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!

PDF

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 1
We face the biggest group of strikes in recent history today. That is not surprising. A belligerent and out-of-touch government is deliberately trying to crush the living standards of public sector workers when paying up makes total sense. A thread…..
The government says there is no money to pay public sector employees. That is nonsense. Of course there is money available. The government creates our money supply. It can create all the money required to pay people. They are lying when they say there is no money available.
The government says paying people will create ‘inflationary expectations’ and more pay demands but the only thing that will do that is not paying now. People who settle for less than inflation will of course be back for more pay in the future. Paying in full now will prevent that
Read 28 tweets
Jan 31
It’s hard to believe that three years ago few people had heard of Covid, and fewer still thought it would disrupt life as we knew it for the following eighteen months, and millions would die, many in the UK. Now we are in denial again, which is just as dangerous. A thead….
If people in the UK were to believe our government Covid has been, and gone. Three years ago those few who knew of the threat it posed prayed for a vaccine. Now, work on vaccine development has ended. No one under 50 can even buy one, although they can for flu.
The argument is that Covid has gone away. It’s said not to be an issue any more. A government that locked the country down now essentially denies Covid even exists any more. Both actions were incredible. The difference is one was justified. The other is recklessly irresponsible.
Read 12 tweets
Jan 25
The NHS is under funded. As I demonstrated in a report published at the weekend, it’s not just a bit underfunded. It is short by maybe £30 billion a year. That is not small change. I have shown how it could be found, but the questions this raises are significant. A thread….
It is being said by many that the NHS cannot survive as it is and a new funding model must be found. That may be an excuse for charging and privatisation for some. It may be be incomprehension by others. But it may be more appropriate to stand back first and appraise the facts.
The NHS worked in 2010. It did not in 1997. It does not again in 2023. There is a pattern there. It suggests that politics matters when it comes to this issue.
Read 38 tweets
Jan 24
When people save with a bank no one panics because the bank is now in debt to the saver. We just think that’s normal. Nor does anyone say the bank must pay all that money back as soon as possible. That would be crazy. So is there a panic when people save with the government?
And let’s be clear about this - what people call the national debt is nothing more or less than sums people save with the government, whether through National Savings and Investments or government gilts. Even bank notes are government savings accounts with zero interest on them.
So why on earth do we panic when people want to save with the government and say this somehow threatens the stability of the national finances - when the whole reason people want to save with the government is that they know they’re the safest people to save with?
Read 8 tweets
Jan 24
Central government borrowing was, supposedly, £27.4 billion in December 2022. £17.3 billion of this was supposedly extra borrowing costs. This is utter nonsense. The numbers are wrong. A thread….
First the numbers are wrong because most of this supposed cost was on index-linked bonds. Most of this supposed cost won’t be paid in cash for 18 years as a result, when these bonds will on average be repaid, which is when this extra cost might then be due.
Second, the absurd cost is in that case due to the insistence of the Office for National Statistics that we recognise a cost to be paid in 18 years time as an expense now when we should be spreading it over the next 18 years i.e., over the remaining life of the bonds in question.
Read 11 tweets
Jan 23
I have never been enamoured by corruption. My dislike of everything to do with it motivated the work I did on tax havens and the abuses that they permit. I have little more liking of corruption within government either. And it seems like we are plagued with it, again. A thread…
For those old enough to remember, what is happening now feels quite remarkably like a re-run of the dying years of John Major’s 1992 - 97 government. It matters not a jot if the PM is as clean as a whistle if those all around him are sleazy.
Sunak has every reason to be worried on this score, although his own fixed penalty notices hardly stand to his credit in terms of judgement. Those around him are worse.
Read 13 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!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(