It is called 'printing money'

The BBC manage to publish a government press release without mentioning what it will do, which is merely print money.

Quantitative easing effectively allows the central bank to write cheques to banks in exchange for assets.

The BBC are using the word'effectively' in the sense of "it means the same as" rather than doing something effectively. They key phrase, though, is "in exchange for assets".

What assets are these? My guess is that they will be the tarpaper shack of Mr and Mrs Hillbilly, Esq. of Tenessee, last valued at $740,000 but whose true value is probably around $59.99. Our savvy and bold government will give the banks $1m of loans in exchange for this asset, because they haven't got a fucking clue what they are doing. Oh, and also because it isn't their money.

Best edercated genurasion in histury

Click.

Why anyone should be surprised, after nearly twelve years of Socialism and nearly forty years of comprehensive education is a mystery.

Obesity in childhood

No, don't panic, I haven't gone all Guardian and started wringing my hands about the fact that apparently 99% of all British children are now morbidly obese. No, I was struck by this entry over at Julia's blog.

Of course it is an outrage, but one point I wanted to add - doesn't this absolutely epitomise how the Western state infantilises people to the point where adults are incapable of realising that their behaviour is going to kill them, and have to be induced instead with extra pocket money? Childhood now lasts from birth until (early) death.

One small, cynical part of me believes that nearly all public spending is deliberately designed to piss off taxpayers, a sort of abuse of power by the state. Stories like this tend to reinforce that idea. The idea that in the beginnings of this century's own Great Depression the state is taxing people already in financial trouble to get other fat greedy bastards to stop cramming their face is enough to make your average tax payer drop dead from apoplexy.

I wake up and it is 1973 again

You will shortly be subsidising the cost of that Jaguar that rich fella in your local is thinking of buying. If you are Labour, it's a no-brainer - you get to buy votes in marginal constituencies, the unions are happy, the Tories have to pick up the tab of EVEN MORE borrowing when they win the election.

As for the car industry - thousands of jobs. Well yes, but tens of thousands of jobs have gone in the finance sector already - I don't see the BBC weeping over them. Clearly, some jobs are more worthy than others, and as everyone who works in the City is apparently an evil fat cat, even the secretaries, there is much rejoicing on the Left over their demise.

So, after the car industry, whose next? Which industries are sited in marginal constituencies? I could do a survey, but I can't be arsed.

Well, at least it wasn't Barbados

A striking indication of the contempt public 'servants' have for the captive mich-cows who feed them. Not quite the "fact-finding trip to Barbados" so loved by Private Eye and Yes, Minister but not far off. No doubt any day now they will be complaining once again about how short of resources they are.

I blogged earlier about how astonished I was at UK councils not just losing a colossal amount of money in dodgy Icelandic banks, but how they had such huge amounts of spare cash in the first place. Hertfordshire council lost £28m in the debacle, but the really astonishing fact is that the local council has £300m invested, on average, in a number of UK and foreign banks. £300fuckingmillion!

The Guards caught with their trousers down

This has me wondering if there is a single public sector organisation which hasn't deposited a huge sum in a failed Icelandic bank. Aside from the obvious question of where 'cash-strapped' public sector organisations have got approx £1bn of our money from to invest, others are wondering why there is a preponderance of public sector failures here, why they chose to invest, and continue to invest, in a banking system described last year as the most highly leveraged in the world.

The answer, to my mind, is obvious - it wasn't their money, so they didn't give a shit. I'm sure that they believe that the taxpayer will always be called on to bail them out, so what's the problem if a billion is lost here or there?

This quote made me laugh:

The commission said the deposits were in "full compliance" with their guidelines "on prudent investment".

They put £5m into the bank in July this year. Burning Our Money has been keeping an eye on it, with good articles here and here. The information was there, it didn't take a genius to see it, just an interest in protecting the taxpayer's interests. I imagine their guidelines on "prudent investment" are about as rock-solid as Gordon Brown's.