Follow this topicFollow this topic Knowledge » The economy

Printing more money won't help

Ed Bowsher
by Lovemoney Staff Ed Bowsher on 06 October 2011  |  Comments 19 comments

The Bank of England is going to create a further £75 billion in fresh money to try and boost our sluggish economy.

Printing more money won't help

The boffins at the Bank of England are clearly very worried about the outlook for the UK economy. 

In fact, they’re so worried they’ve decided to create £75 billion in fresh money to try and boost the economy. This is known as ‘Quantitative Easing’ (QE).  This move is on top of the £200 billion the Bank had already created – or ‘printed’ – in 2009. 

I share the Bank’s concern about the economic outlook, but sadly, I’m not convinced that this latest round of money creation is going to help. 

The Bank of England first resorted to QE in spring 2009, and I think the move probably did help at that point. You could almost feel a boost to business confidence as soon as the policy was announced. Share prices rose and it became easier for large companies to raise cash. 

However, after that initial boost to confidence, QE’s impact seems to have lessened. A lot of the extra money has stayed in the vaults of the big banks and not spread out into the wider economy. So QE has helped to strengthen bank balance sheets, but it hasn’t prompted banks to lend more aggressively. 

Given that background, is there anything else that can be done? 

Well, I must stress there is no easy solution to our problems. Recovering from a major financial crash was always going to take a long time. 

That said, I do think that policymakers could do one thing that would improve the situation. 

The government needs to boost demand in the economy. If consumers spent a little more, some businesses would expand and recruit more staff. Those new staff would then spend more and some further businesses would expand. You’d then get a nice virtual circle of economic expansion – often known as the ‘multiplier.’ 

Critics of this approach normally say that it’s inflationary, but when you look at how sluggish the economy currently is, I doubt that a modest rise in spending is going to push up prices. 

The government could either boost the economy by cutting taxes or increasing spending. One measure that would make a quick impact would be a temporary rise in the state pension. I like this measure because I suspect that most pensioners would quickly spend their extra cash and not stick it in a savings account. So a pension increase would make the biggest impact on the economy. 

You could argue that higher government spending/tax cuts aren’t appropriate when the government’s deficit is already so high. That’s an understandable argument, but, in reality, the best way to cut the deficit is to boost economic growth. If the economy grows at a decent rate, the government will automatically receive more tax revenue and the deficit will start to fall. 

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that a modest fiscal stimulus would solve all our problems, but I do think it would make a difference. It's just a shame that George Osborne didn't take this approach when he first became Chancellor in summer 2010.

Anyway, it's all rather depressing. Whatever they do, there's no way that policymakers can cure the patient's disease in the short term. At best, they can reduce the fever, and if they make the wrong moves, the fever will only get worse.

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (19)

  • T5P8
    Love rating 33
    T5P8 said

    Is this what happened with the German Reichsmark and it's hyperinflation?

    Report on 06 October 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • tonygogo
    Love rating 13
    tonygogo said

    My schoolboy economics tells me increasing the money supply will trigger further inflation, which will erode the true value of the national debt - or was I in the wrong class?

    Report on 06 October 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Mike10613
    Love rating 600
    Mike10613 said

    @tonygogo, you are quite right and so is this article; more QE won't help but it has sent share prices of financials up with the Prudential going up by more than 10%.

    This is what today's QE is about:

    FTSE 100 - Risers

    Prudential (PRU) 590.00p +11.74%

    IMI (IMI) 759.00p +11.45%

    GKN (GKN) 182.40p +10.34%

    Antofagasta (ANTO) 1,042.00p +10.21%

    Eurasian Natural Resources Corp. (ENRC) 611.50p +9.69%

    Standard Chartered (STAN) 1,325.00p +8.83%

    Lloyds Banking Group (LLOY) 35.87p +8.68%

    Kazakhmys (KAZ) 847.50p +8.31%

    Xstrata (XTA) 885.70p +8.25%

    Essar Energy (ESSR) 269.10p +8.20%

    Great if you're an investment banker, a pension fund or just bought into Lloyd's not good if you're a pensioner with savings. Now for increased commodity prices. Gold anyone?

    Report on 06 October 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • electricblue
    Love rating 643
    electricblue said

    Last time I checked, IMI and GKN were not 'financials' so clearly the news has also influenced manufacturing shares. Knocking government policy changes with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight is a cheap shot. Didn't Gordon Brown save the world?

    Report on 06 October 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • PHP
    Love rating 0
    PHP said

    The problem isn't printing money, its how you spend it that needs re-thinking.

    Spend on assets that help our country, teachers, schools, roads.

    ie not banks...

    Report on 06 October 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Meanmachine2
    Love rating 37
    Meanmachine2 said

    I am not that clued up on high finance but it seems daft to me to print more money and then pay it straight to the banks that got us into the mess in the first place.

    All the talk about working our way out of recession, means to make something that other people want to buy. This to my mind means encouraging & financing small businesses to get out there & start making.

    Instead the QE money is simply going into bank vaults to boost their profits.

    The Tories seem to be living up to their normal reputation of being the best at converting public money into private profit.

    Report on 06 October 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Cheshire Cat
    Love rating 8
    Cheshire Cat said

    If they shared 75bn out between all UK taxpayers, that would be over £1500 each! I know what I'd spend that on! Lots of people would spend a windfall like that, and that would boost all areas of the economy. And isn't it time we got something back from the bailed-out banks?

    Report on 06 October 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • moreteavicar
    Love rating 23
    moreteavicar said

    "The Tories seem to be living up to their normal reputation of being the best at converting public money into private profit."

    Hardly. Take a look at how many billions Gordon Brown pumped into PFI projects during Labour's time in power. Order some back-issues of Private Eye which detailed some of the worst examples of waste of public money you could ever imagine - the NHS IT project, Mapeley STEPS deal (which resulted in the selling of Inland Revenue buildings for less than they were worth) - many private companies involved in the PFI deals (ironically including Mapeley) operate offshore and thus avoid paying any tax. Meanwhile we pay over 1.7 times the price we tax payers would have paid had the projects been managed conventionally. Cue the current mess and empty coffers in the treasury. What the previous government did is so mad not even the Monty Python team could have imagined it, so I am grateful for the sanity borne by the present administration.

    Report on 06 October 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • sodit
    Love rating 127
    sodit said

    I do not believe that this has anything to do with stimulating the economy. This is all about saving the UK banking system from another freeze in the interbank credit market.

    Apparently, liquidity is already contracting in the Eurozone interbank market, and it is only a matter of time before contagion spreads it to the UK. Add to this the time of year... it's October. There is a minor credit crunch every October [when the harvest is paid for], which is why the 1929 and 1987 crashes happened in this month, this is why US QE2 was instigated in October. The B of E is now trying to insulate the UK banking system ahead of it the coming crunch.

    Report on 07 October 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • potatoefeet66
    Love rating 1
    potatoefeet66 said

    This is nothing more than another hand out to the fat cats so the bonus they need can be paid in 2012.

    Consumer confidence is at an all time low and little wonder, when the public who under pin the system are being robbed left right and centre.

    We have non support from bank of debt reduction who ever heard of a bank refusing repayment of debt non support of housing Market non support of economy and growth.

    This bank is still to blame as we stand on the edge of cliff which they are prepared to push us over when faced with their losses and no bonuses.

    Report on 07 October 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • nosbort
    Love rating 126
    nosbort said

    "This is nothing more than another hand out to the fat cats so the bonus they need can be paid in 2012. "

    What tosh, nearly all of the last lot of QE went to HM Government not to anybody else and certainly not to 'Fat Cats'. It's about time people realised that the banking system was screwed by Gordon Brown's first budget taking 5.5 Billion per year out of pension funds thereby precipitating forced selling at the bottom of the market by the funds. This and the 'Brown Bottom' in the gold market b*%%^£ed the country's finances. He then encouraged everyone to keep borrowing by saying that 'Mortgages are affordable' even at the top of the housing bubble whilst borrowing money to waste on ridiculous schemes and paying inflated salaries to public servants and simultaneously mortgaging the country with PFI.

    It is also worth noting that getting the 'Deficit' to zero only stops the debt from growing it doesn't pay any off.

    Report on 07 October 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Mike10613
    Love rating 600
    Mike10613 said

    @electricblue; IMI and GKN both have debts and so low interest rates and QE benefits both companies hence the share price increase. I don't know what debts they have now but in 2009 GKN paid out £67 millions in interest. If interest rates went to normal instead of the ridiculously low rates we have now their interest bill would rise significantly. It wasn't a cheap shot, Gordon Brown made mistakes too, notably selling off gold reserves. I don't support Labour or Conservative. The Bank of England had a multi million pound computer and a computer model to predict the economy. The whole system of fiat money doesn't work. Money has to be backed with something solid, like assets; not one asset like gold but diverse assets. If your business needed money and you handed out worthless IOU's to all your creditors; would they let you get away with that? The government can't either; money is like an IOU - it says we promise to pay the bearer and then they default. This is economics - it ain't rocket science...

    Report on 07 October 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Mike10613
    Love rating 600
    Mike10613 said

    I just found the philosophy of the 'prisoner's dilemma' on Wikipedia, this may explain why I don't expect the government to win. The government is one one side of the game and the people are on the other - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

    'Beggar thy neighbour' is also on Wikipedia and is relevant to the whole philosophy of QE.

    Report on 07 October 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Ed Bowsher
    Love rating 79
    Ed Bowsher said

    Hello everyone,

    Thanks for the comments. I'll respond to a few:

    Sodit said: "I do not believe that this has anything to do with stimulating the economy. This is all about saving the UK banking system from another freeze in the interbank credit market."

    I think you're partly right. This measure isn't just about stimulating the economy. It's also about saving the banking system from another crunch. I should have said that in my piece, so thanks for making that clear. Of course, the economy and banking system are quite closely linked. :)

    Tonyagogo said:

    "My schoolboy economics tells me increasing the money supply will trigger further inflation, which will erode the true value of the national debt - or was I in the wrong class?"

    Well, it's a controversial issue. But even pure monetarists would say that it's not just the size of the money supply that matters. The velocity at which the money moves around the economy is just as important. And money has been moving very slowly....

    Also if you look at some measures of the money supply over the last couple of years, it hasn't really gone up. Which just shows how sluggish things have been.

    Final point though - you're right, higher inflation would erode the value of the government's debt, so you can argue that modest inflation isn't necessarily a bad thing. But that's controversial too!

    Regards,

    Ed

    Report on 07 October 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • poppasmurf
    Love rating 31
    poppasmurf said

    no its not, it just devalues the pound.

    Report on 08 October 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • RocketSteve
    Love rating 30
    RocketSteve said

    Cutting taxes is the only and best way to stimulate the economy. As in a previous article if the Laffer curve is prominent in the way government spend then by reducing taxes the government can acquire more tax. ergo the price of fuel. I find that buying from abroad (ordered online) is cheaper than buying in the UK; government gets less tax from me.

    I'm not in favour of anyone taking my money, giving it to someone else just so they can spend it on something I've had to work hard on in the first place. Not to mention all the middle men inbetween taking their slice of the pie.

    Maybe if VAT had been reduced back to 15% after the Tories raised it to 'pay for the poll tax' fiasco, that they created, then not raising it again, which will probably never go down again, things would be different.

    Report on 08 October 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Goindownhillfast
    Love rating 0
    Goindownhillfast said

    So a combination of high inflation and low interest rates is an effective way of reducing govt debt - at the expense of all those living on pensions/savings and/or with significant assets. Is this the great rebalancing of the economy we've been promised?

    Report on 08 October 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • oldhenry
    Love rating 266
    oldhenry said

    There are no fixes for the economy because the whole model is bust. Successive UK governments thought they could remove manufacturing and replace it with cheap Far Eastern imports. The economy would survive of the 'Financial Markets'. So we have an economy based of leding each other money on fictious house prices ans selling each other endliss mobile phone deals.

    Quite easy to spot the flaw really isn't it? There is no wealth creation in the country , how the chancellor cannot see that is beyond me, but he cannot and thinks growth is buying yet mmore mobile phones and other far eastern goods. Great for the Chinese capitalists and a few shilling owners who get paid for moving the stuff about. Useless for us in the UK.

    My advice is to stop buying anything you do not need to survive. Just show teh government what teh public can do to force them to stimulate the economy. We did it with Brown and cars , ne brought in teh scrapage schemt o make us buy again. It does work but we need to do it cordinatedly.

    Report on 12 October 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • bungalow bob
    Love rating 0
    bungalow bob said

    Some good points from 'old Henry'.Successive goverments have let manufacturing go down the pan and relied on financial services to balance the books. We can now see what a busted flush this has become!

    The only answer, as in the past, is to invest again in manufacturing to increase jobs and exports. If the Germans and Japanese can produce quality goods at a competitive price that sell in overseas markets,why can't British companies?

    One unfortunate reason is that they tend to concentrate on quantity not quality!

    Report on 02 December 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 27Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 27 months (3.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.9% to 3.5% (T&Cs apply).

NatWest Platinum MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.65% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.95% PA (variable).

Royal Bank of Scotland Platinum MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.65% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.95% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV2