How many Corbyns have you had today?

Two recent blogs on Corbyn, in case you missed them.  Someone responded to one of these posts:   ‘My first Corbyn of the day.  Must cut down.’

If you haven’t exceeded the recommended number of Corbyns today, click through below.

On the Spectator Coffeehouse blog, here.

And on the Guardian business/economics blog, here.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to How many Corbyns have you had today?

  1. And now for something completely different:

    PQE is a great idea, if introduced in 1951 (as suggested by Milton Friedman in 1948) the UK’s government debt would only by 1/3 of what it is now!

  2. mrkemail2 says:

    On the Guardian
    “The Bank’s independence prevents the government being tempted to finance pet projects with money-printing”
    Really? It does does it? I thought that ended on 1910 with the People’s Budget?
    Interesting that the BoE has not abolished ‘Other Liabilities’ including the cash buffers of HM Treasury and the Consolidated and National Loan Funds.
    You know, the buffers that ensure that the government always has money at the start of the day to spend in its account and allows the govt to absorb until all the money comes back as tax (no saving in the spending chain) or issue Gilts to achieve savings expansion, borrowing back the money it just spent under voluntary constraints. They are “printed money.”
    Why does nobody in the mainstream media mention these buffers? Pretty big deal. Osbourne is printing money!! OMG! It means tax and borrowing is “post funded” rather than “pre funded.” Especially if they are asking “where is the money going to come from”? If it is at the start of the day – probably from these buffers.
    How do we pay for spending – by authorising the spending! This then causes an amount of tax and saving every time! The system is set up correctly to ensure the government has money in its account to spend and nobody can say “no” to a govt check. Basic control theory.
    If we are talking about operational independence – why not merge with the DMO to allow one institution to manage the entire yield curve? Give me one good reason why not Tony. This is far more sensible than the current setup.
    I have not seen a good argument for CBI yet. It is all fear mongering.

    • mrkemail2 says:

      The DMO already has cross facilities in place with the banks in the interbank market to ensure that everything clears to where it should be at the close of the day if they have a particularly heavy day in the spending department.

      The Treasury plays the same game as the banks. They run massive overdrafts intraday and then clear in the interbank market at the end of the day.

      It’s a very important point that there is never any serialisation restriction on government finances. Serialisation is the loanable funds myth.

      The monetary system expands as is required and then everybody saves with everybody else to clear at the end of the day and maintain the pretense.

    • Lyn Eynon says:

      I’m not convinced that the BoE and DMO should be merged but the inter-dependencies should be acknowledged and managed. This is certainly the case for financial stability (rarely mentioned in the CBI debates) where the DMO works with the Bank’s FPC but it’s also true for monetary policy as evidenced by Funding for Lending, announced jointly by the Treasury and the Bank, aimed at boosting bank lending and funded by allowing participants to borrow Treasury Bills. Can anyone can draw a clean dividing line here?

      The longer the discussion continues, the clearer it becomes that CBI is an ideological construct and that fear, uncertainty and doubt play a large role. Nobody would suggest that in the modern world economic and foreign policy should be conducted ‘independently’ (ask George Osborne, currently in China) so why does anyone think monetary and fiscal policy should be ‘independent’?

      There are important issues of responsibilities and accountability, or boundaries and cooperation. Debating ‘independence’ as an abstraction is a distraction. We should talk about practical proposals.

      • Luis Enrique says:

        The longer the discussion continues, the clearer it becomes that CBI is an ideological construct ….. Debating ‘independence’ as an abstraction is a distraction. We should talk about practical proposals.

        nope, central bank independence *is* a practical proposal, it *means* govt sets target and tools, CB chooses how / when to use them. The practical proposal being debated is taking that control of instruments away from the CB again.

        The fact that the likes of Murphy start by imagining what they think the concept of CB independence means and then complain because what it actually refers to is something different (and is thus “an illusion”) just shows how ready people are to form opinions first and inform themselves later, if at all.

  3. mrkemail2 says:

    Vast amounts of money are created and destroyed by the banking system every day.
    How come the government allows the payments to clear? Is there no “inflation risk”?

  4. Luis Enrique says:


    Well that’s just dandy but has f all to do with ideological constructs nor to the warblings of Murphy, which I did not imagine.

    Fine, have a debate about appropriate mandates

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s