Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36034797)

That's not how quantitative easing works. It may be the case that the money does need removed at a later date however there's no guarantee it would. You are another one confusing macroeconomics with your household budget.

Even if the money did have to removed from money supply - there's strong support for the lockdown. Would people be willing to may minimal amounts of increased tax or VAT over the next 5-10 years to literally support themselves now for a mere few months? A move that would protect employees, protect small businesses and leave the economy better placed to bounce back?

Of course they would. However nobody wants to raise the question of tax reforms when the human price of underfunded public services is so prevalent on their TV.

Originally Posted by downquark1 (Post 36034798)

I would put money on there not being any tax rises when it reopens. The demand for things is going to be very low and they will be wanted to get people spending again. It is not going to be as simple as borrowing money to pay back.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36034747)

Using the Government COVID alert scale of 1 to 5, and using the formula

COVID alert level = R (rate of infection) + number of infections

We are at a COVID alert level of between 223060.5 and 223060.9... :D

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 36034800)

From that equation a quick bit of algebra tells us that R(rate of infection) = Covid Alert Level - number of infections

So according to Borris we're moving to alert level 3

So R = 3 - (approx) 226000

So R = approx -225997

Quite a bit below the target of 0.5 to 0.9

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36034796)

It was on TV last night that the money that we borrowed from America to fund WWII didn't get repaid until 2006.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36034797)

That's not how quantitative easing works.

Originally Posted by downquark1 (Post 36034798)

I would put money on there not being any tax rises when it reopens. The demand for things is going to be very low and they will be wanted to get people spending again. It is not going to be as simple as borrowing money to pay back.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36034806)

Your point being?

---------- Post added at 20:53 ---------- Previous post was at 20:36 ----------



Well it sort of is, as the BofE purchases government bonds to pump in the cash into the economy, those bonds must have a return for the BofE, eventually, or the BofE goes out of business.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36034815)

Oh dear. And here's your fundamental misunderstanding of macroeconomics. A Central Bank simply isn't a business.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36034820)

Ok, I’ll break it down for you. Government bonds have to repaid. Yes or No?

Originally Posted by jfman

I fail to see how I can reasonably be accused of lacking vision when I’ve correctly identified a number of variables for any successful risk assessment.

There’s no obligation to try to unfurlough workers as soon as possible - that’s simply your personal preference in the matter principally because of your political ideology. For some businesses opening up will remain not commercially viable for the foreseeable - in these cases unfurloughing staff “ASAP” as you put it would make no commercial sense and actually would leave some company officers in breach of their legal obligations in respect of foregoing Government assistance and incurring needless losses.

Great business owners and entrepreneurs know state hand outs are a great idea instead of them taking losses themselves.

I think you lack vision in this regard.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36034822)

Exactly the kind of obfuscation I've come to expect from you, Pierre - is the Bank of England a business - yes or no?

I will now note the absolute lack of response to my post the other evening which I will quote now:



Have you had enough time to consider a response to this yet?

I'd call you a junior economist but for the fact I'd not discredit novice economists and I'm doing my best to stay in this thread.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36034823)

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36034824)

We've even agreed!

Pierre appears to however throw around insults here and there, selectively quote posts and then wilfully misinterpret them. I'm only asking him to respond to points made in full rather than cling in desperate hope to a single sentence in a much wider point.