A View From Middle England - Conservative with a slight libertarian touch - For Christian charity and traditional belief - Free Enterprise NOT Covert Corporatism

Thursday, October 07, 2010

Quantitative easing back for more cash!

Printing money is old hat. Quantitative easing is the new kid on the block. Actually a spotty teenager by now. The Monetary Policy Committee is chewing over whether to "pump more money" into the system. Who is being consulted on all this? Bernie Madoff in his jail cell?

I'd like to know, if this new QE idea gets the nod, which computer button gets pushed and from where does the "pumping" start? BP doesn't bother with empty wells so is the MPC any different?

Commenting on this Guardian article, Snix says -

"How much longer will this giant ponzi scheme go on for ? Who will decide to revert to the gold standard first? Those left holding worthless currencies will look so foolish. Better go and tend my garden."

Giant ponzi scheme indeed. It seems there's one rule for Bernie Madoff and another for the central bankers. But are they any different?

1 comments:

_______________________________________

I am inviting you today to

Vote for Your Economy, Now.
_______________________________________

When was the last time you were given that opportunity?

We don't intend to replace the prevalent system but to expend the number of your options.

We will add a significant amount of jobs, income and investment.

This is the only election in which the law of the majority is not binding on the minority.

If you don't participate you are still be making a choice:
the choice of relying exclusively on the prevalent system.
_______________________________________

Vote Now for the Credit Free, Free Market Economy
Add Jobs, Revenues & Investments.
Prosperous, Fair, Stable & Peaceful.
http://post-crash.com
_______________________________________

On September 10th at 10:00 AM EST
I will post a video on that site describing the voting process.

_______________________________________

Is the fulfilment of these ideas a visionary hope? Have they insufficient roots in the motives which govern the evolution of political society? Are the interests which they will thwart stronger and more obvious than those which they will serve?

I do not attempt an answer in this place. It would need a volume of a different character from this one to indicate even in outline the practical measures in which they might be gradually clothed. But if the ideas are correct — an hypothesis on which the author himself must necessarily base what he writes — it would be a mistake, I predict, to dispute their potency over a period of time.

At the present moment people are unusually expectant of a more fundamental diagnosis; more particularly ready to receive it; eager to try it out, if it should be even plausible. But apart from this contemporary mood, the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else.

Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.

I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas. Not, indeed, immediately, but after a certain interval; for in the field of economic and political philosophy there are not many who are influenced by new theories after they are twenty-five or thirty years of age, so that the ideas which civil servants and politicians and even agitators apply to current events are not likely to be the newest. But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil.

_______________________________________

Post a Comment