Once again, Nigel Green of deVere Group has emerged from his echo chamber to demand another interest rate cut—this time for December. It is his fourth such statement in five months, each one pivoting to suit the latest statistical breeze. In July, he claimed the Bank of England should cut rates “despite rising inflation.” In August, he chided the Bank for cutting too early when prices surprised on the upside. Then in October, he wanted more cuts still. Now, in November, he declares that “inflation is yesterday’s fight” and that the real danger lies in waiting too long. In the real world, where economic reality is not subject to press release management, this is not bold leadership—it is economic illiteracy.

The Interest Rate is Not a Policy Tool

Let us repeat what should by now be carved above every Treasury door: the purpose of interest rates is not to manage demand, rescue households from their mortgages, or fine-tune corporate sentiment. The interest rate is a price, and a critical one—the price of present goods in terms of future goods. It reflects the time preferences of savers and borrowers, mediating the flow of capital between them. In the Austrian view, the only “right” interest rate is the one set by the voluntary interaction of savers and borrowers in a free market. Any attempt to set it by decree—whether upward or downward—introduces distortions that reverberate throughout the economy. This is not theory. It is observed fact.

And yet, Green demands another artificial lowering of the cost of credit because he sees “three months of 3.8% inflation” and “cooling wage growth.” He says this should “focus minds on a December move.” Why? Because, like every other Keynesian interventionist, he thinks economic activity can be summoned by adjusting a dial on the wall.

The Myth of “Supportive” Monetary Policy

According to Green, holding rates at 4% risks a “deeper slowdown,” while a 25 basis-point cut would “stabilise sentiment” and “align monetary and fiscal policy.” This is nonsense. If demand is softening, if consumers are saving more, and if businesses are hesitant to invest, that is not a cue to inject more credit. It is a reflection of real economic conditions: exhausted savings, overbuilt sectors, misallocated capital, and faltering productivity. Trying to stimulate these sectors by cutting rates is like revving a stalled car without fixing the engine. It may make noise, but it will not move the vehicle.

What it will do is further suppress the real returns to saving, encourage speculative investments, and prolong structural imbalances. The problems facing the UK economy—stagnant productivity, bloated government, weak investment—cannot be cured with rate cuts. They are the result of decades of misallocated capital, sustained by easy money. To prescribe more of the same is to invite a deeper collapse.

Inflation: Not “Yesterday’s Fight”

Green’s most revealing line is that “inflation is yesterday’s fight.” This is not just wrong—it is dangerous. The inflation we are seeing now is the aftershock of the largest monetary expansion in British history. Between 2020 and 2023, the money supply exploded to prop up lockdown policies, inflate asset prices, and finance an ever-growing welfare state. Prices may have stabilised at a higher level, but the fundamental cause has not been addressed. The pound is still debased. Government borrowing remains high. And real interest rates remain negative—below both actual and expected inflation.

To call this a “victory” over inflation is like declaring a forest fire under control because it is now only burning two counties instead of ten. The fire is still active. And cutting rates into it is like tossing in petrol.

The Austrian Diagnosis: You Can’t Print Your Way to Prosperity

What Mr Green consistently refuses to understand is that money creation does not create wealth. It redistributes it. Every time the Bank cuts rates below their market level, it rewards borrowers at the expense of savers. It transfers purchasing power from the cautious to the reckless, from the productive economy to the financial sector. Worse still, it destroys the signalling function of the interest rate. Entrepreneurs cannot tell whether demand is real or credit-fuelled. Businesses overexpand. Asset prices rise. Speculative investments crowd out real ones. And eventually, the boom collapses under the weight of its own illusions. This is the Austrian business cycle in action. It is not a guess. It is the only model that consistently explains what has happened in every inflationary cycle since 1914.

Rate Cuts as Central Planning

Green wants us to believe that a quarter-point cut will restore “confidence” and “stability.” But confidence does not come from arbitrary interventions. It comes from credible, rule-based institutions that do not change direction with every new statistic. The fact that he describes rate cuts as “symbolic” is telling. He is not looking for economic stability. He is looking for reassurance. This is how central banks have become the therapists of capitalism—offering soothing gestures to markets addicted to cheap money. But real capitalism does not need therapy. It needs clarity. It needs interest rates that reflect real conditions. And it needs the end of central planners pretending to manage the economy through monetary superstition.

Global Conformity is Not a Virtue

Green also warns that the Bank of England may fall “out of sync” with other central banks. This is the economic version of schoolyard peer pressure. If the ECB is cutting, we must cut. If the Fed hints at easing, we must follow. But synchronised madness is still madness. The idea that we must debase our currency to match others is a race to the bottom. It is not leadership. It is herd behaviour.

If Britain is serious about restoring long-term prosperity, it should lead in the other direction: toward sound money, low inflation, and capital accumulation. It should stop manipulating interest rates and let the market set them. That is the only path to genuine economic resilience.

Monetary Amnesia

Nigel Green’s economic commentary is not simply mistaken. It is a danger to what remains of Britain’s economic health. His worldview rests on the fantasy that central banks can “stimulate” the economy without consequence—that they can print, cut, pivot, and tinker until confidence returns. But the Austrian school has shown, again and again, that this kind of intervention only delays the reckoning. The longer the market is distorted, the more violent the correction.

The Bank of England should ignore the chatter. It should not cut rates in December. It should not cut them at all. It should hold firm until the currency is stable, government borrowing is restrained, and the real economy—not the financial sector—begins to grow.

The alternative is clear: more bubbles, more busts, and more press releases from Nigel Green blaming the Bank for problems he helped to cause.