You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Other than the tasty sandwich…
@stevextc What on earth are you talking about? Seriously, try not to just type the stream of consciousness that spills out of your head, and compose your thoughts on the page so that they are comprehensible to other people.
Honestly, I don't understand any of your analogy.
NickC
Have you or any of your family or friends ever been asked to make a contribution to pay off any part of the National Debt at any time?
Have you even been in a supermarket lately?
Other than the post someone did on page 1? with "where your tax goes" with the part for "interest on debt" I think it's either naive or disingenuous to suggest someone from government turns up with a collection bucket labelled specifically "contribution to national debt"
Have you even been in a supermarket lately?
The national debt is the total quantity of money borrowed (from itself in the form of future debt) by the Government at any time by the issue of securities by the Treasury.
As I pointed out in another thread but best summed up by “Only the little people pay taxes.”
Until we can use the money taken out of the system for the rest of us the rest of the system is just an increasingly small minor part of the “money” that is available to be used for anything else.
I don't disagree. This is the bit that's going very wrong in the economy. The little people shouldn't be the only people to pay taxes, the rich should too. In fact I'd argue that working people should pay next to no taxes on their incomes and instead the tax burden should be focused on wealth and consumption. That's got nothing to do with MMT though, it's simply a policy choice by politicians who are lobbied by the rich to protect their interests.
The rich are basically parasites feeding off the economy, sucking money out of it and preventing it from being spent on useful stuff. That can't go on forever because it's simply not sustainable and I think we're approaching the point where it's going to change.
@stevextc What on earth are you talking about? Seriously, try not to just type the stream of consciousness that spills out of your head, and compose your thoughts on the page so that they are comprehensible to other people.
Honestly, I don’t understand any of your analogy.
BLT is a sandwich... BTL is buy to let... other than that there is no analogy it is what Thatcher both professed** and did.
She just left out the part about being in the club.
If you prefer an analogy it's like your music teacher telling you all you need is the musical ability of the spice girls and you to can be a millionaire pop star and all those struggling musicians who can't even pay their rent are just crap musicians or not working hard enough.
Other than the post someone did on page 1? with “where your tax goes” with the part for “interest on debt” I think it’s either naive or disingenuous to suggest someone from government turns up with a collection bucket labelled specifically “contribution to national debt”
The lack of evidence for people being concerned about the national debt is telling.
It make me splutter how if clearing the national debt was so fundamentally positive to the economy - why do surpluses hardly ever happen?
And when they do they're often followed by recession actually.
Go where the evidence goes and stop listening to idiots at newspapers that have never done a bit of economic journalism in their lives.
If you prefer an analogy
I'd prefer it if you just typed more clearly to be honest.
Steve - thats not an analogy at all, on any level.
If you get a mortgage from a bank do you think they have a big pile of pound coins somewhere, or notes, and that your mortgage comes out of that pile? Tip. They don't . They have a big ledger of money they have, mooney they owe, and money owed to them. The only actual money they carry is enough to conduct day to day business, everything else is potential.
And there in lies the problem. If there is nothing underpinning money then it is just Monopoly money. It used to be tied to the gold standard so it could be backed up by something real but that ship has long since sailed and now it’s not backed u by anything tangible.
The system that underpins money is the Government/Central banks ability to pay whatever it needs to.
Why do you think you get an 85,000 guarantee on savings etc?
There isn't a load of money waiting to pay that but the promise to pay is as robust as it gets. Job done.
Tying it to gold is just ridiculous and not practical. As has been demonstrated.
Fractional reserve is also not really a thing these days.
Got to say I don't really understand macro economics fully - but I see people so rich they can have their own space programmes and others who are struggling to heat and feed their kids. Its just not right, there is more than enough for everyone to be comfortable if there was fairer distribution - and I'm not talking about screwing those who are doing slightly better than the 'poor'. I'm talking about the super rich. So I agree with the sentiment that money is being funnelled to the super rich
Having a multi billionaire for a PM probably doesn't help with a grasp on reality and wanting to change the status quo. In fact no-one in charge will ever want to change things as for most of them it will be like turkeys voting for christmas
The massive spending of WW2 resulted in a massive debt. What did nearly every country do? Yes, that's right went on a massive spending spree building infrastructure and housing and investing heavily in industry and jobs, and the West enjoyed almost twenty years of unrivalled prosperity. Having learned that lesson...
After the financial crash of 2008 Governments all over the world gave the banks millions, which they hoped banks would give to people in the private sector to rebuild the economy but in fact banks used it to....errr replace all the money that they lost and rebuild their finances,
So noting that plan didn't work after all; after the massive spending and recession caused by the results of Brexit and Covid, the Government learned the lessons of 2008 and didn't spend any money at all, in fact did the opposite, and the result is..?
So there's 3 massive spending and debt cycles that have happened in the period that governments of the West have been free from the need to "pay back" government debt. Only one of which has resulted in the outcome the governments actually wanted.
Also on the banker issue from the OP and folk trying to down play what he's saying - nonsense.
We are poorer because of the Bank of England's decisions, and the government. They are all protecting people with capital at the expense of workers.
Inflation is what happens when people try to shift the burden of increasing cost around. Currently people with income interest are being protected by central banks.
You want to pay more for stuff from the EU - fine you got it - a tariff was just stuck on by the government. That is inflationary.
These institutions are making it harder for you to live - rather than making it better for you. Get that one in your head and stop screaming about currency markets.
Given most central Banks have gone on an interesting raising exercise in unison what do you think the net effect of that is to currency?
Because it's certainly not a good thing for people with debt.
Such a complete but succinct post Nick. Need more like buttons...
Can I also jump in here add a tiny bit of exposition.
MMT happens when the government spends. Every time.
Quantitative easing happens when the government needs to justify spending lots of money and make it appear it's been borrowed. Q/E is a sham.
Let's be clear that Q/E is not MMT, and is often called printing money. So much balls on the internet about printing money.
The net money effect of Q/E is technically zero. (Though I don't doubt it causes ripples somewhere beyond the scope of my knowledge.)
The net effect of government spending is the money that enters the real economy and produces things or services.
Q/T was used as a balance sheet exercise in COVID.
Given most central Banks have gone on an interesting raising exercise in unison
I'm interested to why this is happening across the board, regardless of the political compass of those governments.
I’m interested to why this is happening across the board, regardless of the political compass of those governments
Because there's an absolute belief they can control inflation with interest rates despite evidence to the contrary.
It's madness.
As I demonstrated in that graph earlier employment is still good in the USA and inflation is ticking down. So why do they want to create unemployment?
Did the US also have debt after WW2? To whom did it owe money? Itself?
Yes, that’s right went on a massive spending spree building infrastructure and housing
Much of Europe didn't have a lot of choice.
Did the US also have debt after WW2? To whom did it owe money? Itself?
Yes but given everything was dollar orientated, and then they moved to the Bretton Woods system. There was still a pegging to gold at that point.
Which was a whole bag of trouble.
This why it's so tricky to use the dollar as comparison being the world's reserve currency and all the trade that flows through it.
Lol "interest" not interesting.
Too many typos.
More coffee needed.
dazh
I don’t disagree. This is the bit that’s going very wrong in the economy. The little people shouldn’t be the only people to pay taxes, the rich should too. In fact I’d argue that working people should pay next to no taxes on their incomes and instead the tax burden should be focused on wealth and consumption. That’s got nothing to do with MMT though, it’s simply a policy choice by politicians who are lobbied by the rich to protect their interests.
That's why I chose to separate it... maybe start an informative thread on MMT. I'm not "against" it - I just don't understand it or have a explanation anywhere between Level 1 (5yr old) or Level 5 (Post grad).
The rich are basically parasites feeding off the economy, sucking money out of it and preventing it from being spent on useful stuff. That can’t go on forever because it’s simply not sustainable and I think we’re approaching the point where it’s going to change.
This is something I can both see and understand though I don't have optimism for "change" because unless people realise it will just be an evolution of what we have benefits the rich to another way to benefit the rich.
Right now regardless of if debt is repaid etc. all I can see happening if we "print" more money is that money will overwhelmingly get siphoned off into the big rich people's pot not the pot that benefits the proletariat.
To take the 2Bn I mentioned earlier... borrowed from the government and REGARDLESS of if its paid back or not it's been used to (on balance overwhelmingly) negatively affect the local population, environment and a large part of it will doubtless have been funnelled offshore.
This isn't about MY council, it's about how that "free money" got used, who it benefited and who it negatively impacted including the many who lost their jobs and housing as a result.
Much of Europe didn’t have a lot of choice.
well, it could've chosen to step aside and let the private sector rebuild the economy, which is what the orthodoxy of todays Tories would suggest should've been the correct response. Then you could point out that the private sector didn't really exist any any real form, and most Western governments were stuffed with lots of folks who were all pretty good at "getting shit done" becasue for the previous 6 years or so their lives had literally depended on it.
Right now regardless of if debt is repaid etc. all I can see happening if we “print” more money is that money will overwhelmingly get siphoned off into the big rich people’s pot not the pot that benefits the proletariat.
We don't print money I tried to offer an explanation of that a couple of posts ago.
The government issues new money when it spends - money is used to buy products and services that we know as the state.
And then there is Q/E which is what people think of printing money but that money just buys bonds back for the BoE. and the purchaser gets their money back with interest.
No new money swilling around. Just a balance sheet entry.
wbo
Steve – thats not an analogy at all, on any level.
If you get a mortgage from a bank do you think they have a big pile of pound coins somewhere, or notes, and that your mortgage comes out of that pile? Tip. They don’t . They have a big ledger of money they have, mooney they owe, and money owed to them. The only actual money they carry is enough to conduct day to day business, everything else is potential.
Are you actually trying to imply I'm so thick as to think they have coins and notes or are you just being disingenuous?
WTF happens to that ledger? (hint there is a 200 page document linked earlier in the thread)
Only 3% of all money is coins and notes for reference.
Because there’s an absolute belief they can control inflation with interest rates despite evidence to the contrary.
Without wanting to be a tin-hatted conspiracist about it, I reckon the core driver behind the global effort to return to a pre-2008 economic landscape is that in the wake of 2008 and covid, the establishment elites have realised that their con-trick of pretending there is limited money in the world and that there is a limit on what governments can do is collapsing. If we don't quickly revert to what we had before 2008 then people will begin to demand the things they have been denied for the past 40 years and start voting accordingly. They're trying to rebuild the illusion that govt finances are like a households.
Yeah it's about making us 'pay' for it in all senses possible.
If we don’t quickly revert to what we had before 2008 then people will begin to demand the things they have been denied for the past 40 years and start voting accordingly.
I suspect demographics is a huge part of that.
This is a really interesting lecture about the origins of Q/E.
Honest.
the establishment elites have realised that their con-trick of pretending there is limited money in the world and that there is a limit on what governments can do is collapsing.
I think I would suggest that the predominately right wing governments that have been in charge since 2008 have had it shown to them in letters 20 feet tall that their belief in the twin policies of limited government size and reliance of the ability of the private sector has been demonstrated to be wrong. Rather than admit this, they seem to believe that we're just not doing it hard enough.
That’s why I chose to separate it… maybe start an informative thread on MMT.
[url= https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/mmt/ ]Like this one?[/url]
Rather than admit this, they seem to believe that we’re just not doing it hard enough.
Yeah. Maybe my imagination is getting carried away but the destructive race to return to a world of 5%-ish interest rates feels like the last desperate stand of a defunct socio-economic model. Much like Ernie I think we're on the cusp of significant change. What it will look like I don't know, and it may not be positive, but the status quo as it is today is looking more fragile with every new crisis, and the crisis to end all crises is gathering moementum rapidly in the form of climate change.
DT78
Got to say I don’t really understand macro economics fully – but I see people so rich they can have their own space programmes and others who are struggling to heat and feed their kids. Its just not right, there is more than enough for everyone to be comfortable if there was fairer distribution – and I’m not talking about screwing those who are doing slightly better than the ‘poor’. I’m talking about the super rich. So I agree with the sentiment that money is being funnelled to the super rich
I don't think anyone really understands economics as such, it is what it is but the non expert adult explanation is pretty easy to understand.
If we take Elon (as an example but could be Jeff or our dear Richard) they don't have an income like we do that they use to spend on things they want or need.
If Elon wants to take a trip to say London for example he tells some people to get "his" plane sorted and get somewhere for him to stay and do some logistics stuff.
He's obviously a busy bloke .. so no problem with him getting his minions to organise it.. the thing is HE personally doesn't pay for any** of it. (**he might get a sandwich ??) It's no "his plane" it s plane belongs to a shell company even if he has exclusive use... he didn't pay tax on money he bought it with .. in fact he offset corporation tax against it.. that's a bit of the bigger scale... (jets and stuff) but the same is true for the smaller stuff. He doesn't need an "income" as such to pay tax on because he doesn't need to spend his own money.
^^ that's a bit simplified but the Level 2 ^^ I'm sure Elion would argue he's using this money for the good of humanity and getting a population off earth as he states... and perhaps that a long term good thing or not... but short term people starve, don't have access to medicine etc.
The takeaway is when you have enough money the goods and services you consume are not for the most part in the system.
If you want to spend ??Bn on launching a rocket and it blowing up you can...
You don't need to be as rich as Elon though... (unless you really do want to be able to launch rockets)
Look on it as supersizing on owning a freehouse that serves food... your beer and food are taken care of and you "only use the car for work" etc.
@dazh Yes, there is a definite "end times" chaos mix of many folks' financial fragility, the climate, war and a sharp rise of anti-democratic regimes in countries that seem to have been steadily on the path of plurality that just feels overwhelming.
I wonder if rising interest rates could be seen politically as a combative move against our now competitor EU countries? Most people borrow money for cars, but if it's too expensive to buy new cars then we won't, we'll keep fixing our old ones. But those new cars are mostly made in the EU, and by robots, aren't they? So it would be a way of getting us to spend money on local UK businesses (mechanics) rather than EU ones?
I know it's a bit tin-foil hat, sorry.
Like this one?
Nope one that describes what it is.
Basically, something goes beyond the level of bronze age books being used as proof of a sky fairy.
I get lots of people have different takes but those takes at the moment seem to span as wide a gulf as "literal earth in 7 days" to "well, it's more of a spiritual thing and I don't believe its actually transubstantiation" or its like a monotheist trying to explain to an atheist why their god exists and is the only true god but those 1000's of other gods people have believed in and died for their beliefs in are all fakes.
Or ... and the bit I'm interested in perhaps is MMT is actually the equivalent of atheism and simply lack of beleif in the financial institutions and their churches and holy books?
dazh
Without wanting to be a tin-hatted conspiracist about it,
Well, it seems suggesting the rich just want to keep all the wealth is definitively tin-hat stuff.
I wonder if rising interest rates could be seen politically as a combative move against our now competitor EU countries?
Except interest rates are rising in the EU too, and in the US. It appears to be coordinated action from the 3 major western economic blocks. Who knows what plans and decisions have been made behind closed doors, but G7 finance ministers and leaders clearly don't talk about nothing when they get together at their summits with the great and good of industry and global finance. Geo-politics obviously plays a large part. It's interesting how the Russia-Ukraine situation has forced the west to reunify. No doubt a lot of the UK climbdowns on brexit are a result of that. Maybe the interest rate thing is too?
Or … and the bit I’m interested in perhaps is MMT is actually the equivalent of atheism and simply lack of beleif in the financial institutions and their churches and holy books?
I don't think that's really a valid comparison. You have a tendency Steve to reduce everything to the most basic concepts which is very often a good practice but you can reduce too far. Economics is a science, the study of how money affects people, whereas religion is more about the spiritual position you want to take. So let's not go there.
This is more like say, people in the early 20th century debating wether or not light is particles or waves. You can use both theories to describe some aspects of what's observed, and people were arguing that the other side was incorrect. As I understand it, MMT is just a different way to describe the consequences of what already goes on. It meets resistance because the theory suggests actions that some people don't want to take.
As I understand it, MMT is just a different way to describe the consequences of what already goes on. It meets resistance because the theory suggests actions that some people don’t want to take.
Can I go one bit further?
There isn't another accurate model - anyone (That I've read about) that goes in in to research it seems to come to the same conclusion.
Classic clip of Greenspan telling the truth.
Molgrips
I don’t think that’s really a valid comparison. You have a tendency Steve to reduce everything to the most basic concepts which is very often a good practice but you can reduce too far. Economics is a science, the study of how money affects people, whereas religion is more about the spiritual position you want to take. So let’s not go there.
This is more like say, people in the early 20th century debating wether or not light is particles or waves. You can use both theories to describe some aspects of what’s observed, and people were arguing that the other side was incorrect. As I understand it, MMT is just a different way to describe the consequences of what already goes on. It meets resistance because the theory suggests actions that some people don’t want to take.
If economics is actually a real science then the way to examine it and the theories is by reducing it to the component parts and challenging them.
The entire MMT debate/thread seems at the same level as "If evolution is real show me a fish giving birth to a horse" put by people who can't accept the theory because
the theory suggests actions that some people don’t want to take.
Many of the arguments seem to be in the same class as "prove the non existence of" rather than "show me how it works" which is not the realm of science.
If economics is actually a real science then the way to examine it and the theories is by reducing it to the component parts and challenging them.
But you're not challenging them. You're either repeating myths that have already been debunked, or making silly false analogies, and then combining those with a load of undecipherable philosophical stuff about whether money is real or not. Please actually address the issue, which is being honest about how money is created in today's modern economies, and how that can be put to use to benefit everyone rather than a few rich people.
If economics is actually a real science then the way to examine it and the theories is by reducing it to the component parts and challenging them
You're not doing that though are you? You just want to make puns about sandwiches.
@rone has been providing excellent links and descriptions about how MMT works in the most polite and constructive way on this on this thread in particular and on site generally since ages ago. The least you could is perhaps engage with what he's trying to show you?
The entire MMT debate/thread seems at the same level as “If evolution is real show me a fish giving birth to a horse” put by people who can’t accept the theory because
Dunno about that. I think I've gone to great pains to show hard-to-refute evidence of the government paying for stuff.
Just think of it as a description as per above.
"A diagrammatic representation of the end-of-day sweep of Exchequer
accounts is shown in Figure 1.4. Represented are the Consolidated Fund and
the National Loans Fund, as well as two of the accounts described previously
that are administered by the Government Banking Service. These are: the
Drawing Account of HM Paymaster General (PMG) which is involved in
settling expenditure into the banking system; and (one of) the HMRC General
Account(s) which receives incoming revenue. All of these accounts start each
day with a nil balance, as shown in step 1."
"There are a couple of aspects of this process that should be noted. First,
spending and revenue are both anchored to the Consolidated Fund but proceed
during each day via separate accounts at the Bank of England. These accounts
are only reconciled at the end of each day and the Consolidated Fund can there-
fore only ever have a positive balance – by virtue of receiving a transfer over
its initial zero starting position – at the end of each day. It follows that any and
all expenditure from the Consolidated Fund occurs when the Fund has a nil or
negative balance and there is never a situation wherein a deposit of tax revenue
furnishes a balance that is subsequently used for spending. In this sense, all
spending arises as new money advanced under credit and not ‘from taxation’."
Andrew Berkeley, Richard Tye, and Neil Wilson - 9781802208092
DEBT ISSUANCE
"It is often claimed that the government should reduce the quantity of out-
standing government debt, or that the government budget should be balanced,
or even in surplus, rather than in deficit. As explained, however, government
securities function as a form of money and the total magnitude of the govern-
ment’s outstanding liabilities in this respect represents the provision of a net
money supply to the private sector. Rather than being a burden that must be
reduced, it is an important component in the functioning of the current mon-
etary system and private sector net wealth. Moreover, the size of government
debt is not even subject to the sole discretion of government policy, but rather
is determined by demand in the form of private sector spending and saving
decisions. Decreasing the deficit in lieu of private sector net saving/importing
objectives can only be achieved at the expense of economic output, and there-
fore it is not possible for the government to target both deficit reduction and
maximise economic activity and participation at the same time."
you can have the state provide the things society *needs* or you can lap up the problems with your own income and/or private debt and watch state services collapse.
Or the private sector can provide services and goods and the government procures them through properly thought out contracts and enforces the penalties on the private providers if they don't deliver.
Want spare capacity in your electricity generation network, build that stipulation into the generators contracts / regulation, if you don't it shouldn't come as a surprise there's no spare capacity.
Anyway back to the OP, the BOE is right, we do need to accept we're getting poorer, nowt we can do about it, idiots voted for Tories and Brexit and this is what we get. For all of the passionate debate above about magic money tree theory our economic system isn't going to change in our lifetimes so might as well get upset about something we can influence. It's like road rage, you can't stop idiots cutting you up or driving like loons but you can choose not to get mad about it.
It was bit rich coming from the BOE though who've hiked interest rates for no meaningful impact.
Or the private sector can provide services and goods and the government procures them through properly thought out contracts and enforces the penalties on the private providers if they don’t deliver.
Yeah the private sector still needs government money to exist.
Anyway back to the OP, the BOE is right, we do need to accept we’re getting poorer, nowt we can do about it, idiots voted for Tories and Brexit and this is what we get.
And the BoE role in the process of making us poorer?
It was bit rich coming from the BOE though who’ve hiked interest rates for no meaningful impact.
That is the point.
For all of the passionate debate above about magic money tree theory our economic system isn’t going to change in our lifetimes so might as well get upset about something we can influence.
The economic system has undergone at least 3 major changes in my lifetime. The swwitch to moneterism and cheap credit in the late 70s/early 80s. The introduction of QE and zero interest rates in 2008, and the direct support of the economy by the govt during and after covid. It's daft to say nothing can change.
Many of the arguments seem to be in the same class as “prove the non existence of” rather than “show me how it works” which is not the realm of science.
I'm not sure you're really understanding what's being said to you.
Anyway, another government debt question - often on the news they talk about the government having a credit rating, and having to pay interest to service the debt. So surely that means it is borrowing money on a commercial basis from someone? If so, who?
As much as I know about them they're just largely irrelevant made up mechanism to judge a country's financial risk/outlook in the eyes of investors.
But don't forget these organisations will see government borrowing (i.e debt issuance/bonds) as a measure of a countries financial ability to function.
They will see rising government 'debt' as a problem without acknowledging it's real purpose.
In terms of real measures of anything - I'd say pretty useless, apart from allowing financial institutions to have boardroom speak.
They're opinions - quite frankly mired in conflict of interest with their own clients too.
Corporate bonds are likely to be viewed riskier than government securities too.
When a government (with central bank) issues its gilt UK / treasury USA for money from the private sector - an asset swap from non-interest bearing to interest bearing, it can always meets its obligation despite what a CRA believes.
The thing is, it's easy to get hung up on what actually works/what's "real". Because we have invested spectacular amounts of effort over the years into making it possible to sell things that don't exist, or for profitable businesses to be bought and discarded as if they're worthless or loss-making businesses to make people rich, to telling people that lives must be destroyed in the name of spreadsheets... Or that paying for something by giving someone a debt for 30 years and then writing it all off is somehow good while doing stuff for free is unaffordable, or that buying things with other people's money and then borrowing from the thing you just bought and using that to pay the people back,is wealth-creating, or that not paying your bills or your taxes is good business.
it's absolutely true that we can't just "do MMT" and have it work, because if nothing else all the current bollocks has tremendous momentum. But also because all of the tools that currently are used to keep the current system of failures and contradictions and made-up nonsense working, can equally be used to destroy anything that would work better- if you can make the illogical into a way of life then it's far easier to make the logical impossible. And the people who control those levers, every single one of them, got there by doing well in the current system. Just look at all the pushback to QE etc- we've got through the last 2 crises entirely by "printing money" on levels that would have been unbelievable not so long ago, and it worked, and as a result we're now completely committed to never doing it again and to making people poor for no reason.
Economics isn't a science and government fiscal policies aren't economics and politics certainly is neither science or economics. Trying to approach all of this on a fiscal logic basis is basically insane, because to do that, you have to ignore that on a fiscal logic basis our economies only continue to exist because we believe in them really hard.
Honestly it doesn't really <matter> if MMT works. What we've proven beyond doubt is that we can make an economy out of sunrises and misery and wishes. We can just switch to different wishes. But that's a hard sell, because a) the people who control the leavers make the wishes, b) most people believe in the myth and don't believe in the new myth.
So probably the best we can hope for, in teh meantime, is to lean on things in the right direction and normalise "quantitative easing" as part of the current package of nonsense and at least get some benefit out of it, until such a time as it all falls over.
Who knows what plans and decisions have been made behind closed doors
The dollar rules. We follow. Nothing more sinister than that.
I’m now liking posts from people who look like they are disagreeing fervently… when they’re just looking at the same thing from different angles (using different codification).
Economics isn’t a science
It is part of the social sciences. Apologies for repeating this, but I find it helpful to remember it.
That's mostly a matter of definition. Yes the study of economics is part of the social sciences. But that's not really what we're talking about when we talk about economics in this way. "Real world economics" is mostly a mix of a cult and a massive-scale con act. Or rather a couple of cults, and a whole lot of massive-scale con acts. Even the stuff that really works is mostly built on thin air.
Social scientists study cults etc.
Well we've really gone down the rabbit hole. Meanwhile inflation is still rampant and there is next to zero chance of getting to the point of deflation yet alone enough deflation to get to the point where pay rises take us back to income levels of 2 years ago. Ergo we all need to accept were getting poorer.
Now you lot get back to your hifluluting nonsense and theoretical arguments.
^^^
Yeah, but we've got a nice big hearty bowl of sovereignty to ward off the hunger.
greyspoke
Free MemberSocial scientists study cults etc.
Correct, but it's not studying economics when they do it, even if the cult declares itself to be the church of economics.
Interesting turn of events.
All that's being said here is when politicians say they can't afford things - and taxes fund spending - that's a lie or a total misunderstanding of the way things work.
It can be shown, it has been demonstrated - now are you going to lean on the establishment and start turning this ship?
Remember
https://twitter.com/swarming1905/status/1652039700842946568?t=xnSBIT7yR-krqqm4J0TRbw&s=19
This gave way to the acceptance of austerity in the minds of many.
Yeah, but we’ve got a nice big hearty bowl of sovereignty to ward off the hunger
Well it's a good job we are and were monetarily sovereign before and after Brexit, despite the loons at the driving seat.
This gave way to the acceptance of austerity in the minds of many.
If anyone is doubting Rone et al when they say spending (how much & where spent) & paying government debt is a political choice by whomever forms a government, I found this an interesting read
First, Labour borrows less than the Conservatives. The data shows that.
And second, Labour has always repaid debt more often than the Conservatives and has always repaid more debt, on average…
…Or, to put it another way, the Conservatives are the party of high UK borrowing and low debt repayment contrary to all popular belief.
That laughable comment about the social sciences sounds like it came from someone with a Richard in chemistry.
That laughable comment about the social sciences sounds like it came from someone with a Richard in chemistry.
Which one? All the comments I have seen, including my own, appear unremarkable.
There a nice and simple (very recent) retread of MMT by Kelton here to some younger podcasters.
Covers the brass tacks we've discussed.
Quite long and not cut up.
https://twitter.com/AnnelieseDodds/status/1653046122452008962?t=72UjgyD0iBCJdRJqNUf-MQ&s=19
You see how much of a lie this is?
I mean would Labour lean on the BoE to reduce interest rates? And remember which party gave them this ability?
Both parties avoiding criticism of the one institution that is making most of us poorer.
Neoliberal thought process is the gift that keeps on taking. But no one in politics seems to notice or care.
Also for those people that are suggesting that Pill was pointing out we're 'all' getting poorer - I guess he wasn't talking about those with bumper access to private jets, or those with a lovely chunk of cash or gold.
Just those who's wages have been suppressed for years.
Liam Byrne trying to be funny in 2010 has literally cost the Labour party more votes over the last 13 years than any other single action by an MP.
This "joke" was the same joke left for time immemorial by outgoing administrations. It wasn't Byrne's fault that it was reported as a serious economic assessment by our corrupt press.
This “joke” was the same joke left for time immemorial by outgoing administrations. It wasn’t Byrne’s fault that it was reported as a serious economic assessment by our corrupt press.
Knowing what we know about the press and the Tory party to accentuate the idea of no money - maybe it was better to not do the 'joke'. In that sense it was his fault.
That 'joke' has been done in various forms before for sure - that's not a good excuse. And it's not as much of a recurring theme as you might thing in terms of times it has happened in that context.
Knowing what we know about the press and the Tory party to accentuate the idea of no money – maybe it was better to not do the ‘joke’. In that sense it was his fault
Seems to me that this falls squarely under the heading of "blaming the victim". If we can't say anything for fear of the Mail telling lies about it, there won't be much said.
Seems to me that this falls squarely under the heading of “blaming the victim”. If we can’t say anything for fear of the Mail telling lies about it, there won’t be much said.
Best just not to do the joke in that climate I would say - it's hardly the most constructive of comments/joke/point.
But let's be clear I'm not blaming him for Tory policy specifically. That's not what this is about. It's more what it does in the minds of the voters.