for it.
But the politicians are strongly committed to neoliberal principles come hell or high water. Without granting cb's further emergency powers, there could easily be an implosion given the catalyst of a shock.
"With the amount decided by who? A bunch of stupid unelected economist types who haven't any more clue what they are talking about than the politicians."
Exactly, Neil. And paid to whom?
Utterly infantile.
I agree, but they would be doing something. As Tom asaid above: "The only advantage to this is that the technocrats might actually take action."
Now, personally I prefer they maintain the current crash course, as it will in the long run be better and propel real change. Giving more power to the unelected 'technocrats' would be a disaster, but would be a short term cure.
Better to not give them ideas (not like they won't attempt this power grab probably very soon).
A great Mark Blythe lecture - Mark Blyth Mackenzie Lecture 2015 – Austerity and the Politics of Money
Now, personally I prefer they maintain the current crash course, as it will in the long run be better and propel real change.
The problem with this is two-fold. First. there is no guarantee that things would be improved. The US got FDR while Germany got Hitler and Italy got Mussolini.
BTW, Hitler's technocrats actually charted a "Keynesian" course before Keynes.
The second is the history of panics and depressions. The rich do fine picking up assets at fire sale prices while everyone suffers for an extended period.
Given the precarious condition of the world right now a shock that is not addressed in a timely way could be not just disastrous but also catastrophic if it were to provoke WWIII.
Socio-economic instability is dangerous. Politics in a broad sense is about power and is driven by economics, which is about wealth, real and financial. Politics drives domestic and global events. Instability injects irrationality, on one hand, and powerful people trying to extract gain from instability through disaster capitalism. Huge wealth has been extracted this way historically.
Post a Comment