Kamala Harris begins her Fight For Reproductive Freedoms tour. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Ever since the Dobbs decision redefined the reproductive rights of American women, the issue of choice has started to resemble a frantic game of ping-pong. In red states, Republican-controlled senates immediately got busy passing abortion bans, sometimes in direct opposition to their own constituents. In blue states, Democratic governors announced increased abortion protections as well as anti-extradition statutes to protect women who travel from red states to have the procedure done. No doubt these statutes will prove salient, as will the ongoing battle over the deregulation of the abortion pill: in states such as Texas, where abortion past six weeks of pregnancy is now banned, virtually every abortion clinic has closed.
Meanwhile, it’s an election year, and pro-choice advocates hope to put abortion protection on the ballot in nine states — causing panic on the Right, since these measures tend to pass with overwhelming voter support. For Democrats, all signs point to this being the defining issue of the 2024 election. “President Biden and Vice President Harris believe health care decisions should be made by women and their doctors, not politicians. Period,” the White House posted this week, throwing down the first of what will no doubt be several gauntlets.
The current administration’s abortion strategy hinges on Kamala Harris, who is currently touring the country to highlight Biden’s commitment to women’s reproductive rights: on her first stop, she was photographed in front of a giant sign that read, simply, “TRUST WOMEN”. It’s an effective slogan, but also a provocative one, when even the activists who would grant the procedure sacred status don’t seem to entirely trust women to know our bodies, and accept the consequences of our choices.
In a world that simply trusted women, abortion itself would be less common, I think, because more trust equals more empowerment and therefore fewer limitations: women would be free to obtain birth control at low cost and without a prescription, a key issue that has been somewhat overlooked amid the heated battles over abortion. Add some straightforward sex education that teaches women from an early age how fertility works — as opposed to the fearmongering version in which pregnancy can happen anytime, anywhere, just from being in the same room as a sperm — and you would get an informed, empowered population capable of avoiding unintended pregnancies.
Beyond that, the rules would be simple: a woman who wanted an abortion could obtain one within reasonable limits — guided by a scientific understanding of viability, perhaps. And, with the usual caveats — foetal abnormalities, for instance, or a threat to the mother’s life — a woman who sought an elective abortion outside the prescribed window would be in violation of… well, something. If not the law, then the social contract.
The question of just what consequences a woman could or should face for flouting abortion restrictions has always been a thorny one. Any attempts to enforce such statutes can result in innocent women being investigated for a crime after their wanted pregnancies ended in miscarriage — but even in unambiguous cases, society is at odds with itself about just who to punish and how. Two things are true: that most people support laws limiting abortion beyond the first trimester, and that most people are uncomfortable with the idea of holding women accountable for breaking those laws. (Partly for this reason, medics in the UK have recently been advised not to report women suspected of having an illegal abortion to the police.)
It’s a conundrum: a society that truly trusts women would also trust them to follow the rules or face the consequences. But then, we have always struggled with this, too. We like the idea of empowering women, but holding them accountable for abusing that power? Not so much.
It seems to me that in the abortion wars, neither side is willing to trust women — to see them as fully human, fully adult, fully capable of reckoning with the implications of the choice to terminate a pregnancy. Each in their own way would deprive women of agency, if not by stopping them from making the choice, then by never holding them accountable for it. At the root is a shared conviction that women cannot control themselves, a safetyist impulse aptly described by David Brooks in a recent column about the administrators who increasingly rule over every aspect of American life: “The whole administrative apparatus comes with an implied view of human nature,” he writes. “People are weak, fragile, vulnerable and kind of stupid. They need administrators to run their lives.”
Within the parameters of the debate over abortion rights, you could argue that both sides appear to agree that women are fragile. Much has been written about the horrors of the pre-Roe era; we know the deadly consequences of a world where women cannot safely and legally abort, and we have long scorned the callous politicians who chuckle that the best solution to unintended pregnancy is for women to just stop having sex, you sluts. Less discussed is what the pro-choice side telegraphs about its view of women, when it argues that they must not only be allowed to choose, but to have their options open indefinitely, no restrictions, no limitations.
Academics sniff at the notion that elective abortion should be disallowed after a certain point, decrying the entire concept of foetal viability as “overly moralistic”; the Guttmacher Institute insists that gestational age bans are harmful, full stop, and that abortion should be available to women “on the timeline that meets their needs”. Journalists sombrely report on the troubling implications of the prosecution of a Nebraska teenager who ended her pregnancy with mifepristone — waiting until the 23rd paragraph to mention the relevant and fairly shocking information that she was 30 weeks pregnant at the time.
These arguments lack the spectacular misogyny of the pro-life crowd’s shrieking about sluts, but they are still patronising to women. The implication is that a woman cannot be expected to make up her mind about whether she wants to have a baby within a certain timeframe, nor wrestle with difficult questions about what consideration, if any, the foetus growing inside her deserves. In this we might hear echoes of the old arguments used to control women: that we are fickle, hapless creatures who know little of our own biology and even less of our own minds.
Of course, it’s become fashionable to speak of women and our bodies this way: in terms of fragility. Our ancestors, on the other hand, recognised that the ability to bear children gives women immense power. In the ancient world, abortion was restricted less as a means of protecting women than to protect other people from them. A woman who terminated her pregnancy deprived her husband of an heir, and her crime was not murder, but a sort of theft; she had shaped his future, his legacy, in ways he could not control. The property and inheritance laws that made a woman’s survival dependent on producing children — specifically a son — were, among other things, a way of subverting whatever power might have come from being the one with a womb.
This makes for an ironic comparison with the contemporary narrative that women are in desperate need of protection — at a moment when we enjoy greater control over our reproductive abilities, and less stigma for exercising it, than we have ever before. For all that we seek to defend women from having to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, we still struggle with the raw exercise of power inherent in choosing to end one, or the possibility that with that power comes a certain amount of social responsibility.
When I was four, a tiny mole scurried out of a hole beside me while I was playing in the garden. It startled me, and I brought my foot down instinctively; I didn’t mean to kill it, but I did. My mother made me bury it, and while I did, she told me she knew I hadn’t meant to, but that it didn’t matter. That in a world populated by creatures smaller and more fragile than you, you are accountable for where you choose to step.
I think about this sometimes — when people scoff that an abortion is nothing, just a bundle of cells, or when I see a woman holding a sign that says, “MY ABORTION WAS FABULOUS”. A mole doesn’t have hopes or dreams; a blastocyst has no sense of itself. If these are arguably lives, they are not especially significant ones, and perhaps this makes it easy to be cavalier: you are not ending so much, when you destroy them. You might even begin to imagine your choices carry no weight at all.
And yet… “fabulous”?
I don’t expect much reckoning with these questions in the coming year, or ever, necessarily. Amid the urgency and tumult of the post-Dobbs landscape, several things are true: that abortion must remain legal, that every attempt to restrict it inevitably inflicts far worse harm than it manages to prevent, and that if the Democrats are smart, they’ll spend the next 10 months making sure there’s not a person in the country who hasn’t heard about the unimaginable horrors that have followed the draconian abortion bans in Texas and elsewhere.
But this is a way to win elections, not to illuminate the truth: that the instincts of pro-life and pro-choice alike are too often infantilising to women, and that trusting women requires abandoning the pretence that they need to be protected. Safetyism and equality are mutually exclusive: we must insist on women’s absolute right to choose when or whether to be pregnant, even when that choice intersects with some of the most complex moral questions of all time. At the same time, we must also stop pretending that pregnancy does not carry with it a unique and potent strength. Only a woman can bring forth a whole new person from inside her body — and only a woman can choose not to, reaching over the Fates’ shoulder to snatch those first slim threads of life back through the needle’s eye.
The history of abortion restrictions is a history of men trying to undermine this power, because they are terrified by it, and they should be. It is enormous. It is unfathomable. And like all power, it isn’t without its burdens. But it is ours, whether it’s politically expedient to admit this or not.
Kat Rosenfield is an UnHerd columnist and co-host of the Feminine Chaos podcast. Her latest novel is You Must Remember This.
katrosenfield 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeExcellent. The Bank of England has failed miserably to create stable normal conditions for the UK economy. Mr QE Zero Interest Net Zero ESG BS Carney as much as the hapless one eyed Nelsonian present Governor (I see no inflation risk…in an economy shutdown for 2 years!!!!!) Is responsible for the impending inevitable crash. For him to blame Brexit paperwork for the cost of lockdown inflation shows he is more interested in spouting Remainiac derangement groupthink than the truth.
Excellent. The Bank of England has failed miserably to create stable normal conditions for the UK economy. Mr QE Zero Interest Net Zero ESG BS Carney as much as the hapless one eyed Nelsonian present Governor (I see no inflation risk…in an economy shutdown for 2 years!!!!!) Is responsible for the impending inevitable crash. For him to blame Brexit paperwork for the cost of lockdown inflation shows he is more interested in spouting Remainiac derangement groupthink than the truth.
Why do people still listen to Carney? He epitomizes the incompetence of the ruling elite driving the west into oblivion. He has all the check marks, all the letters behind his name, all the right connections to very important people, but he lacks the analytical tools and vision to see the consequences of his policies. His hysterical ramblings about climate change have helped entrench net zero policies, which are the root cause of the energy crisis in Europe today.
Why do people still listen to Carney? He epitomizes the incompetence of the ruling elite driving the west into oblivion. He has all the check marks, all the letters behind his name, all the right connections to very important people, but he lacks the analytical tools and vision to see the consequences of his policies. His hysterical ramblings about climate change have helped entrench net zero policies, which are the root cause of the energy crisis in Europe today.
The Bank of England was given independence and a mandate to keep inflation at around 2% p.a. on the basis that monetary policy could control inflation and deliver that target. Yet when inflation surges over the target for a period of (at least) several years, the BoE and its apologists blame everything other than their monetary policy for that inflation – supply chain bottlenecks, war in Ukraine, pay claims by greedy workers, too little immigration, Brexit, and so on. Either the BoE can control inflation over the medium term – through interest rates, Quantitative Easing and Quantitative Tightening – or it cannot. If it can’t, it should hand responsibility, and accountability, for interest rate policy and inflation control back to the elected government. As it is, the BoE has power without responsibility – pursuing a low interest rate and very loose monetary policy with profound political and social justice consequences, but shirking accountability for the inflation which they were warned – but denied – would result.
The Bank of England was given independence and a mandate to keep inflation at around 2% p.a. on the basis that monetary policy could control inflation and deliver that target. Yet when inflation surges over the target for a period of (at least) several years, the BoE and its apologists blame everything other than their monetary policy for that inflation – supply chain bottlenecks, war in Ukraine, pay claims by greedy workers, too little immigration, Brexit, and so on. Either the BoE can control inflation over the medium term – through interest rates, Quantitative Easing and Quantitative Tightening – or it cannot. If it can’t, it should hand responsibility, and accountability, for interest rate policy and inflation control back to the elected government. As it is, the BoE has power without responsibility – pursuing a low interest rate and very loose monetary policy with profound political and social justice consequences, but shirking accountability for the inflation which they were warned – but denied – would result.
This man is quite frankly a moron.
You’d think he’d never heard of Milton Friedman: “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output”.
Guess who was in charge of the quantity of money.
Guess who consistently failed to meet their 2% inflation target (“you only had one job …”).
Or is he yet another of those people who will claim that they were “present, but not involved” ?
MIlton Friedman overstated things with this. While most inflation is caused by monetary policy, i.e. things now cost more because the value of your money has declined, because I’ve been increasing the money supply, it is possible to have inflation where things cost more because there is a shortage of the raw materials, etc. you need to make them. Until somebody comes along with a new supply at a reasonable price. prices will remain high. No amount of futzing around with the interest rates, money suppy, etc will help matters. Now, usually this sort of inflation hits one sector of the economy but all the rest continue on their merry way. If there is a big copper shortage then many things will get more expensive, but most things will not, and people will just do without the copper-needed things until the supply improves. But energy is the real exception. If things are getting more expensive because the energy it takes to make things is more expensive, then this will crush all sectors of the economy because everybody needs energy.
Build nukes.
If money supply is maintained in equilibrium, if the cost of some things increase because of a shortage of raw materials etc, then demand for other things will decline (because there will be less money available to spend on them) and prices for those things should also decline, reducing inflationary pressures. If there has been a massive increase in money supply, and an increase in the savings ratio because people were locked up, then those offsetting reductions will not occur.
It’s remarkable how stuck the prices of those ‘other things in decline’ often are. Reduced demand should make the sellers lower their prices, but some of them are already pricing things as low as they can. So instead they _raise_ prices, by a whole lot, hoping that there are a very, very few buyers who have to have what they are selling at any price, and that this tiny section of their former mass market can pay for them to survive the storm. Sometimes this works. Mostly it doesn’t, and the firm goes bankrupt. But neither of these outcomes has a positive effect on inflation.
It’s remarkable how stuck the prices of those ‘other things in decline’ often are. Reduced demand should make the sellers lower their prices, but some of them are already pricing things as low as they can. So instead they _raise_ prices, by a whole lot, hoping that there are a very, very few buyers who have to have what they are selling at any price, and that this tiny section of their former mass market can pay for them to survive the storm. Sometimes this works. Mostly it doesn’t, and the firm goes bankrupt. But neither of these outcomes has a positive effect on inflation.
I agree there are other factors. But money supply – and the price of money (interest rates) was the thing directly under Carney’s control.
You’re correct that he also lobbied for higher energy prices. And continues to do so. Utter madness.
Assume you mean build nuclear power stations. Fully on board with that. Though I’d rather we come up with our own designs and industry here (as we used to – we invented them after all) and stopped the idiotic policy of buying one off reactors from the French or Chinese.
Carney’s clearly part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Yes, I meant building more power stations.
Energy self-sufficiency is the only way to isolate yourself from the sort of inflation caused by the price of energy.
You would think that there would be one ambitious politician able to make this argument, and campaign on ‘Never again will we be subject to this sort of inflation! Here is the plan and I will make this one work!’
In Sweden, as well, there was much talk of the 85% of us who want more nuclear plants vs the government who won’t give us them, but while the new government claims to be working on a new plan we still haven’t seen it. But this time Swedish industry is unlikely to give them a break. you see there is this new Swedish way to make steel. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/19/green-steel-swedish-company-ships-first-batch-made-without-using-coal
But it needs lots of energy. When a commission last winter asked the question ‘but who would use the energy we would produce with a new nuclear plant’ they expected ‘we will sell it to the Germans and Danes.’ Instead they got _all_ the big industries — and Sweden hasn’t de-industrialised — and the military saying ‘me, me, I want some!’
Yes, I meant building more power stations.
Energy self-sufficiency is the only way to isolate yourself from the sort of inflation caused by the price of energy.
You would think that there would be one ambitious politician able to make this argument, and campaign on ‘Never again will we be subject to this sort of inflation! Here is the plan and I will make this one work!’
In Sweden, as well, there was much talk of the 85% of us who want more nuclear plants vs the government who won’t give us them, but while the new government claims to be working on a new plan we still haven’t seen it. But this time Swedish industry is unlikely to give them a break. you see there is this new Swedish way to make steel. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/19/green-steel-swedish-company-ships-first-batch-made-without-using-coal
But it needs lots of energy. When a commission last winter asked the question ‘but who would use the energy we would produce with a new nuclear plant’ they expected ‘we will sell it to the Germans and Danes.’ Instead they got _all_ the big industries — and Sweden hasn’t de-industrialised — and the military saying ‘me, me, I want some!’
If money supply is maintained in equilibrium, if the cost of some things increase because of a shortage of raw materials etc, then demand for other things will decline (because there will be less money available to spend on them) and prices for those things should also decline, reducing inflationary pressures. If there has been a massive increase in money supply, and an increase in the savings ratio because people were locked up, then those offsetting reductions will not occur.
I agree there are other factors. But money supply – and the price of money (interest rates) was the thing directly under Carney’s control.
You’re correct that he also lobbied for higher energy prices. And continues to do so. Utter madness.
Assume you mean build nuclear power stations. Fully on board with that. Though I’d rather we come up with our own designs and industry here (as we used to – we invented them after all) and stopped the idiotic policy of buying one off reactors from the French or Chinese.
Carney’s clearly part of the problem and not part of the solution.
MIlton Friedman overstated things with this. While most inflation is caused by monetary policy, i.e. things now cost more because the value of your money has declined, because I’ve been increasing the money supply, it is possible to have inflation where things cost more because there is a shortage of the raw materials, etc. you need to make them. Until somebody comes along with a new supply at a reasonable price. prices will remain high. No amount of futzing around with the interest rates, money suppy, etc will help matters. Now, usually this sort of inflation hits one sector of the economy but all the rest continue on their merry way. If there is a big copper shortage then many things will get more expensive, but most things will not, and people will just do without the copper-needed things until the supply improves. But energy is the real exception. If things are getting more expensive because the energy it takes to make things is more expensive, then this will crush all sectors of the economy because everybody needs energy.
Build nukes.
This man is quite frankly a moron.
You’d think he’d never heard of Milton Friedman: “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output”.
Guess who was in charge of the quantity of money.
Guess who consistently failed to meet their 2% inflation target (“you only had one job …”).
Or is he yet another of those people who will claim that they were “present, but not involved” ?
A carnie, or carny, is a term for a worker at a travelling amusement show. They were suspected of lacking in certain character traits. It is also, apparently, British slang for coax or cajole.
Why the English would import ( the eponymous? ) Mark Carney to run their monetary policy is beyond me, though we Canadians ought to have been grateful, since he was no longer running ours. I had his measure when he began muttering about the large cash balances Canadian corporations were holding their balance sheets in 2010, as if they preferred to earn bupkis on those balances rather than invest it, and as if it were any of his business.
Rumour has it that he might be in line to succeed His High Wokeness, the Dauphin of Sunny Ways ( that would be Trudeau ), so that he could do to us with fiscal policy what he has already done with monetary policy.
Anything you can do there to keep his show on the road and us out of harm’s way would be appreciated.
A carnie, or carny, is a term for a worker at a travelling amusement show. They were suspected of lacking in certain character traits. It is also, apparently, British slang for coax or cajole.
Why the English would import ( the eponymous? ) Mark Carney to run their monetary policy is beyond me, though we Canadians ought to have been grateful, since he was no longer running ours. I had his measure when he began muttering about the large cash balances Canadian corporations were holding their balance sheets in 2010, as if they preferred to earn bupkis on those balances rather than invest it, and as if it were any of his business.
Rumour has it that he might be in line to succeed His High Wokeness, the Dauphin of Sunny Ways ( that would be Trudeau ), so that he could do to us with fiscal policy what he has already done with monetary policy.
Anything you can do there to keep his show on the road and us out of harm’s way would be appreciated.
Good post. Carney exemplifies the bizarre combination of extreme arrogance and utter incompetence that seems increasingly to characterise the self-selected global apparatchiki. It’s an affront that his opinions are still sought by the media after the damage he has done.
On that basis would you concur we’d be blessed to now hear nought too from Bojo or Farage?
What damage has Farage done?
What damage has Farage done?
On that basis would you concur we’d be blessed to now hear nought too from Bojo or Farage?
Good post. Carney exemplifies the bizarre combination of extreme arrogance and utter incompetence that seems increasingly to characterise the self-selected global apparatchiki. It’s an affront that his opinions are still sought by the media after the damage he has done.
He was either caught asleep at the wheel… or knowingly allowed our country to suffer…
He was either caught asleep at the wheel… or knowingly allowed our country to suffer…
We can expect an increasing amount of this. With Labour leading in the polls and Starmer expected to enter No, 10, the Europhiles are on manoeuvres.
It’s entirely predictable that the dishonest Europhile obsessives, still smarting from not getting their way, are going to be building up the dishonest narrative that it is Brexit rather than the disastrous response to Covid and the war in Ukraine that are the cause of all our economic ills, with the intention that it will set Europhile Starmer up to tie Britain back into EU institutions, such as the Internal Market and Customs Union, with a view to taking us back to full membership.
No doubt Carney was asked to make this absurd statement. The man who pursued years of ultra-loose monetary policy that has left us with massive public and private sector debt piles and enormous asset price bubbles ripe to burst, has perhaps the greatest responsibility for the mess we are in now. He should be being eviscerated by economists, politicians and the MSM now for the recklessness and incompetence as Governor, not quoted as some economic sage.
Those who fought for Britain’s independence need to get back in to the fight. The Europhiles are being allowed to get away with their lies because there is little countering of their narrative, The big push by the Europhiles will be if/when Labour win the next GE. Those who wish to preserve our freedom need to be vociferously countering the Europhiles’ lies in the media now and getting themselves organised and prepared for the battle that will ensue if Starmer becomes PM.
Exactly as you said.
They own the media so you can present as much fact as you like it won’t matter.
Carny couldn’t pass GCSE high school economics exams without a C “could do better” – who knows what nonsense he’s speaking to the press for his remainder pals. Best he shuffle off to Canada and pick up the baton from Trudeau, another walking disaster. Apologies to any Canadians reading this, I am sincerely sorry for your Trudeau generated woes.
They ‘own’ the media? One has to chuckle at such twaddle. So they ‘own’ the Mail and Murdoch do they?
Carney overplays his argument but irrefutable Brexit added major difficulties to UK economy. The man reason comments here pile into the ex Governor is deflection.
They ‘own’ the media? One has to chuckle at such twaddle. So they ‘own’ the Mail and Murdoch do they?
Carney overplays his argument but irrefutable Brexit added major difficulties to UK economy. The man reason comments here pile into the ex Governor is deflection.
Exactly as you said.
They own the media so you can present as much fact as you like it won’t matter.
Carny couldn’t pass GCSE high school economics exams without a C “could do better” – who knows what nonsense he’s speaking to the press for his remainder pals. Best he shuffle off to Canada and pick up the baton from Trudeau, another walking disaster. Apologies to any Canadians reading this, I am sincerely sorry for your Trudeau generated woes.
We can expect an increasing amount of this. With Labour leading in the polls and Starmer expected to enter No, 10, the Europhiles are on manoeuvres.
It’s entirely predictable that the dishonest Europhile obsessives, still smarting from not getting their way, are going to be building up the dishonest narrative that it is Brexit rather than the disastrous response to Covid and the war in Ukraine that are the cause of all our economic ills, with the intention that it will set Europhile Starmer up to tie Britain back into EU institutions, such as the Internal Market and Customs Union, with a view to taking us back to full membership.
No doubt Carney was asked to make this absurd statement. The man who pursued years of ultra-loose monetary policy that has left us with massive public and private sector debt piles and enormous asset price bubbles ripe to burst, has perhaps the greatest responsibility for the mess we are in now. He should be being eviscerated by economists, politicians and the MSM now for the recklessness and incompetence as Governor, not quoted as some economic sage.
Those who fought for Britain’s independence need to get back in to the fight. The Europhiles are being allowed to get away with their lies because there is little countering of their narrative, The big push by the Europhiles will be if/when Labour win the next GE. Those who wish to preserve our freedom need to be vociferously countering the Europhiles’ lies in the media now and getting themselves organised and prepared for the battle that will ensue if Starmer becomes PM.
Or rather, like may economists, his case may be ‘vindicated’ when things go wrong or things go right. You might argue that his case is so vague because it is intended to retrospectively justify anything.
Exactly. Economics is not a science.
Exactly. Economics is not a science.
Or rather, like may economists, his case may be ‘vindicated’ when things go wrong or things go right. You might argue that his case is so vague because it is intended to retrospectively justify anything.
What about the money the government just printed over Covid and the $5bn wealth transfer to the richest of society, more billionaires created than any other time. The crash in 2018 and the printing of money whilst crashing asset base and global companies buying up all the assets Pennie’s on the dollar. Whatabout every major listed company linked to Blackrock, WEF, Un, WHO all these NGOs, and ESG work programmes which are systematically all charging well above the inflationary rate for goods and services whilst systematically crashing stocks on well established global markets due to their societal impact through Pride pieces, not educating just pushing propaganda to divide people like they have done on race and religion forever. This “Firesale” of crashing markets, taking out property ownership, creating proxy wars with unlimited funds, creating crisis on migration so they print more money, and then creating high interest rates which benefit the very rich and decimate the middle classes! All this is coincidental even though it is highlighted as the blueprint by the WEF to move to One World Government, and all governments changing laws to enact the same policies at the same time, whilst abusing positions of power. There is no nuisance in these arguments, it’s all done at the global level and put in plan. Like the next cyber crash on banking! These globalists are so smart but it’s so easy to see when you stop looking at the micro details and focus on macro trends. Critical thinking has been lost and so easy to get people to focus and distract them with small issues, keep you in fighting while the big systematic changes are happening. I wish I had been born to the elites sometimes, because people do not unite and are so thick and believe because of piece of paper they got a university makes them intelligent. Majority of are thick and easily programmable! Fact!
What about the money the government just printed over Covid and the $5bn wealth transfer to the richest of society, more billionaires created than any other time. The crash in 2018 and the printing of money whilst crashing asset base and global companies buying up all the assets Pennie’s on the dollar. Whatabout every major listed company linked to Blackrock, WEF, Un, WHO all these NGOs, and ESG work programmes which are systematically all charging well above the inflationary rate for goods and services whilst systematically crashing stocks on well established global markets due to their societal impact through Pride pieces, not educating just pushing propaganda to divide people like they have done on race and religion forever. This “Firesale” of crashing markets, taking out property ownership, creating proxy wars with unlimited funds, creating crisis on migration so they print more money, and then creating high interest rates which benefit the very rich and decimate the middle classes! All this is coincidental even though it is highlighted as the blueprint by the WEF to move to One World Government, and all governments changing laws to enact the same policies at the same time, whilst abusing positions of power. There is no nuisance in these arguments, it’s all done at the global level and put in plan. Like the next cyber crash on banking! These globalists are so smart but it’s so easy to see when you stop looking at the micro details and focus on macro trends. Critical thinking has been lost and so easy to get people to focus and distract them with small issues, keep you in fighting while the big systematic changes are happening. I wish I had been born to the elites sometimes, because people do not unite and are so thick and believe because of piece of paper they got a university makes them intelligent. Majority of are thick and easily programmable! Fact!
Why stop there?
I’m rather surprised that no one seems to be calling into question the merits of operationally independent central banks. Right now it’s hard to see what the independence adds. It may be, of course, that politically set interest rates would have been zero and there would have been QE.
One could very reasonably argue after all that it is not Rishi Sunak’s job to somehow fix the mortgage market or, for that matter, bail out mortgage holders. I am quite sure that calls to subsidise mortages are on the way.
The more general problem though is giving the establishment new toys like 0% (or negative) interest rates or QE – the toys have a habit of never going back in the box.
Funny thing is that I remember in about 1990 my Auntie paid to get out of a fixed rate mortgage. Times change!
Why stop there?
I’m rather surprised that no one seems to be calling into question the merits of operationally independent central banks. Right now it’s hard to see what the independence adds. It may be, of course, that politically set interest rates would have been zero and there would have been QE.
One could very reasonably argue after all that it is not Rishi Sunak’s job to somehow fix the mortgage market or, for that matter, bail out mortgage holders. I am quite sure that calls to subsidise mortages are on the way.
The more general problem though is giving the establishment new toys like 0% (or negative) interest rates or QE – the toys have a habit of never going back in the box.
Funny thing is that I remember in about 1990 my Auntie paid to get out of a fixed rate mortgage. Times change!
I thought it was agreed that Mr Biden’s sanctions on Russia were a major cause of Western inflation.
Ukraine conflict is undoubtedly a major cause. the question is why is inflation in the UK more stubborn than elsewhere? The Bond markets signalled that when last inflation figures showed an underlying resistance to reducing peculiar to the UK. That’s what’s triggered things now.
So what is unique? Labour shortages a significant factor. Oh and of course Brexit – what a total shambles.
This country only has one really major economic problem – and it has little to do with Brexit.
What’s that HB? Certainly intrigued now.
What’s that HB? Certainly intrigued now.
This country only has one really major economic problem – and it has little to do with Brexit.
Ukraine conflict is undoubtedly a major cause. the question is why is inflation in the UK more stubborn than elsewhere? The Bond markets signalled that when last inflation figures showed an underlying resistance to reducing peculiar to the UK. That’s what’s triggered things now.
So what is unique? Labour shortages a significant factor. Oh and of course Brexit – what a total shambles.
I thought it was agreed that Mr Biden’s sanctions on Russia were a major cause of Western inflation.
Carney just saw the opportunity to pronounce that his predictions of Brexit doom and gloom were correct. I always expected him to do this.
Carney just saw the opportunity to pronounce that his predictions of Brexit doom and gloom were correct. I always expected him to do this.
It’s not one thing is it. QE had a role, albeit more a suppressant on Interest rates and mortgages thus doubling the shock impact now. But House prices aren’t currently driving the jump in inflation. Quite the reverse for the time being.
Energy crisis and supply chain adjustment post pandemic big factors. But irrefutable Brexit added an additional adverse dynamic to the UK. Weakened Pound clearly resulting from Brexit = higher import cost. Labour shortages clearly exacerbated by Brexit, albeit not the main driver for those but nonetheless hasn’t helped. Additional Brexit bureaucracy added costs too.
Carney overplays the blame, but at same time you’d have a heck of a job finding an economic benefit to Brexit and it just may be a part explanation for why we are doing worse on inflation than others. Uncomfortable for supporters, but they may argue Brexit wasn’t about economic benefits but more opaque contentions about sovereignty
It’s not one thing is it. QE had a role, albeit more a suppressant on Interest rates and mortgages thus doubling the shock impact now. But House prices aren’t currently driving the jump in inflation. Quite the reverse for the time being.
Energy crisis and supply chain adjustment post pandemic big factors. But irrefutable Brexit added an additional adverse dynamic to the UK. Weakened Pound clearly resulting from Brexit = higher import cost. Labour shortages clearly exacerbated by Brexit, albeit not the main driver for those but nonetheless hasn’t helped. Additional Brexit bureaucracy added costs too.
Carney overplays the blame, but at same time you’d have a heck of a job finding an economic benefit to Brexit and it just may be a part explanation for why we are doing worse on inflation than others. Uncomfortable for supporters, but they may argue Brexit wasn’t about economic benefits but more opaque contentions about sovereignty