Quantitative Easing & Guido Fawkes

[Fittster]

From the Order, Order blog today:

+++ UK Preliminary 4Q GDP Anaemic +0.1%, -3.2% On Year +++
A rounding error rather than an end to recession…

UPDATE : Reflect that we have had £200 billion of quantitative easing and all we get is this – most of that went on giving foreign gilt investors an exit rather than bank loans to enterprises. Subtract the mirage of the Keynesian car scrappage scheme from the figures and we are really still in recession.

http://order-order.com/2010/01/26/uk-preliminary-4...

Can anyone explain his assertion that QE has allowed foreign gilt investors to exit?

[Don]

As I thought. It's the top story on the BBC as "UK Economy emerges from recession" but in the Telegraph it's "Britain limps out of worst recession in decades" and in Order Order you actually get the number in the headline.

The bias is hilarious.

[10 Pence Short]

It's only like the polling that's being reported in the media this morning...

Telegraph: Britain at most Tory for 20 years

BBC Website: Britain more open to gay

Which is more important at the moment...

[hornetrider]

Guido Blogger said:

0.1%??? And they call this recovery????

The economy has shrunk by a total of 10%. And that is with almost a trillion pounds of borrowing and 200 Billion of quantitative easing, and for all that extra money pumped in, we get 0.1%??

fkING HELL bkS ALMIGHTY JESUS SUFFERING fk!!!!!

This shows that the British economy is running at a massive loss. A fking almighty clusterfk of a loss. A gargantuan landmass of mountainous enormitude of a loss.

This is not any old recovery, this is a new labour recovery.

Also known as a bkedyfkitutudally ttHoonmungously fking fketty fked up fk up of historically record breaking proportions.

When we fall BACK into recession later in the year, labour will be blaming the tories.

Well, thinking about it, there are still deluded, insane, brainless fkwitted retards who still, to this very day, blame Thatcher for this recession, so Labour are just fking fked.

In fact we all are. We are fkED! We are so fking fketty fked, that we could not be more fked if John Holmes and Ron Jeremy and Lex Steele ganged up to triple penetrate us with double strap-ons attached too!

Labour should not be unelected this year, they should be unelected and then killed to death over and over and over again!!!

[Rollcage]

Its a rounding error!

[Somewhatfoolish]

Fittster said:

Can anyone explain his assertion that QE has allowed foreign gilt investors to exit?

QE involves BOE buying Gilts. To exit a gilt position, the foreign gilt investors ultimately need a buyer... and somewhere down the chain that's the BOE.

[Fittster]

Somewhatfoolish said:

Fittster said:

Can anyone explain his assertion that QE has allowed foreign gilt investors to exit?

QE involves BOE buying Gilts. To exit a gilt position, the foreign gilt investors ultimately need a buyer... and somewhere down the chain that's the BOE.

Thanks for the answer.

[fido]

In summary, the Clown has f*d the pound into the next decade - you can't afford to keep spending. End of.

[Don]

Guido Blogger said:

We are fkED! We are so fking fketty fked, that we could not be more fked if John Holmes and Ron Jeremy and Lex Steele ganged up to triple penetrate us with double strap-ons attached too!

[Funk]

hornetrider said:

Guido Blogger said:

0.1%??? And they call this recovery????

The economy has shrunk by a total of 10%. And that is with almost a trillion pounds of borrowing and 200 Billion of quantitative easing, and for all that extra money pumped in, we get 0.1%??

fkING HELL bkS ALMIGHTY JESUS SUFFERING fk!!!!!

This shows that the British economy is running at a massive loss. A fking almighty clusterfk of a loss. A gargantuan landmass of mountainous enormitude of a loss.

This is not any old recovery, this is a new labour recovery.

Also known as a bkedyfkitutudally ttHoonmungously fking fketty fked up fk up of historically record breaking proportions.

When we fall BACK into recession later in the year, labour will be blaming the tories.

Well, thinking about it, there are still deluded, insane, brainless fkwitted retards who still, to this very day, blame Thatcher for this recession, so Labour are just fking fked.

In fact we all are. We are fkED! We are so fking fketty fked, that we could not be more fked if John Holmes and Ron Jeremy and Lex Steele ganged up to triple penetrate us with double strap-ons attached too!

Labour should not be unelected this year, they should be unelected and then killed to death over and over and over again!!!

That is a work of genius. I think that that's how it should actually be reported in the press.

[Skipppy]

hornetrider said:

Guido Blogger said:

0.1%??? And they call this recovery????

The economy has shrunk by a total of 10%. And that is with almost a trillion pounds of borrowing and 200 Billion of quantitative easing, and for all that extra money pumped in, we get 0.1%??

fkING HELL bkS ALMIGHTY JESUS SUFFERING fk!!!!!

This shows that the British economy is running at a massive loss. A fking almighty clusterfk of a loss. A gargantuan landmass of mountainous enormitude of a loss.

This is not any old recovery, this is a new labour recovery.

Also known as a bkedyfkitutudally ttHoonmungously fking fketty fked up fk up of historically record breaking proportions.

When we fall BACK into recession later in the year, labour will be blaming the tories.

Well, thinking about it, there are still deluded, insane, brainless fkwitted retards who still, to this very day, blame Thatcher for this recession, so Labour are just fking fked.

In fact we all are. We are fkED! We are so fking fketty fked, that we could not be more fked if John Holmes and Ron Jeremy and Lex Steele ganged up to triple penetrate us with double strap-ons attached too!

Labour should not be unelected this year, they should be unelected and then killed to death over and over and over again!!!

Have another couple!

[CoolC]

Funk said:

hornetrider said:

Guido Blogger said:

0.1%??? And they call this recovery????

The economy has shrunk by a total of 10%. And that is with almost a trillion pounds of borrowing and 200 Billion of quantitative easing, and for all that extra money pumped in, we get 0.1%??

fkING HELL bkS ALMIGHTY JESUS SUFFERING fk!!!!!

This shows that the British economy is running at a massive loss. A fking almighty clusterfk of a loss. A gargantuan landmass of mountainous enormitude of a loss.

This is not any old recovery, this is a new labour recovery.

Also known as a bkedyfkitutudally ttHoonmungously fking fketty fked up fk up of historically record breaking proportions.

When we fall BACK into recession later in the year, labour will be blaming the tories.

Well, thinking about it, there are still deluded, insane, brainless fkwitted retards who still, to this very day, blame Thatcher for this recession, so Labour are just fking fked.

In fact we all are. We are fkED! We are so fking fketty fked, that we could not be more fked if John Holmes and Ron Jeremy and Lex Steele ganged up to triple penetrate us with double strap-ons attached too!

Labour should not be unelected this year, they should be unelected and then killed to death over and over and over again!!!

That is a work of genius. I think that that's how it should actually be reported in the press.

But lets all make a guess about how it will actually be reported, and then the Labour diehards will be talking about the end of recession on Qestion Time on Thursday as if they are the almighty saviours of the world economy

Edited by CoolC on Tuesday 26th January 11:15

[jesusbuiltmycar]

Assuming that the election is in May or June - will the figures for the first quarter of 2010 be out before the election?

I am guessing that there is a high chance they will show negative growth...

Why is it that if growth is negative for the first quarter of 2010 we will not officially be back in recession?

[Funk]

jesusbuiltmycar said:

Assuming that the election is in May or June - will the figures for the first quarter of 2010 be out before the election?

I am guessing that there is a high chance they will show negative growth...

Why is it that if growth is negative for the first quarter of 2010 we will not officially be back in recession?

Because you have to have two consecutive quarters of negative growth for a recession to be declared. I think there's been some desperate massaging of the figures here in order to make it appear better than it really is, just in time for Labour to start campaigning for re-election.

[hornetrider]

Lots of comment in the Guardian from 'experts' in the sector:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/26/rec...

[jesusbuiltmycar]

Interesting take from Dizzy yesterday...

dizzythinks said:

Yesterday, I posted about the latest gaffe about a May 6th General Election wondering whether three gaffes from three ministers (two in the Cabinet) might indicate misdirection rather than just stupid slips of the tongue. Some of you agreed with me, and some didn't, which is fine, but this morning there may be two other factors to consider in support of a March (or possibly even February), and not May poll.

At around 9.30 this morning, the GDP figures for the last quarter of 2009 will be released, and many expect them to show a return to growth. To be fair many were expecting it last time as well and it didn't happen, so it may yet not happen. However, if it does show growth, it could be just the ticket for pushing Gordon Brown into a February/March polling day.

For a start, he will have to consider the Christmas Factor. People spend at Christmas time, especially if shops are slashing prices because of a recession, then they stop spending in the next few months as they tighten their belts after their yearly splurge. The risk Gordon faces, if he goes for May and not for February/March, is that during April the figures for the first quarter come out and show the dreaded "double dip".

Suddenly Brown and Labour will be stuck. He must go to the polls by June, and there will be no further GDP figures to come before a polling day that might show an upward trend in the third quarter. Of course they might not show the double dip, but it remains a risk,especially when some economists are saying that even if growth returns for the last quarter of 2009, it won;t be sustainable into the first of 2010.

We all know that Gordon is risk averse. Is he more likely to take the risk of the figures going wrong during April; or take what he's got and campaign for a February/March poll on a platform of "Labour steered the way through recession and to recovery"? Then, of course, there is another factor, the Chilcot YABII.

Gordon Brown has said he will appear before the Chilcot Inquiry before the General Election. The Chilcot Inquiry has already said it will recess to avoid running during a period of high political activity that goes with a General Election.

The thing is, the Inquiry, like everyone else, is working on the assumption of a May poll.

If, Gordon decides to go to the polls in March - say the beginning - he's going to have to make an announcement and ask for Parliament to be dissolved by the Crown in little over a week. If he does that, and manages to hold out confirming a date for Chilcot until that day, then Chilcot will have no choice but to go into recess, and Brown will not have to face the inquiry before the election.

According to the Guardian, the current thinking is that Brown will appear before Chilcot "towards the end of [February], or at the beginning of March". Would Brown take the risk of a backlash of not appearing before the election for an early election to cover his arse should the GDP figures dip again in April? Well.. this is the man who called off an election and then brazenly claimed it had nothing to do with the polls.

Who thinks he won't sit there and say "I have nothing to hide from the Inquiry and I will still face it, I just took he decision that it was the right time for the people of Britain to decide on the future of our country"?

It's a cliché to say "beware the Ides of March" but if the GDP figures show growth, the risk of "double dip" in April might just outweigh the negative backlash of not appearing before Chilcot before an election. Once an election is called the news cycle will move fast, any claims of him running scared from the Inquiry will be tomorrow's chip paper at double speed.

Of course, this is all pie in the sky if GDP doesn't show growth.

Meanwhile, let's remember for a minute how many times they got it wrong with GMTV Guy News special.

[url]gmtv|http://order-order.com/2010/01/26/gmtv-guido-morning-tv-who-got-it-wrong/

[Swilly]

Somewhatfoolish said:

Fittster said:

Can anyone explain his assertion that QE has allowed foreign gilt investors to exit?

QE involves BOE buying Gilts. To exit a gilt position, the foreign gilt investors ultimately need a buyer... and somewhere down the chain that's the BOE.

I thought QE involved the BoE buying up new Gilts issued by the Gov and crediting the Gov's bank account with 'new' money.

I suppose then that the Gov payout using this 'new' money when foreign-held gilts come up for cashing-in (is this the term!?!?)

[Swilly]

John Hawksworth of PricewaterhouseCoopers said:

Given the normal margin of error for such preliminary GDP estimates, the difference between 0.1% and zero growth is statistically insignificant. Today's surprising weak GDP estimates therefore leave open the technical question of whether the UK economy has yet emerged from recession.

So 0.1% is about as useful as a headbutt.

Glad to see even the Guardian reporting that this is all bkss

[Rollcage]

Anyone know what the margin of error is on these figures?

[rs1952]

Don said:

As I thought. It's the top story on the BBC as "UK Economy emerges from recession" but in the Telegraph it's "Britain limps out of worst recession in decades" and in Order Order you actually get the number in the headline.

The bias is hilarious.

So which is biased? I'd suggest both of them.

A perfect example of the old conundrum "is a glass half full or half empty?"

You wouldn't expect the Telegraph to print anything that could be construed as praising Labour, and the BBC take on it is factually correct as a headline (for the moment, that is, until they rvise the figures). It says nothing about sustainability