Richard Murphy Profile picture
Nov 2, 2022 26 tweets 4 min read Read on X
The Bank of England began quantitative tightening yesterday. It sold £750 million of its supposed bond holding acquired during quantitative easing programmes back to financial markets. That is very bad news for ordinary people. A thread...
[Please note that this is a long thread. If it appears to stop mid-flow click on the part tweet you can see and more should appear.]
First, quantitative easing (or QE) was used to fund government deficits after the 2008 financial crisis and during the Covid era. The government has never admitted that, but since when did a politician tell the truth?
In those periods the government created money, via the Bank of England, to pay for its spending. Then it issued bonds to supposedly reclaim that money from the financial markets. Then the Bank of England created more money to buy those bonds back from the financial markets.
It that seems a convoluted mechanism, it is, and that was deliberate. The whole thing was designed to pretend d that the Bank of England (BoE) can't create new money whenever it is desired for the government, when in fact it can and does so every day.
QE was always a con in that case: it was a sham to cover up the fact that the so-called magic money tree that politicians were desperate to claim did not exist was in use and was paying for government spending. Everything about QE has always been a lie.
The result of QE was not that government debt in terms of bonds in issue rose. The figures that suggested that was the case issued by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) were also a lie.
Since over 30% of the government debt they have said is owing is owned by the government now their claim was obviously not true: you cannot owe yourself money. The Whole of Government Accounts (WGA) prove this: QE is shown in them as cancelling debt.
The WGA say there were £1.1trn of gilts in issue in March 2020. The ONS reports a figure of more than £1.5trn. The difference was QE, which at that time was a bit over £400bn. Only one of these figures is right and it is not the ONS data: QE effectively cancelled gilts.
The logic for this is easy to explain. If the BoE creates money as debt it has to be owed to someone. It was owed to the commercial banks, and not to itself as the owner of government bonds. It would have been so much easier to tell the truth.
So having covered the mechanics, why was QE done? 1) To fund the government when tax and borrowing could not 2) To keep interest rates low as a matter of policy 3) To recapitalise the banks after 2008 by placing lots of cash on their balance sheets (that £900bn, again).
Now the BoE has decided it wants high interest rates because a) it thinks this will control inflation, which it will not (see yesterday's thread) and b) it wants to trash the economy for reasons I have speculated on elsewhere.
To assist achievement of these goals it now wants to do QT. This involves it supposedly selling the bonds it had previously bought back to the financial markets. There is, as usual, a massive pretence (call it a lie) in this process.
The pretence is that it is these old bonds that are being sold. That is nonsense, of course. They have effectively been cancelled. I repeat: the government cannot owe itself money. It's a pretence that old bonds are being sold in the QT process.
What is actually happening is that, in effect, new bonds bearing the characteristics of the old bonds are being sold. Most people are being fooled by that, but we should not be: it is the substance that matters here, and the substance is that these are new bond issues.
So why is this being done? A) To use up market capacity to buy government bonds so that new bonds cannot be issued to supposedly finance current government spending, so reinforcing the policy of austerity B) To force up interest rates to support the policy of trashing the economy
C) To reduce the size of the BoE balance sheet by reducing the amount of money on deposit with it held by the UK's commercial banks. The proceeds of these bond sales are not, in that case, being released for public benefit.
In other words, not only is the BiE trying to directly harm the well-being of individuals and companies within the economy by increasing interest rates, it is also seeking to undermine the possible use of bond sales by the government to prevent austerity.
The government then has the excuse that there is no market for selling its bonds and so it cannot use them to fund what it claims to be a black hole in its finances and so as a result it must impose both austerity and tax rises.
What can be concluded from this? First, that the Bank of England is not in any way operating independently of the government in pursuing these policies. It is clearly working very closely with the Treasury to create this artificial supposed public spending crisis.
Second, it is actively supporting penal government fiscal policy that involves austerity and tax increases by suggesting the capacity to sell bonds does not exist simply because it has already extinguished it by making wholly unnecessary bond sales.
Third, the unelected BoE is actively supporting the undermining of public services and public well-being as a result.
I would suggest that the BoE is partaking in a not very subtle, largely unnoticed game of double bluff. The whole intention of its policy is to support the Treasury by saying it is impossible to fund public spending using bonds precisely because it is blocking the means to do so.
QT is not then about reducing the size of the BoE's balance sheet, as the Bank of England claims.
It is instead all about supporting a policy of undermining the public services whilst deliberately trashing the UK economy by creating a wholly unnecessary recession in which the conditions for mass privatisation of the public services are created.
In that case, no one should welcome quantitative tightening: it is a weapon being used by the Bank of England to harm the people of this country. Economics rarely comes much nastier or more deceitful than this.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Richard Murphy

Richard Murphy Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @RichardJMurphy

Feb 10
Quite extraordinarily, leading politicians, including Kier Starmer and Rachel Reeves have in the last few days returned to talking about the country maxing out its credit card, just as David Cameron did in 2015. This is utterly absurd. A thread…
[This is a long thread. If it appears to stop part way through, push the button to ‘see more replies’ and the rest should appear.]
As a matter of fact, a country can’t have a credit card. It’s even questionable whether the UK has a national debt when what politicians describe as such is made up of all our notes and coins plus all the savings accounts that people have with the government.
Read 36 tweets
Feb 9
Labour says it cannot now afford to spend £28 billion a year to deliver the investment in the climate transition that we all know we need. Let’s leave the politics and even the climate bit aside. Let me just look at the affordability bit. A thread….
Labour announced its green investment plan in 2021. And nothing much has changed since then, to be candid. For example, by the time it gets to office inflation will have been and gone.
Growth will also be non-existent then, as it was in 2021. Borrowing will be high, as it was back then. But government borrowing costs will be tumbling this year. They may not be at 2021 levels. But they really won’t be an obstacle to spending.
Read 23 tweets
Jan 14
There is justifiable outrage right now about the fact that the Post Office has been able to prosecute sub-postmasters itself based on data it generated. I get that anger, but we should remember that HM Revenue and Customs do this every day to thousands of people….
[This is a long thread. If it appears to stop part way please press the ‘See more replies’ option below the tweet where it appears to run out and the rest should appear]
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is, when it comes to imposing fines, quite literally a rule unto itself. It imposes millions of fines a year. Many of them are for not submitting tax returns, and many of those are on people who had no taxable income, or none to declare.
Read 38 tweets
Jan 12
War, of some sort, has begun in the Red Sea and Yemen. The UK is involved. It is likely that there will be action for a while. Ignoring the ethics of the engagement, for now, what are the economic consequences? A thread……
Because this war is going to make passage of the Red Sea more, rather than less, dangerous for the time being it is inevitable that for an unknown period the cost of shipping goods and raw materials from the Far and Middle East will rise. Suez is going to be out of action.
But let’s be clear: the diversion of shipping around the Cape of Good Hope has already begun. And whilst there are costs, and delays, in that they are not on a major scale. Saudi cuts to the price of oil might more than compensate for them.
Read 15 tweets
Jan 7
Without wishing to oversimplify things, there is a binary choice in politics. You can either emphasise the needs of the individual or of society. For the first time in more than a century, the UK's two leading political parties are emphasising the individual and not society.
No wonder so many are disenchanted with politics. Only those who are willing to turn a blind eye to the needs of others are now represented by the mainstream choices presented to us. Anyone who cares about society has no one to represent them.
This is not healthy for politics, democracy, society or those whom it should be supporting, from the young to the elderly, to the sick, to those with a disability, or who are on low pay, or who simply need a helping hand.
Read 14 tweets
Jan 5
Sir Howard Davies, chair of NatWest, claimed on Radio 4 today that UK interest rates were low for a decade because there was a glut of savings and a shortage of investors to lend that money to. Should a man who doesn’t know how banking works be in charge of a bank? A thread…
Since 2014 the Bank of England has acknowledged that when a bank makes a loan it does not use saver’s funds. Instead, new money is created by the exchange of promises to pay between the bank and the borrower. As it noted, that is how all commercial bank money is created.
Sir Howard Davies clearly either a) does not know this or b) thinks that he can ignore reality when offering economic arguments on Radio 4. Either way, he obviously presumes his ignorance will not be spotted, except I did.
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!