The rich text element allows you to create and format headings, paragraphs, blockquotes, images, and video all in one place instead of having to add and format them individually. Just double-click and easily create content.
A rich text element can be used with static or dynamic content. For static content, just drop it into any page and begin editing. For dynamic content, add a rich text field to any collection and then connect a rich text element to that field in the settings panel. Voila!
Headings, paragraphs, blockquotes, figures, images, and figure captions can all be styled after a class is added to the rich text element using the "When inside of" nested selector system.
Central banks around the world have already reduced interest rates to zero or below to reduce borrowing costs and discourage saving. Some central banks have moved towards negative interest rates – charging certain depositors for keeping their cash in the bank. While some argue for going further, others worry that negative interest rates could reduce the stability of the system.
Central banks have also restarted and expanded post-crash programmes of quantitative easing (QE) – colloquially known as printing money, but in practice taking the form of asset purchasing programmes.
These programmes attempt to place a floor beneath falling asset prices to prevent insolvencies and a destabilising cycle of debt deflation. One criticism of QE programmes has been that they exacerbate social inequality and disproportionately benefit high-carbon firms. Alternative green QE versions have been proposed but not adopted.
Gabriel Chodorow-Reich, in a paper for the Brookings Institute, weighs up the long-term costs and benefits associated with lower interest rates and quantitative easing. He finds that in the US, wider system stability has not been affected, even though low interest rates since the crash encouraged banks to take riskier bets.
The Institute for New Economic Thinking concludes that QE programmes in the USA after the financial crash increased inequality. They suggest this is largely because it exacerbated deep-seated structural problems in the economy, such as decreasing job prospects and wage stagnation.
The New Economics Foundation and academics from UWE, SOAS and the University of Greenwich find that post-pandemic QE disproportionately benefits high-carbon companies. In response they propose new low carbon versions of QE to correct this.
Even before Covid-19 there were calls for governments to write off some or all of mounting personal debt, on grounds of social justice and the impacts of debt on the poorest in society.
Some governments have now taken measures to guarantee existing or new corporate and/or personal borrowing to prevent defaults. There are two main drawbacks: firstly, the guaranteeing of loans transfers risk from private banks to the state without imposing costs on the former. Secondly, it can create moral hazard by failing to differentiate between more and less creditworthy borrowers. Guaranteeing borrowing may be a less effective measure than other approaches, such as converting corporate loans to equity.
The flip side of reducing debt is to increase incomes. Many governments have already introduced such measures temporarily – for example, the UK’s coronavirus furlough scheme. More broadly, campaigns and proposals for a universal basic income or similar argue for a permanent floor on incomes. One key issue with income support is that unless high outgoings are reduced, much of it will accrue in practice to banks, landlords and other rentiers.
Economist Johnna Montgomerie proposes a cancellation of a significant portion of the UK’s household debt in a blog for Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute, starting with those most harmful to poorer people.
The End the Debt Trap coalition - which includes the New Economics Foundation, Toynbee Hall, Jubilee Debt Campaign and others - call for the cost of credit, including on credit cards or overdrafts, to be capped. The government has already done something similar by capping payday loan rates.
At the start of the coronavirus outbreak Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, writing for Economics for Inclusive Prosperity, set out the rationale for government becoming a payer-of-last-resort by guaranteeing incomes.
Analysis from the IPPR suggests that the government's emergency responses to the Covid-19 pandemic will exacerbate inequalities by insulating creditors and asset-owners from the worst effects of the pandemic while driving many of the most financially vulnerable deeper into debt.
