Corbyn did win, what's next?

[uk_dave]

Nope he did not obtain his questions from social media - he got them from the email he sent asking for questions as he said he did.

Copy of the email he sent out.

I sit corrected.

ETA-

Though old xxxxxxxx must have been let down that he never asked their question.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Printing money so the government can spend more "for the people".

When has this ever not resulted in hyperinflation?

The way "PQE" is proposed: never.

 

[MikeG]

.........For example, Attlee won two elections and was certainly leftist, so he must be not of the 'modern era'. Wilson won 4 (though one was a minority government) so must be either not 'modern' or must be centrist. However, I'd say most (virtually all?) would consider Wilson well to the left of Blair, so Wilson must also be 'old era'..........

Finally, some meat on the bones.

We've already agreed that Attlee was on the left of his party, and that his example showed that I was wrong to say "all elections are won from the centre". Ditto for Thatcher on the other wing. So, you could possibly take that as read, and not bring it up every time, maybe? Being as I have conceded the point, days ago.

Wilson is the arguable one. Being to the "left of Blair" doesn't put him on the left of his party though, does it. It doesn't make him a Labour left-winger. I'm afraid I only arrived in the country as a 14 year old towards the end of his chaotic rule, so I couldn't add my personal view as to his location on the political spectrum, but others tell me that whilst a union man he wasn't as far left as some in the party at the time. Perhaps you could enlighten me? Perhaps you could then comment on the mess he left behind?

I am not defining away the issue. I'll take any post-war version of "modern" you like for the purposes of this discussion. My definition of centrist is simply not being on the extremes of either left or right. So, centre-left for Labour, centre-right for Tory. The latter used to define themselves as one-nation Tories, but gave that up with the advent of Thatcher, who called them "wets".

So, I say again.........barring Attlee and Thatcher, (with Wilson being a conversation in progress).........name a post-war PM that was not on the centre-right or centre-left of their respective parties.

 

[MikeG]

The way "PQE" is proposed: never.

Really? What is different this time? Why would chucking away all we know about the relationship between money-supply and inflation suddenly be a good idea? Whilst increasing liquidity in a down-turn is good, why would you think it might be a good thing in a growing economy?

 

[Craig B]

Really? What is different this time? Why would chucking away all we know about the relationship between money-supply and inflation suddenly be a good idea? Whilst increasing liquidity in a down-turn is good, why would you think it might be a good thing in a growing economy?

First you must tell us where the proposed procedure has resulted in hyperinflation.

Here's some past examples.

Both the Bank of England and the US Federal Reserve embarked on QE in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis in an attempt to stimulate economic growth.

QE was first attempted by Japan's central bank to arrest a period of deflation following its financial turmoil in the 1990s. There is disagreement about whether the initiative had the intended effect of stimulating the Japanese economy.

A Bank of England report estimated that the £200bn ($300bn) worth of bonds it bought between March and November 2009 helped to increase the UK's annual economic output by between 1.5% and 2%. That meant the effects of the programme had been "economically significant", the Bank concluded.
Since starting QE in 2008, the Federal Reserve has bought bonds worth $3.7 trillion, increasing its holdings eight-fold.​

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15198789

 

[The Don]

First you must tell us where the proposed procedure has resulted in hyperinflation.

Here's some past examples.

Both the Bank of England and the US Federal Reserve embarked on QE in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis in an attempt to stimulate economic growth.

QE was first attempted by Japan's central bank to arrest a period of deflation following its financial turmoil in the 1990s. There is disagreement about whether the initiative had the intended effect of stimulating the Japanese economy.

A Bank of England report estimated that the £200bn ($300bn) worth of bonds it bought between March and November 2009 helped to increase the UK's annual economic output by between 1.5% and 2%. That meant the effects of the programme had been "economically significant", the Bank concluded.
Since starting QE in 2008, the Federal Reserve has bought bonds worth $3.7 trillion, increasing its holdings eight-fold.​

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15198789

IMO one of the reasons why QE hasn't resulted in a significant increase in inflation is that inflationary and deflationary pressures in the economy have tended to be external rather than internal.

As I understand it, an increase in the supply of money without a corresponding increase in the supply of goods will tend to mean that the price of those goods will rise. Printing money (like we did back in the 70's) ended up doing exactly this.

QE has tended to be different because some of the things that have the greatest effect on inflation, in particular energy relate not just to a single economy but the world commodities market. Inflation was high just after the crash not because of too much money chasing too few goods but because energy inflation was crippling. Likewise inflation is currently low due to the decrease in the price of energy.

I suppose another key reason is that so little of the QE money is actually making it into the broader economy because so much of it is shoring up corporate (especially bank) balance sheets.

Whether QE will continue to be able to continue without high inflation is IMO largely dependent on energy prices staying low and banks continuing to be cautious with loans.

 

[asydhouse]

How are Corbyn's preferred policies working out in Greece Glenn? Paradise, right?

Power to the people!

That's disingenuous bs. Greece is in the state it's in because of the criminal activities of banks and "investors" and right-wing (or at least no socialist) politicians, and the irresponsible rush to austerity for ideological reasons alone that the governments of the EU have been pursuing for years now, at the expense of the ordinary people who never had a finger in the pie.

All the power is with the right wing financial establishment, and they are *********** over the Greek people.

Your disingenuous allusions to dictatorial communist states and Greece mark you as a propagandist. Little more than a polemic terrorist.

You are not contributing to this discussion in any realistic way.

 

[MikeG]

First you must tell us where the proposed procedure has resulted in hyperinflation........

Why? I've never claimed it would.

.......
Here's some past examples.

Both the Bank of England and the US Federal Reserve embarked on QE in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis in an attempt to stimulate economic growth.

QE was first attempted by Japan's central bank to arrest a period of deflation following its financial turmoil in the 1990s. There is disagreement about whether the initiative had the intended effect of stimulating the Japanese economy.

A Bank of England report estimated that the £200bn ($300bn) worth of bonds it bought between March and November 2009 helped to increase the UK's annual economic output by between 1.5% and 2%. That meant the effects of the programme had been "economically significant", the Bank concluded.
Since starting QE in 2008, the Federal Reserve has bought bonds worth $3.7 trillion, increasing its holdings eight-fold.​

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15198789

Thanks. You make my point for me:

Whilst increasing liquidity in a down-turn is good, why would you think it might be a good thing in a growing economy?

 

[MikeG]

.......Whether QE will continue to be able to continue without high inflation is IMO largely dependent on energy prices staying low and banks continuing to be cautious with loans.

You may well know better than me, but it is my understanding that QE finished some 2 or 3 years ago. You write as though it is ongoing.

 

[GlennB]

So, I say again.........barring Attlee and Thatcher, (with Wilson being a conversation in progress).........name a post-war PM that was not on the centre-right or centre-left of their respective parties.

Can I take it that you're accepting 'post war' as the modern era? Or can you just get on with it and define what you mean by 'modern'?

 

[MikeG]

Can I take it that you're accepting 'post war' as the modern era? Or can you just get on with it and define what you mean by 'modern'?

Yes, if you like. Did you miss this?

.....I'll take any post-war version of "modern" you like for the purposes of this discussion........

Your choice. Pick a post war era to suit your argument if you want. I think my argument stands, with the provisos I gave, whatever post war era you choose.

 

[angrysoba]

You may well know better than me, but it is my understanding that QE finished some 2 or 3 years ago. You write as though it is ongoing.

It is in Japan.

 

[Rum]

The history of Labour from the 60s onwards seems to have been about trying to drag it towards the centre so as to become electable. They struggled and managed only with great dollops of hypocricy, arm bending and propaganda. Labour under Blaire became a shell - and electable shell for a while, but one that was not letting the 'everage' natural Labour party member have a voice. Corbyn, for better or worse has let the dam burst. It is going to take a lot to put the genie back in the bottle and I expect in the mean time others (perhaps the Lib Dems) will rush to fill the middle ground.

 

[MikeG]

It is in Japan.

Great. But we're talking about the UK, which seems to have a very different economy from Japan.

 

[MikeG]

The history of Labour from the 60s onwards seems to have been about trying to drag it towards the centre so as to become electable.......

You've forgotten Michael Foot.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Really? What is different this time? Why would chucking away all we know about the relationship between money-supply and inflation suddenly be a good idea?

Let's not pretend there's something to "chuck away". The relationship between the money supply and inflation is not what you probably think it is. That's also why central banks around the world do not think the money supply is a relevant factor for monetary policy, forecasting the price level or anything else. Yeah, we have known this for quite a while already.

Btw.: every time someone goes to a bank and receives a loan, the money supply is increased. Where's the hyperinflation?

"PQE" is however not really QE. It's basically just about government investment, i.e., a contribution to gross capital formation. The only difference is that the government would prefer to issue bonds to the BoE rather than to the public (I personally think that's unnecessary btw.). The financing is slightly different and hence so is the receiver of the stream of interest payments, that's about it.

Whilst increasing liquidity in a down-turn is good, why would you think it might be a good thing in a growing economy?

It's not about liquidity, it about infrastructure investment and indirectly about employment (the financing of capital formation is of a secondary concern and rather irrelevant in the current context).

 

[MikeG]

.......It's not about liquidity, it about infrastructure investment and indirectly about employment (the financing of capital formation is of a secondary concern and rather irrelevant in the current context).

So, it's about liquidity, then.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

So, it's about liquidity, then.

... No.

Why would you even assume that?

 

[Ambrosia]

I'm well aware of the definition of the word "socialist",

evidence seen to date would suggest otherwise.

The word socialism has a subtly different meaning on your side of the pond.

Over here it's not a loaded term, and calling someone a socialist isn't an insult. (see all the palava in the US over 'socialised health care')

Now, do you care to explain how it is that Corbyn's socialist policies, the same ones that have failed spectacularly everywhere they've been tried, would find success in the UK?

which policies are you referring to?

You do realise that there are many flavours of socialism?

Lumping every type of socialist policy that includes Marx, the USSR, and 21st century Denmark into the same thing is all a bit blunt instrument.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Sorry, but you're just asking that particular thistle to bear strawberries...