Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Will you be voting Labour in 2020? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Will you be voting for Labour?
    Yes
    40.59%
    No
    59.41%

    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Ummm, the "normal" QE doesn't strictly go to banks, it goes to bond holders, who tend to be banks and pension funds. This QE frees up money for the banks to lend, this in turn gives the people money to spend and stimulate the economy.

    The sort of QE Corbyn wants could very quickly turn into the sort of thing that has caused almost every single hyperinflation event of the last two centuries, that is directly funding the government by printing more money.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Do you support QE?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Do you support QE?
    Nobody sane should support QE, it's one of those things that can be argued from a sensible perspective should never be used even as a last resort, but I don't claim to be sane so say that if done sensibly (ignoring that QE itself may not be sensible) I do.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Do you support QE?
    QE is only useful in artificially depressing bond yeilds to cause less debt interest payments. It may be acceptable during times of deficit reduction but never other than that.

    That being said the whole point of having a bond market is that your bonds are priced relative to others in a way which reflects the risk. Countries doing QE may have very low premiums on them but it's not entirely real.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I've never been for any other party except Conservative, and I don't see anything changing that between now and 2020.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    QE is only useful in artificially depressing bond yeilds to cause less debt interest payments. It may be acceptable during times of deficit reduction but never other than that.

    That being said the whole point of having a bond market is that your bonds are priced relative to others in a way which reflects the risk. Countries doing QE may have very low premiums on them but it's not entirely real.
    Why will they have low premiums?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Why will they have low premiums?
    Bond yields have an inverse relationship with supply and demand. The higher the demand, the lower the yield. Central banks buying bonds is artificially inflating demand.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    QE has already been done to the tune of £350bn but it all went to the banks.
    QE for the public projects makes much more sense. It will have little effect on ordinary people, and the markets peculators who currently hold most of the money will not let the currency value dilute too much as they will lose most from inflation.
    Tell that to the Americans.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Ummm, the "normal" QE doesn't strictly go to banks, it goes to bond holders, who tend to be banks and pension funds. This QE frees up money for the banks to lend, this in turn gives the people money to spend and stimulate the economy.
    To the banks then. Very little of this money wound up being lent investment in industry. Most of it went to market speculators (the new online gaming for the rich) and mortgages (leading to unchecked house price inflation).

    The sort of QE Corbyn wants could very quickly turn into the sort of thing that has caused almost every single hyperinflation event of the last two centuries, that is directly funding the government by printing more money.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The monetary system is so distorted with debt and hedge funds etc. and yet has not suffered 'inevitable' inflation. QE for public investment would produce tangible benefits for everyone, instead of supporting intangible speculation and interest. Quite large amounts would still be insignificant in overall financial picture, so are highly unlikely to cause hyper inflation, as the rich who control these things would have the most to lose.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    To the banks then. Very little of this money wound up being lent investment in industry. Most of it went to market speculators (the new online gaming for the rich) and mortgages (leading to unchecked house price inflation).


    The monetary system is so distorted with debt and hedge funds etc. and yet has not suffered 'inevitable' inflation. QE for public investment would produce tangible benefits for everyone, instead of supporting intangible speculation and interest. Quite large amounts would still be insignificant in overall financial picture, so are highly unlikely to cause hyper inflation, as the rich who control these things would have the most to lose.
    I think you're probably right about this.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    I think you're probably right about this.
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    To the banks then. Very little of this money wound up being lent investment in industry. Most of it went to market speculators (the new online gaming for the rich) and mortgages (leading to unchecked house price inflation).


    The monetary system is so distorted with debt and hedge funds etc. and yet has not suffered 'inevitable' inflation. QE for public investment would produce tangible benefits for everyone, instead of supporting intangible speculation and interest. Quite large amounts would still be insignificant in overall financial picture, so are highly unlikely to cause hyper inflation, as the rich who control these things would have the most to lose.
    I got it slightly off, it's 25 of the last 29 hyperinflation events (which is likely all such events in history because fiat currency is practically a necessity and that's a relatively new thing). Short of hyperinflation you get chronic inflation. QE is by it's design supposed to cause inflation, deflation is dreadful economically, it significantly reduces growth if significant or sustained, inflation is a necessity, it makes people spend.

    When it comes to hyperinflation or chronic inflation there are two boxes that need ticking: the first is a fiat currency, the gold standard is the best defence against such things, it's value was practically fixed and the currency is pegged against it, but we've got a fiat currency so we can check that off; the second is an exponential increase, or consistently high increase, in the velocity of money flow for hyper and chronic inflation respectively. Generally that increase in velocity comes from an expansion in the supply of money and that's where the problem comes in when creating money to fuel a budget deficit, it's the reason we borrow, tax more, or spend less instead of printing. That increased monetary supply is normally offset by economic growth and inflation at reasonable levels.

    The problem comes when a government starts printing money to pay for deficit spending, which is the reason why such events are commonly during or after wars, to not do so would lead to defeat, and in peacetime stopping causes depression, neither outcome is good whether you stop or keep going. The printing to maintain the deficit increases the supply of money which in turn decreases the value and increases inflation, consequently spend money quicker, which increases the velocity of the flow, which in turn increases prices, meaning more money needs printing, meaning more inflation and an increased velocity etc etc

    Perhaps one of the most interesting cases to look at is post war Hungary, where actually everything really started after WWI. It lead to the highest denomination note in history, with a face value of 100 quintillion (10^20), a peak rate of 41.9 quadrillion percent leading to prices doubling every 15 hours, and when the forint was introduced ALL the money in Hungary being worth not even $0.001

    You don't print money to pay for things, you tax or borrow.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with Corbyn on most things, and like most of his policies, however, this is with the exception of scrapping Trident and leaving NATO. As horrible as war is, we need to defend ourselves. So I would vote Labour only if I was convinced that this would NOT happen. Otherwise, Liberal Democrats.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politi...20160718110970
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I got it slightly off, it's 25 of the last 29 hyperinflation events (which is likely all such events in history because fiat currency is practically a necessity and that's a relatively new thing). Short of hyperinflation you get chronic inflation. QE is by it's design supposed to cause inflation, deflation is dreadful economically, it significantly reduces growth if significant or sustained, inflation is a necessity, it makes people spend.

    When it comes to hyperinflation or chronic inflation there are two boxes that need ticking: the first is a fiat currency, the gold standard is the best defence against such things, it's value was practically fixed and the currency is pegged against it, but we've got a fiat currency so we can check that off; the second is an exponential increase, or consistently high increase, in the velocity of money flow for hyper and chronic inflation respectively. Generally that increase in velocity comes from an expansion in the supply of money and that's where the problem comes in when creating money to fuel a budget deficit, it's the reason we borrow, tax more, or spend less instead of printing. That increased monetary supply is normally offset by economic growth and inflation at reasonable levels.

    The problem comes when a government starts printing money to pay for deficit spending, which is the reason why such events are commonly during or after wars, to not do so would lead to defeat, and in peacetime stopping causes depression, neither outcome is good whether you stop or keep going. The printing to maintain the deficit increases the supply of money which in turn decreases the value and increases inflation, consequently spend money quicker, which increases the velocity of the flow, which in turn increases prices, meaning more money needs printing, meaning more inflation and an increased velocity etc etc

    Perhaps one of the most interesting cases to look at is post war Hungary, where actually everything really started after WWI. It lead to the highest denomination note in history, with a face value of 100 quintillion (10^20), a peak rate of 41.9 quadrillion percent leading to prices doubling every 15 hours, and when the forint was introduced ALL the money in Hungary being worth not even $0.001

    You don't print money to pay for things, you tax or borrow.
    Times have changed. The old rules on money no longer apply or we would be up to our eyes in inflation now/
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    If the Labour Party become united once again, will you be voting for them in the next GE?
    Yes of course I'll vote labour. To bring an end to the 10 years of cruel welfare reforms by Ian Duncan Smith and his mate Damien Green, and to get Britain back into the EU! Would be great if we had an early GE. Might save the sanity of millions of disabled and poor vulnerable people facing sanctions and benefits cuts by D Green and the Tories.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    Yes of course I'll vote labour. To bring an end to the 10 years of cruel welfare reforms by Ian Duncan Smith and his mate Damien Green, and to get Britain back into the EU! Would be great if we had an early GE. Might save the sanity of millions of disabled and poor vulnerable people facing sanctions and benefits cuts by D Green and the Tories.
    Well, the only problem is you need rid of Corbyn first, which isn't happening

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Well, the only problem is you need rid of Corbyn first, which isn't happening

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I have a feeling he will win the leadership contest too.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Nuclear Ghost)
    I agree with Corbyn on most things, and like most of his policies, however, this is with the exception of scrapping Trident and leaving NATO. As horrible as war is, we need to defend ourselves. So I would vote Labour only if I was convinced that this would NOT happen. Otherwise, Liberal Democrats.
    You say you agree with Corbyn on most things. In that case i'm just curious as to why you hate this countries historical institutions, i'd like to better understand the mindset..

    He's a Republican - Now i have no emotional attachment to the monarchy or even tradition but why is it in my self interest to remove a profitable monarchy and elect a beaurocrat who will pander to voters as much as most politicians?

    He can't be trusted with the union - He has long supported ripping Northern Ireland from the UK and has praised terrorist leaders like Gerry Adams. Can this man really be expected to preserve our union with Scotland (my birthland) if he enters a coalition with nationalists.

    He can't be trusted with our overseas territories - Despite overwhelming support and military advantage, he wants power sharing or to give these places to nations who have not governed them for centuries.

    He's anti west - He opposes the only functional democracy in the middle east in favour of being sympathetic to terrorist groups, he won't defend Europe from Russia and he would if given the chance allow ISIS to spread like a plague across the Arab world, the eventual result of which would be a western war against Islam.

    ...

    I may may disagree with the economic narrative of the left but i can at least be assured that the likes of Miliband were not a threat to our country. Corbyn is by far the most radically extreme and dangerous threat to British democracy that we have seen since the war (Foot was more extreme but the Tories were stronger than today) and while i think there's a 95% chance he'll be crushed in a general election, there's always that small chance that a shock event could allow him to gain power in hoc to nationalists.

    ...

    You surely can not seriously vote for this man!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    You say you agree with Corbyn on most things. In that case i'm just curious as to why you hate this countries historical institutions, i'd like to better understand the mindset..

    He's a Republican - Now i have no emotional attachment to the monarchy or even tradition but why is it in my self interest to remove a profitable monarchy and elect a beaurocrat who will pander to voters as much as most politicians?

    He can't be trusted with the union - He has long supported ripping Northern Ireland from the UK and has praised terrorist leaders like Gerry Adams. Can this man really be expected to preserve our union with Scotland (my birthland) if he enters a coalition with nationalists.

    He can't be trusted with our overseas territories - Despite overwhelming support and military advantage, he wants power sharing or to give these places to nations who have not governed them for centuries.

    He's anti west - He opposes the only functional democracy in the middle east in favour of being sympathetic to terrorist groups, he won't defend Europe from Russia and he would if given the chance allow ISIS to spread like a plague across the Arab world, the eventual result of which would be a western war against Islam.

    ...

    I may may disagree with the economic narrative of the left but i can at least be assured that the likes of Miliband were not a threat to our country. Corbyn is by far the most radically extreme and dangerous threat to British democracy that we have seen since the war (Foot was more extreme but the Tories were stronger than today) and while i think there's a 95% chance he'll be crushed in a general election, there's always that small chance that a shock event could allow him to gain power in hoc to nationalists.

    ...

    You surely can not seriously vote for this man!
    Jeremy Pied Piper Corbyn presents a tangible risk to the security and sovereignty of the UK and related territories.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Probably not. I mean it will largely depend on policies put forward at the time, but I am likely to vote (again) for Lib Dems.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Inexorably)
    Probably not. I mean it will largely depend on policies put forward at the time, but I am likely to vote (again) for Lib Dems.
    Even though they are quite small at the moment?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.