Will £75 Billion (75 000 000000) Of Quantitative Easing Really Get The Economy Growing Consistently When £200 Billion Has Failed?

Giving banks the money won't ease the situation. Finding a way of stimulating the economy by giving people money directly would have a major impact.

The £2,000 car scrappage scheme funding aided the motor industry enormously. I'm not so certain as to how successful the cut in VAT worked.

On the one hand this government is critical of the banks in their reluctant approach to lend to SME's but at the same time endorses the BoE's support of these very same 'law unto themselves' institutions, who will fail to pass on these measures to those who could make a difference.

Instead of using QE to give banks cash for their dodgy assets, I'd prefer the BofE lent directly to SMEs via e.g. the post office or by taking full control of the 83% publically owned RBS.

Alternatively, create a state backed peer-to-peer lending system like zopa or funding circle that meant individuals could lend money to other individuals or SMEs but with access to the FSCS if the loan went bad. That would give savers better returns and feed money to businesses so they can grow and employ more people as well as avoiding QE and the consequent inflation that'll generate.

It doesn't seem to have worked too well in the US does it?

They were printing money like there was no tomorrow and they're still in the doldrums.

It's a strange state of affairs when a wad of freshly printed notes gets you nowhere.

Why don't they just print the money and put it into infrastructure projects like public transport and roads instead of giving it to the banks?

This would create jobs, and thus growth, and would certainly improve the quality of life for a lot of people.

I'm afraid that the complicated inner workings of world/UK economy matters are beyond me, but I am pretty sure that 75 billion freshly printed notes would get my personal economy working nicely!

It is all fiendishly clever stuff. Buying gilts with the money created will reduce interests rates further, thereby making annuities more expensive, hence pension funds worth less.

In the short term it has also boosted the equity market but nobody really knows how long the fillip will last.

It seems rather misguided to me. It will damage pension funds, make annuities more expensive and will raise inflation. If it's used solely to boost growth by lending to small businesses, it might help, but will the banks actually do that this time?

Why oh why do we use billion for a MILLIARD. Everybody knows a billion is a million million. Anyway, 75,000,000,000 (75 milliard) over, say, 60,000,000 in the uk is 1,250 per head - why not just give each individual a voucher for that amount with an expiry date on when it must be spent?

Hi johnanon. I think that I am right in saying that a billion is a 1000 million (Hence 9 noughts instead of 12 noughts after the one which would be a trillion (1 000 000
000 000). That is my understanding. Also a milliard is a French word.

I thought a milliard was a European word, the French and Germans use it, also don't the Americans use 'billion', rather than milliard? Although, I thought the US billion meant a million million...it's very confusing! :-)

Harold Wilson, when his Government devalued the pound in the 60's, famously told us that that didn't mean that the pound in our pockets was worth any less. He apparently also chose at the same time to devalue a billion from a million million to one thousand million to accord with American usage. At the time this change was rather overshadowed by the devaluation of the pound. I have never heard milliard used in the English language.

Sorry, not answering your question Creativesaver, but wouldn't it be a good (rich persons') worry to wonder whether you have millions, billions or milliards in the bank?