DOCSLIB.ORG

UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT of ORAL EVIDENCE to Be Published As HC 767

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT of ORAL EVIDENCE to Be Published As HC 767 UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 767 HOUSE OF COMMONS ORAL EVIDENCE TAK EN BEFORE THE TREASURY COMMITTEE BANK OF ENGLAND NOVEMBER 2012 INFLATION REPORT TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012 SIR MERVYN KING, PAUL FISHER, DR MARTIN WEALE and DR BEN BROADBENT Evidence heard in Public Questions 1 - 97 USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT 1. This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others. 2. Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings. 3. Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant. 4. Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee. 1 Oral Evidence Taken before the Treasury Committee on Tuesday 27 November 2012 Members present: Mr Andrew Tyrie (C hair) Mark Garnier Andrea Leadsom Mr Andy Love Mr Pat McFadden Mr George Mudie Mr Brooks Newmark Jesse Norman Mr David Ruffley John Thurso ________________ Examination of Witnesses Witnesses: Sir Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, Paul Fisher, Executive Director, Markets, Bank of England, Dr Martin Weale CBE, External Member of the Monetary Policy Committee, and Dr Ben B roadbent, External Member of the Monetary Policy Committee, gave evidence. Q1 Cha ir: Good morning, Governor. Sir Mervyn King: Good morning, Chairman. Chair: It is not very long since we last met, although in another capacity when you were before the Banking Commission. Sir Mervyn King: Indeed. Chair: I said, “You have about seven or eight months to go”. As I recall, you replied, “Seven months and eight d ays”. Sir Mervyn King: Exactly, and today it is seven months and three days, because that was merely five days ago. Q2 Cha ir: We note that. Of course, there has been a development— Sir Mervyn King: There has. Chair: —in your part of the economic bailiwick in the last 24 hours, and it is a very important event—not only for the British economy, it is also an important event for Parliament—because we are, as you know, going to be playing a role in the scrutiny of that appointment, as the C hancellor announced on the Floor of the House yesterday. Before we get into the hearing on the inflation report, I wondered whether you had anything you wanted to say about that appointment. Sir Mervyn King: I think anyone who holds down a job like mine wants very much on the day when they leave to hand the Bank on to someone whom they know will carry on the good work. I am completely confident that with Mark Carney you have someone with whom the Bank is in very good hands, as indeed is the role of Governor, which I am sure he will carry out with very great distinction. I think the only other thing I would say is that the United 2 Kingdom should take pride not only in the fact that we are willing to search the world for the best candidate, as the Chancellor said yesterday, but also the fact that we have produced a very strong shortlist. I think more than any other country in recent years, we had a truly outstanding shortlist from which the Chancellor could select, and he selected an outstanding candidate. Q3 Cha ir: One of the important aspects of having a Governor with the self- confidence to speak their mind, as certainly you have done before this Committee, is that it can bolster the credibility of policy, and particularly monetary policy. You had a big hand in the creation o f the inflation report, which is what we are discussing today. It is with that scrutiny and transparency role in mind that we will be holding that pre-appointment session with your successor. Could I turn to the inflation report, and take you to page 40, where there are these charts that show your view about both the degree of uncertainty in the forecast and also your view of the likely prospects? What I note from this chart—and I think you noted it too in response to a question from Stephanie Flanders—is that the most likely outcomes have shifted to the left, that is have become more pessimistic, and that the main reason for this is that you think the chances of a rapid recovery have more or less been taken off the table. They have diminished sharply compared to your view three months ago. Why is this, Governor? Sir Mervyn King: Let me first say that I am grateful to you for drawing attention to the inflatio n report. This is the 80th such report in 24 years, and I think it has served its purpose very well. I am also grateful to you for focusing on these charts rather than on the central projection, because I think the essence of policy making is looking at the balance of risks, and as you say, we have significantly lowered, in our view, the chances of growth being rapid. This is something that I think has been building up in our minds over the past year. It is not a sudden change between August and November. Although we only made the change in these charts in November, I think it was a result of finally realising that, as we had debated among ourselves the prospects for growth and the chances of a very rapid expansion of growth—which you might have expected if this had been a normal cyclical downturn and then recovery—we do not think that the chances of very rapid growth in 2013 and 2014 are very great. So we made what we thought was a realistic change to our judgment about where the balance of risks lies. Q4 Cha ir: But my question to you is, what has changed over the last three months that has resulted in such a sharp shift? If you had been thinking about this earlier, much earlier, it should presumably have already started to appear. Sir Mervyn King: Yes, and I think we should have done it earlier and we did not. I think there are times when you debate something and then you finally decide, “Look, our judgment really has to change now” and we wanted to make clear that we did not think that the balance of risks was appropriately reflected in previous inflation reports and we felt that this was a much more accurate reflection of where the committee was coming out. Q5 Cha ir: Governor, in your answer to Stephanie F landers, one of the reasons you gave was persistence of a weakness in the world environment or economy. Is that part of this? Sir Mervyn King: Yes. I think the underlying economic factors that have led us to make this judgment through the year—and it has built up over that period—have been external factors. We have seen two things. One is obviously continuing problems in the euro area. We have also seen a slowdown in the world economy as a whole, particularly in the emerging markets, and our colleagues in the United States are still very nervous about the prospects there. I think the consequences of that, particularly weakness in the euro area, 3 certainly have fed through to higher funding costs for banks, which temporarily we have managed to offset with the F unding for Lending scheme. The underlying problem is one in which there is still a great deal of adjustment to be made in the financial sector and in the economy as a whole, with the need for rebalancing. In this sort of situation, it is very unlikely that we would expect to see a rapid recovery. Q6 Cha ir: What you are really saying is that it was a mistake to have published charts with such an optimistic upside in previous quarters. Sir Mervyn King: Yes. Looking back, I think we wish we had not done that in earlier inflation reports, but as I say, this is partly something where you think about a problem, you debate it, and there comes a point when you say, “We are now pretty convinced that it doesn’t make sense to give so much weight to it”. Q7 Chair: So this was a tipping point in your decision-mak ing? Sir Mervyn King: Yes. I think so, yes. Q8 Cha ir: Can I just ask you a bit more about your view of the prospects for the world economy? If I look at what you say in the infla tio n report, it only to some extent supports the view that you gave to Stephanie Flanders. It does not fully support that view. For example, you say there that quarterly GDP growth in C hina is estimated to have picked up since the beginning of this year, and you also point to signs of improvement in recent indicators in the United States. I think it is difficult to argue that although things are not better, things have become suddenly dramatically worse in the eurozone. So I am still a little at a loss to see exactly where this decline in the world economic environment is coming from.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bank of England Inflation Report November 2018
    Inflation Report November 2018 Inflation Report November 2018 In order to maintain price stability, the Government has set the Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) a target for the annual inflation rate of the Consumer Prices Index of 2%. Subject to that, the MPC is also required to support the Government’s economic policy, including its objectives for growth and employment. The Inflation Report is produced quarterly by Bank staff under the guidance of the members of the Monetary Policy Committee. It serves two purposes. First, its preparation provides a comprehensive and forward-looking framework for discussion among MPC members as an aid to our decision-making. Second, its publication allows us to share our thinking and explain the reasons for our decisions to those whom they affect. Although not every member will agree with every assumption on which our projections are based, the fan charts represent the MPC’s best collective judgement about the most likely paths for inflation, output and unemployment, as well as the uncertainties surrounding those central projections. This Report has been prepared and published by the Bank of England in accordance with section 18 of the Bank of England Act 1998. The Monetary Policy Committee: Mark Carney, Governor Ben Broadbent, Deputy Governor responsible for monetary policy Jon Cunliffe, Deputy Governor responsible for financial stability Dave Ramsden, Deputy Governor responsible for markets and banking Andrew Haldane Jonathan Haskel Michael Saunders Silvana Tenreyro Gertjan Vlieghe PowerPoint™
    [Show full text]
  • The Tempered Ordered Probit (TOP) Model with an Application to Monetary Policy William H.Greene Max Gillman Mark N.Harris Christopher Spencer WP 2013 – 10
    ISSN 1750-4171 ECONOMICS DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES The Tempered Ordered Probit (TOP) Model With An Application To Monetary Policy William H.Greene Max Gillman Mark N.Harris Christopher Spencer WP 2013 – 10 School of Business and Economics Loughborough University Loughborough LE11 3TU United Kingdom Tel: + 44 (0) 1509 222701 Fax: + 44 (0) 1509 223910 http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/sbe/economics/ The Tempered Ordered Probit (TOP) model with an application to monetary policy William H. Greeney Max Gillmanz Mark N. Harrisx Christopher Spencer{ September 2013 Abstract We propose a Tempered Ordered Probit (TOP) model. Our contribution lies not only in explicitly accounting for an excessive number of observations in a given choice category - as is the case in the standard literature on in‡ated models; rather, we introduce a new econometric model which nests the recently developed Middle In‡ated Ordered Probit (MIOP) models of Bagozzi and Mukherjee (2012) and Brooks, Harris, and Spencer (2012) as a special case, and further, can be used as a speci…cation test of the MIOP, where the implicit test is described as being one of symmetry versus asymmetry. In our application, which exploits a panel data-set containing the votes of Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) members, we show that the TOP model a¤ords the econometrician considerable ‡exibility with respect to modelling the impact of di¤erent forms of uncertainty on interest rate decisions. Our …ndings, we argue, reveal MPC members’ asymmetric attitudes towards uncertainty and the changeability of interest rates. Keywords: Monetary policy committee, voting, discrete data, uncertainty, tempered equations.
    [Show full text]
  • Speech by Martin Weale at the University of Nottingham, Tuesday
    Unconventional monetary policy Speech given by Martin Weale, External Member of the Monetary Policy Committee University of Nottingham 8 March 2016 I am grateful to Andrew Blake, Alex Harberis and Richard Harrison for helpful discussions, to Tomasz Wieladek for the work he has done with me on both asset purchases and forward guidance and to Kristin Forbes, Tomas Key, Benjamin Nelson, Minouche Shafik, James Talbot, Matthew Tong, Gertjan Vlieghe and Sebastian Walsh for very helpful comments. 1 All speeches are available online at www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/speeches/default.aspx Introduction Thank you for inviting me here today. I would like to talk about unconventional monetary policy. I am speaking to you about this not because I anticipate that the Monetary Policy Committee will have recourse to expand its use of unconventional policy any time soon. As we said in our most recent set of minutes, we collectively believe it more likely than not that the next move in rates will be up. I certainly consider this to be the most likely direction for policy. The UK labour market suggests that medium-term inflationary pressures are building rather than easing; wage growth may have disappointed, but a year of zero inflation does not seem to have depressed pay prospects further. However, I want to discuss unconventional policy options today because the Committee does not want to be a monetary equivalent of King Æthelred the Unready.1 It is as important to consider what we could do in the event of unlikely outcomes as the more likely scenarios. In particular, there is much to be said for reviewing the unconventional policy the MPC has already conducted, especially as the passage of time has given us a clearer insight into its effects.
    [Show full text]
  • National Institute Economic Review Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS, England for the National Institute of Economic and Social Research
    National Volume 255 – February 2021 Nati onal Insti tute Economic Review Economic tute Insti onal Nati Institute Economic Review NIER Volume 255 February 2021 255 February Volume National Institute Economic Review Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS, England for the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. Annual subscription including postage: institutional rate (combined print and electronic) £596/US$1102; Managing Editors individual rate (print only) £166/US$292. Electronic only and print Jagjit Chadha (National Institute of Economic and Social Research) only subscriptions are available for institutions at a discounted rate. Prasanna Gai (University of Auckland) Note VAT is applicable at the appropriate local rate. Abstracts, tables Ana Galvao (University of Warwick) of contents and contents alerts are available online free of charge for Sayantan Ghosal (University of Glasgow) all. Student discounts, single issue rates and advertising details are Colin Jennings (King’s College London) available from Cambridge University Press, One Liberty Plaza, Hande Küçük (National Institute of Economic and Social Research) New York, NY 10006, USA/UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 Miguel Leon-Ledesma (University of Kent) 8BS, England. POSTMASTER: Send address changes in the USA and Corrado Macchiarelli (National Institute of Economic and Canada to National Institute Economic Review, Cambridge University Social Research) Press, Journals Ful llment Dept., One Liberty Plaza, New York, Adrian Pabst (National Institute of Economic and Social Research) NY 10006-4020, USA. Send address changes elsewhere to National Institute Economic Review, Cambridge University Press, University Council of Management Printing House, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge, CB2 8BS, England. Sir Paul Tucker (President) Neil Gaskell Professor Nicholas Crafts (Chair) Professor Sir David Aims and Scope Professor Jagjit S.
    [Show full text]
  • Escoe CONFERENCE on ECONOMIC MEASUREMENT 2020
    ESCoE CONFERENCE ON ECONOMIC MEASUREMENT 2020 16-18 SEPTEMBER 2020 @ESCoEorg #econstats2020 Welcome Keynote speakers Welcome to the ESCoE Conference on Economic Measurement 2020. Anil Arora (Statistics This year sees a remarkable first for everyone involved, a completely online, digital, annual Canada) conference. As many of you will be aware, we, in partnership with the Office for National Statistics, were ‘Statistics Canada’s Modernization due to return to the excellent facilities of King’s Business School for EM2020. Covid-19, Journey – Responding to the Fast social distancing rules and travel restrictions all of course meant that these plans had to be Evolving Data Needs of the 21st changed. While there is no substitute that could ever completely replicate the experience of a traditional conference and the opportunities they provide for meeting colleagues in Century’ person, we are however very pleased to be able to host you this year on a virtual platform. We’ve done our best to recreate at least something of the experience of physically attending a conference. Our virtual conference space includes lecture rooms where you can access a comprehensive programme of live plenary, panel, contributed, Covid-19 and special sessions. The need for good-quality facts and data, in a society where there are massive changes, has You will also be able to visit our conference poster exhibition and engage directly with other never been greater. At Statistics Canada, a full-fledged modernization initiative is underway attendees and speakers via dedicated direct messaging and topic chatroom functions. to provide even greater value to Canadians and businesses in the form of data, analytics and insights.
    [Show full text]
  • Speech by Martin Weale Delivered at the Department for Business
    Speech by MARTIN WEALE MEMBER OF THE MONETARY POLICY COMMITTEE BANK OF ENGLAND AFTER THE RECESSION: THOUGHTS ON THE GROWTH POTENTIAL OF THE UNITED KINGDOM Speech delivered at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills Analysts’ Conference, London, 12 November 2010 I am extremely grateful to Robert Gilhooly, Daniel Eckloff and Matthew Corder for their help with this speech, and to David Miles, Iain de Weymarn, Tony Yates, Simon Price, Jamie Bell, Gareth Ramsay and Rohan Churm for their helpful comments. Of course, this speech reflects my personal views. Thank you very much for inviting me to talk at this conference. I remember one of my economics lecturers saying in 1977 that Britain’s poor economic performance had been a matter of concern since the later part of Queen Victoria’s reign. During that time plenty of policies had been tried to improve things and, as far as one could tell, they had not worked. In this speech I would like to discuss first of all the impact that the recent crisis and its aftermath may have had on the potential level of output of the economy, secondly the effect it might have had on trend growth together with some of the other influences on trend growth and thirdly the particular question whether monetary policy is in a position to play any extra role in supporting the economy at the present time. The Potential Level of Output I should point out that there are plenty of precedents for arguing that periods of contraction result in semi-permanent loss of output.
    [Show full text]
  • Working Paper Series
    BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMICS CENTRE WORKING PAPER SERIES 13/9: Estimating the Standard Errors of Individual- Specifi c Parameters in Random Parameters Models William Greene, Mark N. Harris, Christopher Spencer business.curtin.edu.au/bcec This paper was written by researchers affi liated with the Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre (‘the Centre’). While every eff ort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this document, the uncertain nature of economic data, forecasting and analysis means that the Centre, Curtin University and/or Bankwest are unable to make any warranties in relation to the information contained herein. Any person who relies on the information contained in this document does so at their own risk. The Centre, Curtin University, Bankwest, and/or their employees and agents disclaim liability for any loss or damage, which may arise as a consequence of any person relying on the information contained in this document. Except where liability under any statute cannot be excluded, the Centre, Curtin University, Bankwest and/or their advisors, employees and offi cers do not accept any liability (whether under contract, tort or otherwise) for any resulting loss or damage suff ered by the reader or by any other person. The views in this publication are those of the authors and do not represent the views of Curtin University and/or Bankwest or any of their affi liates. This publication is provided as general information only and does not consider anyone’s specifi c objectives, situation or needs. Neither the authors nor the Centre accept any duty of care or liability to anyone regarding this publication or any loss suff ered in connection with the use of this publication or any of its content.
    [Show full text]
  • Independent Review of UK Economic Statistics March 2016 Independent Review of UK Economic Statistics Professor Sir Charles Bean
    Front cover Independent review of UK economic statistics Independent Review of UK Economic Statistics Professor Sir Charles Bean March 2016 March 2016 2904936 Cover and Dividers v1_0.indd 1 09/03/2016 13:43 Independent Review of UK Economic Statistics Professor Sir Charles Bean March 2016 ii Independent Review of UK Economic Statistics Contents Chapter 1: Introduction and overview 1 Background to the Review 1 A vision for the future provision of economic statistics 6 Recommendations: Measuring the economy 8 Recommendations: ONS capability and performance 10 Recommendations: Governance of statistics 13 Content outline 15 Chapter 2: Measuring the modern economy – established challenges 19 Measuring GDP 19 Measuring services 35 Measuring financial inter-connectedness 42 Regional statistics 47 Measuring the labour market 50 Physical capital 58 Land market statistics 62 Addressing established statistical limitations 68 Chapter 3: Measuring the modern economy – emerging challenges 71 Value added in the digital modern economy 71 The sharing economy 91 Intangible investment 98 Accounting for quality change 106 Understanding the international location of economic activity 112 Keeping abreast of an evolving economy 116 Chapter 4: Effectiveness of ONS 121 Recent history of ONS 121 ONS resources 124 Recent ONS performance 130 Culture, Capability and Collaboration 137 Survey data sources 156 Administrative data and alternative data sources 162 Contents iii Data science capability 167 Technology and data infrastructure 176 Dissemination of ONS statistics
    [Show full text]
  • Firms' Expectations and Price Setting: Evidence from Micro Data
    Firms' Expectations and Price Setting: Evidence from Micro Data∗ James Cloyne Lena Boneva Martin Weale Tomasz Wieladek February 2016 Abstract In many forward-looking macroeconomic models, such as the New Keynesian model, firms’ expectations about the future play a key role in determining outcomes to- day. We examine this hypothesis using a novel panel dataset on firms actual and expected price changes collected by the Confederation of British Industry. Our microeconometric approach overcomes the identification issues faced by previous empirical studies. The results suggest that firms’ expectations play a key role in their price-setting behaviour, with a coefficient on firm’s expectations consistent with the discount factor typically assumed in macroeconomic models. JEL classification: C23; C26; E31 Key words: Pricing setting; survey data; inflation expectations; New Keynesian Phillips Curve. ∗The views in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Bank of England, the Monetary Policy Committee, the Financial Policy Committee or the Prudential Regulation Authority. The data used in our paper are proprietary and are obtained under licence from the Confeder- ation of British Industry (CBI). The licensing contract permits Bank of England staff to use the data for research purposes. We are grateful for comments and advice from Sophocles Mavroeidis, Oliver Linton and Hashem Pesaran, and participants at the conference of the European Economic Association and the International Association of Applied Econometrics in 2015. An earlier version of this paper was presented at a conference in Cambridge in May 2014. Addresses for correspondence: Bank of England, Threadnee- dle Street, London EC2R 8AH.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence from Martin Weale
    Questions in advance of Treasury Committee hearing Martin Weale 15 October 2013 1. Do you have any business or financial connections or other commitments which might give rise to a conflict of interest in continuing to carry out your duties as a member of the MPC? No 2. Do you intend to serve out the full term for which you have been appointed? Yes 3. Why have you decided to stay on for a second term? What have you learned from your experience of being on the MPC so far? Do you plan on doing anything differently during your second term? I have found my work on the MPC extremely interesting and I believe I have done it effectively. With the benefit of hindsight I do not think the judgements I have made were wrong. I have explained my analysis to a wide range of audiences and have made my views clear on the boundaries of monetary policy and thus of the Committee’s responsibilities. I was therefore glad to have the opportunity to continue in this role. At the start of my first term I found there was plenty to learn - in broad terms - because many of the MPCs’ discussions take place with reference to the history of previous discussions and assumptions about, for example, the structure of the economy. To be fully effective it is necessary to have an understanding of the background, and inevitably I did not learn that immediately. I should qualify this, however, by saying that the development of the Bank’s new modelling framework has made the historical assumptions built into our analysis much more transparent and, I think, much more accessible.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantitative Easing
    Quantitative Easing Seven years since the near collapse of the financial system following the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, we now seem to Quantitative Easing be at a point where some central banks – the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England in particular – are close to beginning Evolution of economic thinking as it the process of reversing the very loose monetary policy they have pursued in the last seven years. But this process is likely happened on Vox to go very slowly. Moreover, other central banks – the ECB Evolution of economic thinking as it happened on Vox in particular – are not yet in such an enviable position. This means that quantitative easing is likely to remain a fascinating Edited by Wouter J. Den Haan policy that will be discussed on VoxEU.org and elsewhere for quite some time to come. This eBook is the second of the Vox As It Happened series, which gathers together the commentary on important economic issues by the world’s best economists. It maps the evolution of thinking about this policy instrument, paving the way for a more informed debate. a ISBN 978-1-907142-96-3 CEPR Press 9 781907 142963 a A VoxEU.org Book Centre for Economic Policy Research 77 Bastwick Street, London EC1V 3PZ; Tel: +44 (0)20 7183 8801; Email: [email protected]; www.cepr.org CEPR Press Quantitative Easing Evolution of economic thinking as it happened on Vox A VoxEU.org eBook Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) Centre for Economic Policy Research 33 Great Sutton Street London, EC1V 0DX UK Tel: +44 (0)20 7183 8801 Email: [email protected] Web: www.cepr.org ISBN: 978-1-907142-96-3 © CEPR Press, 2016 Quantitative Easing Evolution of economic thinking as it happened on Vox A VoxEU.org eBook Edited by Wouter J.
    [Show full text]
  • United Kingdom Bank of England Remains Split on Policy Stance
    Markit Economic Research 19/11/2014 United Kingdom Bank of England remains split on policy stance . Two members of the Bank of England’s MPC economic growth sliding to a 16-month low in October, again voted to hike interest rates in November the most likely scenario is that the majority of MPC members will see the need for policy to remain on hold . Others have a “material spread” on risks to the at least until the second half of next year, barring any outlook, and therefore appropriate policy stance strong upturn in wage growth in coming months. Wage growth remains key to future policy BoE policy changes and the PMI The minutes from the November meeting of the Bank PMI, 50 = no change Base rate movement m/m, basis points of England’s Monetary Policy Committee reveal that 50 policymakers remain split regarding the economic 60 outlook and the appropriate course for policy. 55 0 Two of the nine members, Martin Weale and Ian McCafferty, again voted to hike interest rates by 0.25%, 50 -50 as they have done continually since August. However, 45 for the other members, the outlook for inflation in the UK PMI All Sector Ouput Index (LHS) Monthly change in BoE base rate (RHS) -100 medium term justified maintaining the current policy of 40 Quantitative easing programme record low interest rates. FLS Forward guidance 35 -150 Weale and McCafferty are worried that domestic '98 '00 '02 '04 '06 '08 '10 '12 '14 inflation could pick up sharply due to the amount of Sources: Markit, Ecowin.
    [Show full text]