really good news from the USA. Strong "WWII ended the Great Depression" vibes about it though. Turning on the fiscal taps to deal with a crisis also fixed the previous long-running stagnation.
And at the risk of sounding like a Friedmanite, I must say that turning on the monetary taps does not have the same effect. Fiscal policy was too tight for over a decade, and extremely loose monetary policy did not offset it.
What we actually needed in the decade after the financial crisis was looser fiscal policy and tighter monetary policy. To be fair, we did eventually get that a bit, under Trump. But mostly it was tight fiscal and loose monetary policy.
Until the pandemic, that is, when we had extremely loose fiscal and monetary policy. Fiscal was effective, though imho overdone (didn't need two heli drops). But the scale and timing of monetary stimulus was utterly lunatic.
Why on earth central banks thought stimulating demand in the middle of a pandemic was a good idea is beyond me. All they succeeded in doing was pumping up asset prices. And financing their own governments, of course.
I don't have a problem with central banks financing their own governments in a crisis like the pandemic. But trying to stimulate demand when half the economy is deliberately shut down shows an astonishing lack of logic and frankly disconnection with reality.
I opposed mon pol tightening in UK and EU in the years after the GFC because fiscal policy was being deliberately tightened to "fix the deficits". Combined monetary and fiscal tightening is only ever justified to regain control of inflation. There was no inflation at that time.
Had monetary policy been tightened as well, the result would have been a second recession - and in the Eurozone that is exactly what happened.
We can thank the Bank of England for the fact that the UK escaped a second recession, but the abrupt tightening of fiscal policy in the teeth of an energy price shock still knocked the stuffing out of a fragile economy.
So what do we have now? An energy price shock, a fragile economy, and abrupt tightening of fiscal policy. And what is the Bank of England doing? Raising interest rates. I do not follow the logic.
Tightening fiscal policy at the moment is a big mistake - are you listening, @RishiSunak? It will knock the stuffing out of the economy.
And so is raising interest rates into an energy price shock. BoE didn't make that mistake last time. But seems they think "this time is different".
Message to Andrew Bailey: There is no wage-price spiral. There is not even the shadow of a risk of a wage-price spiral. Stamping on wage rises will not prevent energy price rises. It will just knock the stuffing out of the economy.
As far as the US is concerned - imho there is a clear case for tighter monetary policy, and also tighter fiscal policy. Both were overdone during the pandemic, monetary policy seriously so, and the present inflation in the US partly arises from this. But ONLY in the US.
The US monetary policy of the last two years will be very hard to unwind without causing asset prices to crash.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Good piece, but misses the subtlety of Blackford's argument. Blackford is arguing that the UK govt would be obliged to continue to pay UK pensions to Scots in Scotland after independence as it does for other "overseas pensioners".
If the ScotGov refused to contribute to these pensions, the UK govt would no doubt freeze them as it does overseas pensions in other countries where there is no reciprocal agreement. Over time, they would become smaller and smaller in real terms.
So Blackford's solution is for the ScotGov to top them up. Sturgeon even said this in the Scottish Parliament. Some people seem to think the ScotGov would pay the UK Govt to pay higher pensions to Scots, but this would be politically a non-starter for the UK Govt.
Those saying Scottish state pensions after independence would be paid by DWP as UK overseas pensions are being extremely foolish. They should be holding out for Scottish state pensions to be treated as a special case. Let me explain why. 1/
The UK does not uprate overseas pensions in countries where there is no reciprocal agreement. The triple lock does not apply to them. Many have not been increased for years. These are known as "frozen pensions". 2/
A "reciprocal agreement" means that just as the UK pays the state pensions of British citizens living in another country, so that country pays the state pensions of its own citizens living in the UK. 3/
It would simplify state pension administration if the the UK govt continued to pay UK state pensions to Scottish pensioners. But since Scotgov would be receving the NICs from which UK state pensions are paid, it would have to compensate the UK govt.
In other words, a negotiated settlement in which UK govt would administer the pensions but Scotgov would pay for them. This is actually what the UK govt proposed in 2014 and what the Chief Secretary to the Treasury clearly meant in his comment.
In giving the impression that the UK govt would bear the full cost of the pensions with no contribution from Scotgov, Blackford is being profoundly dishonest.
I genuinely don't understand how anyone can claim "gender critical" is remotely feminist when its proponents are throwing tantrums about an image of a person with short hair who appears to be pregnant.
This is far from the only example of gender critical people reinforcing gender norms. A prominent "gender critical" person recently posted a video on her YouTube channel which said it was "easy" to distinguish men from women and pointed to length of hair and style of dress.
SEC has denied Cboe BZX Exchange's request to approve its Bitcoin ETF proposal, saying it has not been able to prove that it would not be used for fraudulent purposes.
There appears to be a fundamental difference of opinion. BZX claims that Bitcoin's market cannot be manipulated. The SEC thinks it can.
And not only that Bitcoin's market can be manipulated, but that there is significant evidence of actual manipulation and fraud.
The problem is that homeowners don't want houses to be cheap, bcs their houses are a significant part of their net worth and many have mortgages secured on their house value. They are 60% of the population and they vote. So there won't be cheap housing.
Relaxing planning laws would make no difference to house prices, because government and the Bank of England would intervene to prevent them falling, or to pump them up again if they did fall. I have tried repeatedly to explain this but it appears to have fallen on deaf ears.
I've also explained repeatedly how banks' appetite for lending, and the peculiar nature of mortgages, means that falling house prices reduces, rather than increases, demand for houses and hence also reduces supply as builders and sellers withdraw from the market.