Sunday 2 January 2011

Why I believe Tim Congdon is on losing side of monetary easing argument

Telegraph
"He argues that this column's description of quantitative easing as "a polite, yet intellectually dishonest name for money-printing" amounts not to a reasoned point of view but, instead, belies an "implicit prejudice".

Congdon's article then goes on to defend QE in robust terms, as he has ever since the Bank of England embarked on this policy in March 2009 – and just as I, since then, have attacked it. ......In my view, the main cost is inflation – and the related debasement of savings. By inflating away our debts, the UK is also imposing "soft-default" on our creditors, implying higher future borrowing costs. For some time, QE-advocates had a lot of fun deriding those of us who warned UK inflation would outstrip the Bank of England's estimates. We've been proved right – yet the inflation has only just begun. The vast majority of that QE money in the shadow-banking system, on both sides of the Atlantic, has yet to enter circulation. When it does, and is leant against many times over, we'll see QE's true inflationary impact. "

No comments: