Jeremy Corbyn, the newly elected leader of the Labour Party, is proposing a number of radical economic policies. One that has attracted considerable attention is for a new form of QE, which has been dubbed ‘people’s quantitative easing’.
This would involve newly created money by the Bank of England being directly used to fund spending on large-scale housing, energy, transport and digital projects. Rather than the new money being used to purchase assets, as has been the case up to now, with the effect filtering only indirectly into aggregate demand and even more indirectly into aggregate supply, under the proposed scheme, both aggregate demand and aggregate supply would be directly boosted.
Although ‘conventional’ QE has worked to some extent, the effects have been uneven. Asset holders and those with large debts, such as mortgages, have made large gains from higher asset prices and lower interest rates. By contrast, savers in bank and building society accounts have seen the income from their savings decline dramatically. What is more, the indirect nature of the effects has meant time lags and uncertainty over the magnitude of the effects.
But despite the obvious attractiveness of the proposals, they have attracted considerable criticism. Some of these are from a political perspective, with commentators from the right arguing against an expansion of the state. Other criticisms focus on the operation and magnitude of the proposals
One is that it would change the relationship between the Bank of England and the government. If the Bank of England created money to fund government projects, that would reduce or even eliminate the independence of the Bank. Independence has generally been seen as desirable to prevent manipulation of the central bank by the government for short-term political gain. Those in favour of people’s QE argue that the money would be directed into a National Investment Bank, which would then make the investment allocation decisions. The central bank would still be independent in deciding the amount of QE.
This leads to the second criticism and that is about whether further QE is necessary at the current time. Critics argue that while QE of whatever type was justified when the economy was in recession and struggling to recover, now would be the wrong time for further stimulus. Indeed, it could be highly inflationary. The economy is currently expanding. If banks respond by increasing credit, the velocity of circulation of narrow money could rise and broad money supply grow, providing enough money to underpin a growing economy.
Many advocates of people’s QE accept this second point and see it as a contingency plan in case the economy fails to recover and further monetary stimulus is deemed necessary. If further QE is not felt necessary by the Bank of England, then the National Investment Bank could fund investment through conventional borrowing.
The following articles examine people’s QE and look at its merits and dangers. Given the proposal’s political context, several of the articles approach the issue from a very specific political perspective. Try to separate the economic analysis in the articles from their political bias.
Jeremy Corbyn’s proposal
The Economy in 2020 Jeremy Corbyn (22/7/15)
Articles
People’s quantitative easing — no magic Financial Times, Chris Giles (13/8/15)
How Green Infrastructure Quantitative Easing would work Tax Research UK, Richard Murphy (12/3/15)
What is QE for the people? Money Week, Simon Wilson (22/8/15)
QE or not QE? A slippery slope to breaking the Bank EconomicsUK.com, David Smith (23/8/15)
We don’t need “People’s QE”, basic economic literacy is enough Red Box, Jonathan Portes (13/8/15)
Is Jeremy Corbyn’s policy of ‘quantitative easing for people’ feasible? The Guardian, Larry Elliott (14/8/15)
Corbynomics: Quantitative Easing for People (PQE) Huffington Post, Adnan Al-Daini (7/9/15)
Corbyn’s “People’s QE” could actually be a decent idea FT Alphaville, Matthew C. Klein (6/8/15)
Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘People’s QE’ would force Britain into three-year battle with the EU The Telegraph, Peter Spence (15/8/15)
Would Corbyn’s ‘QE for people’ float or sink Britain? BBC News, Robert Peston (12/8/15)
Strategic Quantitative Easing – public money for public benefit New Economics Foundation blog, Josh Ryan-Collins (12/8/15)
People’s QE and Corbyn’s QE Mainly Macro blog, Simon Wren-Lewis
You can print money, so long as it’s not for the people The Guardian, Zoe Williams (4/10/15)
Questions
- What is meant by ‘helicopter money’? How does it differ from quantitative easing as practised up to now?
- Is people’s QE the same as helicopter money?
- Can people’s QE take place alongside an independent Bank of England?
- What is meant by the velocity of circulation of money? What happened to the velocity of circulation following the financial crisis?
- How does conventional QE feed through into aggregate demand?
- Under what circumstances would people’s QE be inflationary?
Interest rates are the main tool of monetary policy and crucially affect investment. There has been much discussion since the end of the financial crisis concerning when UK interest rates would eventually rise. Uncertainty over just when, and by how much, interest rates will rise affects business confidence and hence investment. Businesses therefore listen carefully to what the Bank of England says about future movements in Bank Rate. But Mark Carney has now spoken about another cause of uncertainty and its impct on investment. This is the uncertainty over the outcome of the referendum on whether the UK should leave the EU.
By 2017, the Prime Minister has promised a referendum on staying in the EU, but Mark Carney has urged for this to be held ‘as soon as possible’. Whether or not the UK remains in the EU will have a big effect on businesses and with the uncertainty surrounding the UK’s future, this may soon turn to a lack of investment. 
As yet, businesses have not responded to this uncertainty, but the longer the delay for the referendum, the more inclined firms will be to postpone investment. As Mark Carney said:
“We talk to a lot of bosses and there has been an awareness of some of this political uncertainty – whether because of the election or because of the referendum … What they’ve been telling us, and we see it in the statistics, is they have not yet acted on that uncertainty – or to put it another way, they are continuing to invest, they are continuing to hire.”
Leaving the EU will have big effects on consumers and businesses, given that the EU is the UK’s largest market, trading partner and investor. With a referendum sooner rather than later, uncertainty will be more limited and any reaction by businesses will take place over a shorter time period. There are many other factors that affect business investment, some of which are related to the UK’s relationship with the EU and the following articles consider these issues.
EU referendum should be held ‘as soon as necessary’, says Mark Carney BBC News (14/5/15)
Business want an early EU referendum, Mark Carney indicates The Telegraph, Ben Riley-Smith (14/5/15)
EU poll should take place ‘as soon as necessary’, says Bank of England Chief The Guardian, Angela Monaghan (14/5/15)
Threat of business leaving the EU is fuelling business ‘uncertainty’, says Bank of England governor Mark Carney Mail Online, Matt Chorley (14/5/15)
Bank of England’s Mark Carney urges speedy EU referendum Financial Times, George Parker (14/5/15)
Questions
- Why is the EU important to the UK’s economic performance?
- If the UK were to leave the EU, what impact would this have on UK consumers?
- What would be the impact on UK firms if the UK were to leave the EU?
- Consider an AD/AS diagram and use this to explain the potential impact on the macroeconomic variables if the UK were to leave the EU.
- Why is uncertainty over the UK’s referendum likely to have an adverse effect on investment?
Climate change is a global issue and reports indicate that more and more people are concerned about buying environmentally friendly products. We have seen tighter emissions targets and companies across the word investing in new technologies to reduce their emissions. But what can the Church of England do?
The Church of England has numerous investments, which help generate its revenue. Some of these investments are in fossil fuel companies, which are extracting resources and polluting the environment. The Church’s new environmental policy will see it selling any of its investments in companies where more than 10% of its revenue is generated from extracting thermal coal or the production of oil from tar sands. Estimates suggest that this is a total of £12 million. The Deputy Chair of the Church’s Ethical Investment Advisory Group (EIAG) said:
“The Church has a moral responsibility to speak and act on both environmental stewardship and justice for the world’s poor who are most vulnerable to climate change … This responsibility encompasses not only the Church’s own work to reduce our own carbon footprint, but also how the Church’s money is invested and how we engage with companies on this vital issue.”
However, some have seen this as ‘trivial act’, suggesting it will have limited effect on the environment and have criticised some for suggesting that the biggest moral issue facing the world is climate change. But, with more companies recognising their ‘moral responsibility’, perhaps this decision by the Church of England is unsurprising. The following articles consider this topic.
Church of England divests from coal, tar sands as adopts new climate change policy Reuters (30/4/15)
Church of England wields its influence in fight against climate change The Guardian, Damian Carrington (1/5/15)
Church of England Bishop provokes anger by saying the biggest moral issue affecting the world is … CLIMATE CHANGE Mail Online, Steve Doughty (2/5/15)
Church of England to sell fossil fuel investments BBC News (1/5/15)
Church of England blacklists coal and tar sands investments Financial Times, Pilita Clark (30/4/15)
Church of England ends investments in heavily polluting fossil fuels The Guardian, Adam Vaughan (30/4/15)
Church of England pulls out of fossil fuels, but where does it invest its cash? Independent, Hazel Shefield (1/5/15)
Questions
- Why is climate change a global issue?
- How might the Church of England’s decision affect environmental policy in fossil fuel companies?
- What other action has the Church of England taken to tackle climate change?
- The Church and the articles suggest that the poor are the most vulnerable to climate change. Why is this?
- Do you think the Church of England will lose money by divesting itself of some of these investments?
- If the Church of England now has more money to invest, which factors might influence its decision as to where it should invest?
- Where does the Church of England get its money from? What does it spend it on?
The Budget takes place on 17th March 2015 and as always there is much speculation as to what it will and won’t include. One industry that is eagerly awaiting Osborne’s Budget is the North Sea oil and gas industry. Tax cuts and rises may well play a key role in the Budget, but this is one sector where a possibly large tax cut is expected.
The tax paid by this industry is very high compared to others, potentially reaching 80%. The tax rate was increased some years ago and it is now thought that it may come back down. One key factor is oil prices: with such huge decreases in the price of oil relative to when the tax on the industry was increased, the industry is now asking for these tax rises to be reversed. The industry has suggested that a 10% tax cut is a possibility and this would make a big difference for the industry.
Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury, said:
“We’ve been very clear that the direction of travel for tax in the North Sea needs to be downwards … And that needs to be even stronger given the low oil price we see at the moment. We want people to have the confidence to invest for the long term future of the North Sea … And so George Osborne and I have been listening very carefully to what the industry has been saying …People will have to wait and see what we say on Wednesday [Budget day], but I hope very much that it will give the North Sea that confidence that we all want to see for one of Britain’s most important industries.”
We may also see further changes for this industry, such as allowances to encourage further investment, as costs of investment are extremely high and this has led to many years of under-investment. These changes are hoped to regenerate this industry. Any change in tax allowances or tax rates will have an impact on tax revenue and it is not necessarily the case that an increase in tax will lead to a rise in revenue or a fall in revenue. The relationship between tax rates and tax revenues can be very complex. The following articles consider this particular issue and what the Budget will do for this industry.
North sea oil groups set for tax breaks in budget Financial Times, Christopher Adams and George Parker (16/3/15)
What does the Budget 2015 mean for the North sea oil industry? The Telegraph, Andrew Critchlow (16/3/15)
Britain needs oil tax cuts to attract North Sea Investment Reuters, Karolin Schaps and Claire Milhench (16/3/15)
Treasury paves way for major tax cut for North sea BBC News, Kamal Ahmed (16/3/15)
Home of Brent Oil benchmark seeks help as investment slumps Bloomberg, Firat Kayakiran (17/3/15)
Questions
- If a tax is imposed on an industry, what type of effect might this have on costs of production? Use a diagram to support your answer.
- In the BBC News article, North Sea Oil is referred to as a cash cow. What does this mean?
- If taxes are cut for the North Sea Oil industry, how will this affect its costs and what might it doe for investment?
- What will happen to tax revenues if taxes are cut? Use the Laffer curve to help your answer.
- How has the North Sea Oil industry been affected by falling oil prices? Does this offer a justification for a tax cut?
Many UK coal mines closed in the 1970s and 80s. Coal extraction was too expensive in the UK to compete with cheap imported coal and many consumers were switching away from coal to cleaner fuels. Today many shale oil producers in the USA are finding that extraction has become unprofitable with oil prices having fallen by some 50% since mid-2014 (see A crude indicator of the economy (Part 2) and The price of oil in 2015 and beyond). So is it a bad idea to invest in fossil fuel production? Could such assets become unusable – what is known as ‘stranded assets‘?
In a speech on 3 March 2015, Confronting the challenges of tomorrow’s world, delivered at an insurance conference, Paul Fisher, Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, warned that a switch to both renewable sources of energy and actions to save energy could hit investors in fossil fuel companies.
‘One live risk right now is of insurers investing in assets that could be left ‘stranded’ by policy changes which limit the use of fossil fuels. As the world increasingly limits carbon emissions, and moves to alternative energy sources, investments in fossil fuels and related technologies – a growing financial market in recent decades – may take a huge hit. There are already a few specific examples of this having happened.
… As the world increasingly limits carbon emissions, and moves to alternative energy sources, investments in fossil fuels and related technologies – a growing financial market in recent decades – may take a huge hit. There are already a few specific examples of this having happened.’
Much of the known reserves of fossil fuels could not be used if climate change targets are to be met. And investment in the search for new reserves would be of little value unless they were very cheap to extract. But will climate change targets be met? 
That is hard to predict and depends on international political agreements and implementation, combined with technological developments in fields such as clean-burn technologies, carbon capture and renewable energy. The scale of these developments is uncertain. As Paul Fisher said in his speech:
‘Tomorrow’s world inevitably brings change. Some changes can be forecast, or guessed by extrapolating from what we know today. But there are, inevitably, the unknown unknowns which will help shape the future. … As an ex-forecaster I can tell you confidently that the only thing we can be certain of is that there will be changes that no one will predict.’
The following articles look at the speech and at the financial risks of fossil fuel investment. The Guardian article also provides links to some useful resources.
Articles
Bank of England warns of huge financial risk from fossil fuel investments The Guardian, Damian Carrington (3/3/15)
PRA warns insurers on fossil fuel assets Insurance Asset Risk (3/3/15)
Energy trends changing investment dynamics UPI, Daniel J. Graeber (3/3/15)
Speech
Confronting the challenges of tomorrow’s world Bank of England, Paul Fisher (3/3/15)
Questions
- What factors are taken into account by investors in fossil fuel assets?
- Why might a power station become a ‘stranded asset’?
- How is game theory relevant in understanding the process of climate change negotiations and the outcomes of such negotiations?
- What social functions are filled by insurance?
- Why does climate change impact on insurers on both sides of their balance sheets?
- What is the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA)? What is its purpose?
- Explain what is meant by ‘unknown unknowns’. How do they differ from ‘known unknowns’?
- How do the arguments in the article and the speech relate to the controversy about investing in fracking in the UK?
- Explain and comment on the statement by World Bank President, Jim Yong Kim, that sooner rather than later, financial regulators must address the systemic risk associated with carbon-intensive activities in their economies.
One is that it would change the relationship between the Bank of England and the government. If the Bank of England created money to fund government projects, that would reduce or even eliminate the independence of the Bank. Independence has generally been seen as desirable to prevent manipulation of the central bank by the government for short-term political gain. Those in favour of people’s QE argue that the money would be directed into a National Investment Bank, which would then make the investment allocation decisions. The central bank would still be independent in deciding the amount of QE.
