Whilst I'm a bit of an inflation fiend as far as speculation goes, I was wondering where I could get better information. Where can I find the "newest" information on the money supply? On the website of the BoE I can only seem to find 2004 data, but I have seen data going through to 2007 on marketoracle. Any clues?
QUOTE (agb41 @ Jan 13 2008, 11:15 AM) 
Whilst I'm a bit of an inflation fiend as far as speculation goes, I was wondering where I could get better information. Where can I find the "newest" information on the money supply? On the website of the BoE I can only seem to find 2004 data, but I have seen data going through to 2007 on marketoracle. Any clues?
Not sure why you can only find up to 2004.
If you go to the STATISTICS section of the website and search for M4 you will find data from the 1960s up until NOV 2007 Click for link . December's data is due out next week.
M0 was discontinued by the BoE in Apr 2006 (but you can still view the histotic data.
Hope this helps.
QUOTE (InternationalRockSuperstar @ Jan 13 2008, 12:54 PM)
Not sure why you can only find up to 2004.
If you go to the STATISTICS section of the website and search for M4 you will find data from the 1960s up until NOV 2007 Click for link . December's data is due out next week.
M0 was discontinued by the BoE in Apr 2006 (but you can still view the histotic data.
Hope this helps.
If you go to the STATISTICS section of the website and search for M4 you will find data from the 1960s up until NOV 2007 Click for link . December's data is due out next week.
M0 was discontinued by the BoE in Apr 2006 (but you can still view the histotic data.
Hope this helps.
It does, thank you! I guess I was looking in the wrong place. Why did they stop M0 do you know? Other than that it allows them to print cash unchecked...
edit: Wow that means a 11.8% change in the money supply yoy Nov/Nov. Thinking that they now no longer publish M0 data, I am far more in the inflationary camp than ever before. The M4/M0 multiplier may go down, but if the government is desperate they can just print cash an noone will know (at first), increasing the total money supply by a greater amount. Without M0 data it's impossible to know certainly which way this is going though. Still this site says they changed to publishing data on notes, coins and CB held money, anyone know about this?.
QUOTE (agb41 @ Jan 13 2008, 01:09 PM)
It does, thank you! I guess I was looking in the wrong place. Why did they stop M0 do you know? Other than that it allows them to print cash unchecked...
edit: Wow that means a 11.8% change in the money supply yoy Nov/Nov. Thinking that they now no longer publish M0 data, I am far more in the inflationary camp than ever before. The M4/M0 multiplier may go down, but if the government is desperate they can just print cash an noone will know (at first), increasing the total money supply by a greater amount. Without M0 data it's impossible to know certainly which way this is going though. Still this site says they changed to publishing data on notes, coins and CB held money, anyone know about this?.
edit: Wow that means a 11.8% change in the money supply yoy Nov/Nov. Thinking that they now no longer publish M0 data, I am far more in the inflationary camp than ever before. The M4/M0 multiplier may go down, but if the government is desperate they can just print cash an noone will know (at first), increasing the total money supply by a greater amount. Without M0 data it's impossible to know certainly which way this is going though. Still this site says they changed to publishing data on notes, coins and CB held money, anyone know about this?.
Spot on!
And of course if you have 12.2462% annual monetary inflation for 6 years in a row, then your money supply has DOUBLED in just 6 years (which is exactly what has happened). The M4/M0 ratio is unsustainably high, so either M4 has to decrease (credit deflation, loan defaults etc) or M0 has to increase (gov'ts bailing out banks, gov'ts nationalising banks, Central Banks pumpimg out 'liquidity' in exchange for shitty below par mortgage bonds from commercial/investment banks, Housing Associations using billions of gov't money to buy up real estate from 'distressed' developers etc).
I think we both know which path they've chosen!
And even if it wasn't for them trying to reinflate the dotcom/housing bubble, we'd still have hyperinfation due to all the gov'ts future obligations (pensions etc)
You may remember about 2 years ago the UK gov't tried to increase the public sector retirement age inline with that of the private sector. After heavy public sector protests/strikes the gov't backed down. Those 'lucky' public sector employess WILL get their pension (in nominal terms) - but they won't even be able to buy enough groceries to feed themselves with it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed4sv6ND5Qo
I also read somewhere else that if you take all of Britain's private, corporate and public debt and future obligations and divide it by GDP of Britain in 2006, the ratio that you end up with is actually slight more than if you take Germany's war reparations and divide it by German GDP of 1919. I'll try and find the link. Makes you think dunnit?
I'm sure we could have a long love fest about this.
Whilst I definitely think you have to include pensions in the national debt, the only source I can find that includes it is the Daily Mail. It would be nice to see though! Still, I dug this picture out:
It's quite misleading at the big spike due to the massive drop in GDP at the time, but you get the point. Couldn't find one for the UK though
I've known about the pension thing for a while. The last two years I've been able to pay about 200 pounds into NI only (because I barely worked) to get 2 years more out of the 30, but it still worked out to be a poor investment given money supply growth % - change in pensions per year % (not even accounting that the diff. will get worse!!) at (atleast) 42 years distance away.
n.b. I've been wondering whether to start a "Enforce 100% capital reserve ratios" thread for a while. In such a system, all the increase in the money supply the government "gets", so they can pay down the national debt, as opposed to - given a 40:1 rough m4:m0 ratio - the government getting a mere 2.5% of all money "made" each year today.
This system also means that banks would be considerably more liable for any dodgy loans they made (in fact, precisely as liable as you or I would be for any dodgy loans we made). In such a system it would be beneficial (though today we can both see why it's a horror for all) for the government to lend money to banks on their collateral, as the money the government prints and lends to the banks will be the entire increase in money supply (as opposed to 2.5% of it), which the central bank produces at no cost, and gains back at interest (actually decreasing money supply over time, allowing it to print more money and lower taxes!!!). Or the underlying asset in the case of default.
I don't know if there's much interest on the board though...
Whilst I definitely think you have to include pensions in the national debt, the only source I can find that includes it is the Daily Mail. It would be nice to see though! Still, I dug this picture out:
It's quite misleading at the big spike due to the massive drop in GDP at the time, but you get the point. Couldn't find one for the UK though
I've known about the pension thing for a while. The last two years I've been able to pay about 200 pounds into NI only (because I barely worked) to get 2 years more out of the 30, but it still worked out to be a poor investment given money supply growth % - change in pensions per year % (not even accounting that the diff. will get worse!!) at (atleast) 42 years distance away.
n.b. I've been wondering whether to start a "Enforce 100% capital reserve ratios" thread for a while. In such a system, all the increase in the money supply the government "gets", so they can pay down the national debt, as opposed to - given a 40:1 rough m4:m0 ratio - the government getting a mere 2.5% of all money "made" each year today.
This system also means that banks would be considerably more liable for any dodgy loans they made (in fact, precisely as liable as you or I would be for any dodgy loans we made). In such a system it would be beneficial (though today we can both see why it's a horror for all) for the government to lend money to banks on their collateral, as the money the government prints and lends to the banks will be the entire increase in money supply (as opposed to 2.5% of it), which the central bank produces at no cost, and gains back at interest (actually decreasing money supply over time, allowing it to print more money and lower taxes!!!). Or the underlying asset in the case of default.
I don't know if there's much interest on the board though...
QUOTE (agb41 @ Jan 13 2008, 05:58 PM)
I'm sure we could have a long love fest about this.
Whilst I definitely think you have to include pensions in the national debt, the only source I can find that includes it is the Daily Mail. It would be nice to see though! Still, I dug this picture out:
It's quite misleading at the big spike due to the massive drop in GDP at the time, but you get the point. Couldn't find one for the UK though
I've known about the pension thing for a while. The last two years I've been able to pay about 200 pounds into NI only (because I barely worked) to get 2 years more out of the 30, but it still worked out to be a poor investment given money supply growth % - change in pensions per year % (not even accounting that the diff. will get worse!!) at (atleast) 42 years distance away.
Back on the infl/defl though, did Japan just not print any more physical cash in the nineties?
n.b. I've been wondering whether to start a "Enforce 100% capital reserve ratios" thread for a while. In such a system, all the increase in the money supply the government "gets", so they can pay down the national debt, as opposed to - given a 40:1 rough m4:m0 ratio - the government getting a mere 2.5% of all money "made" each year today.
This system also means that banks would be considerably more liable for any dodgy loans they made (in fact, precisely as liable as you or I would be for any dodgy loans we made). In such a system it would be beneficial (though today we can both see why it's a horror for all) for the government to lend money to banks on their collateral, as the money the government prints and lends to the banks will be the entire increase in money supply (as opposed to 2.5% of it), which the central bank produces at no cost, and gains back at interest (actually decreasing money supply over time, allowing it to print more money and lower taxes!!!). Or the underlying asset in the case of default.
I don't know if there's much interest on the board though...
Whilst I definitely think you have to include pensions in the national debt, the only source I can find that includes it is the Daily Mail. It would be nice to see though! Still, I dug this picture out:
It's quite misleading at the big spike due to the massive drop in GDP at the time, but you get the point. Couldn't find one for the UK though
I've known about the pension thing for a while. The last two years I've been able to pay about 200 pounds into NI only (because I barely worked) to get 2 years more out of the 30, but it still worked out to be a poor investment given money supply growth % - change in pensions per year % (not even accounting that the diff. will get worse!!) at (atleast) 42 years distance away.
Back on the infl/defl though, did Japan just not print any more physical cash in the nineties?
n.b. I've been wondering whether to start a "Enforce 100% capital reserve ratios" thread for a while. In such a system, all the increase in the money supply the government "gets", so they can pay down the national debt, as opposed to - given a 40:1 rough m4:m0 ratio - the government getting a mere 2.5% of all money "made" each year today.
This system also means that banks would be considerably more liable for any dodgy loans they made (in fact, precisely as liable as you or I would be for any dodgy loans we made). In such a system it would be beneficial (though today we can both see why it's a horror for all) for the government to lend money to banks on their collateral, as the money the government prints and lends to the banks will be the entire increase in money supply (as opposed to 2.5% of it), which the central bank produces at no cost, and gains back at interest (actually decreasing money supply over time, allowing it to print more money and lower taxes!!!). Or the underlying asset in the case of default.
I don't know if there's much interest on the board though...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.