Liz! Truss!

A country is not a 13yr old child. You’re welcome.

this one is at the moment....

Un-elected non-representative bodies with an unhealthy amount of influence on the top of the Labour Party and its policies?
Which of the various trades unions should we start with?

I'm elected - and yet it's Viscount Rothermere's paper that calls me a 'baron'.”
- Mick Lynch

this one is at the moment….

🤣

I’m elected – and yet it’s Viscount Rothermere’s paper that calls me a ‘baron’.

– Mick Lynch

THIS.

And the Daily Mail are part of this IEA/TPA/BrexitCentral/MigrationWatchUK/VoteLeave/LeaveMeansLeave shady project to reshape the UK. Where's the unaccountability?!?

A country is not a 13yr old child. You’re welcome.

this one is at the moment

That's harsh on thirteen year olds, very harsh

"they’re all the same” is the strongest weapon that the Tories will try and use to save their arses come an election

I have never heard the Tories try to use that as weapon to attack Labour.

Which Tory politician is likely to openly admit that there isn't much difference between Labour and themselves?

Individuals and institutions who loan the government money still expect to be paid back and paid back with interest.

But they're paid back in money that the government itself can create.

I have never heard the Tories try to use that as weapon to attack Labour.

Which Tory politician is likely to openly admit that there isn’t much difference between Labour and themselves?

I doubt that it's ever going to be spouted by a Tory politician but it's an online trope widely propagated to target right (wing) thinking people.

Which Tory politician is likely to openly admit that there isn’t much difference between Labour and themselves?

Tory MPs won't, and I didn't mention them. Modern campaigning is not just politicians declaring "here's our manifesto, please support it" (if it ever was). The campaign is fought by many groups, and deterring people who might vote against your party of choice from voting at all is a key part of that.

it’s an online trope widely propagated to target right (wing) thinking people

And targeted at people unsure what the hell is going on, and how to get things changed... (ie, all of us).

I doubt that it’s ever going to be spouted by a Tory politician but it’s an online trope widely propagated to target right (wing) thinking people.

This.

Whenever I hear/read anyone say this I know 100% that they're a right-wing voter.

They're trying to justify their actions, that's it, and easily called out - on Twitter they then either block or never respond.

And targeted at people unsure

Is probably more accurate than my suggestion of right thinking people. No need to spend money targeting people who have already made their minds up

dazh

Or more accurately the govt can always – and always does – create more money to pay off previous loans. That’s why we have inflation. The entire monetary system is based on the perpetual issuance of debt, because that’s all that money is. Honestly if everyone understood this very simple fact we wouldn’t have most of the arguments we have on here.

I totally agree... I think really what I'm trying to point out is in this case the government didn't seem to wish to indicate how they were going to pay off the debt or what the "claimed growth" was going to be.
Then leading to your points 2-6. (At each stage not even really acknowledging it was actual debt to those loaning the money)

OK so …
I’ve got a 13yr old… I want to borrow £5M from the bank. They ask “how are you going to pay that back” and I say “oh I expect my kid will get a well paying job or marry well, lets not worry about that”…

Aaargh! But that's exactly what happens, because the main difference in your incorrect analogy is that the govt can create its own money, where your 13 year old can't. It's impossible for a govt which issues its own currency to default on loans issued in that currency. The only way that could happen is if the govt stopped creating new money, and in that scenario the last thing anyone would be worrying about is banks getting their bonds paid back because the entire economy would collapse.

But ultimately all of that was due to the unfunded borrowing AND how it was presented right down to the lack of OBS report…

Define 'unfunded'. The main problem here was not that the govt was never going to be able to pay back its debts (see above - it's impossible), the problem was what they were going to spend the money on, which was throwing it away on unnecessary tax cuts in the vague hope of generating new growth. Had they decided to spend the money on public services and infrastructure (ie investment) then there would have been no problem. The government can spend what the hell it likes as long as the resources exist to do whatever the money is spent on. We really have to break out of this nonsense 'govt as a household' model because it's impoverishing millions and enriching a tiny few.

Yeah, Liam Byrne’s sense of humour has a lot to answer for.

It's all totally idiotic and conflicted.

Until we all have an honest conversation about how things are actually funded then keep expecting to go around in circles pretending we can't afford the things we want to do. (I'm not supporting tax cuts just for Binners and co.)

And all what Daz says and the daft Q/T that the BoE were about to make.

We can't control inflation the way the BoE are going at it.

So nothing currently working in our favour, as ever the establishment pushing in exactly the opposite direction to what is needed.

FFS spend the money on something big and useful - many options) tax the rich into orbit and start again. If you must play silly games with the City do Q/E exactly like covid. No one cared.

You see, people jump on the MMTers all the time but they hold the understanding to how government finance works. Leverage their knowledge and we might have a chance.

Andy Verity - the only mainstream journalist I know of that totally gets it.

https://twitter.com/andyverity/status/1581376826089218049?t=d8UXaSjHcWX9IrruVs4NqQ&s=19

(Also don't forget a lot of the noise was on secondary bond markets - well the government/BoE has the keys to the primary market. It can slap down on all of this and is not an unusual mechanism to do so.)

How about none? It is a requirement of being a trades union leader at any level that one is elected to the post.

Elected by whom exactly?
Can you vote for the leader of the RMT? I can't.
Can you join the Aslef or the CWU? I can't.
Can I join the GMB or Unite without handing over a membership fee? Nope.
Can I choose if some of that fee is paid to support the Labour Party? (I don't think so but I'm happy to be told otherwise)

Yes they're elected by their members whose interests they're supposed to represent but so was Liz. There's quite a few people who who don't think that was very democratic.

It's not even as though the staff and contributors at think tanks just turn up on the doorstep and declare themselves as such either. They're chosen by the people whose interests are to be represented by that think tank. Yes its a smaller pool, yes they're unlikely to be representative of the populace at large but despising their influence whilst lauding that of unions is really just about your own political bias. Same as the mail moaning about the unions then exalting the ERG.

Either outside influence is OK or it's not. At the moment both sides seemingly are of the opinion it's ok if they agree with it and not if they don't.

It’s impossible for a govt which issues its own currency to default on loans issued in that currency. The only way that could happen is if the govt stopped creating new money, and in that scenario the last thing anyone would be worrying about is banks getting their bonds paid back because the entire economy would collapse.

Admittedly I know absolutely nothing about economics, but all these countless assertions about limitless money don’t pass the ‘sniff test’ for me.

How about none? It is a requirement of being a trades union leader at any level that one is elected to the post.

Who funds and selects the Tufton Street gangsters?

you may be elected, but you're selected by people paying your salary. There's more people clubbing together to pay your salary, but that's not hugely different to any private enterprise (like tufton street) where the people footing the bill choose which people are employed in a given role.

As a non-union member (I'm not sure any unions cover mid-level IT managers, nor cover the unemployed), I don't have a say. That's not democracy.

ETA. same point as dangeourbrain up there..

Yes its a smaller pool, yes they’re unlikely to be representative of the populace at large but despising their influence whilst lauding that of unions is really just about your own political bias. Same as the mail moaning about the unions then exalting the ERG.

If thinking that 40 million workers should have (at least!) equal weight and political representation as 5,000 millionaire stockbrokers is 'my political bias' then I'm happy to be biased.

but that’s not hugely different to any private enterprise (like tufton street) where the people footing the bill choose which people are employed in a given role

Who's footing the bill? Who funds them? Who do they represent? Whose interest are they working in?

Four huge differences for you.

Admittedly I know absolutely nothing about economics, but all these countless assertions about limitless money don’t pass the ‘sniff test’ for me.

Maybe go and do some reading then? The thing that most people can't get their head around (perpetrated by MPs and media) is that a country's money and borrowing is nothing like an individuals money and borrowing.

There isn't limitless money but there also are not the same type of limits an individual would have.

Admittedly I know absolutely nothing about economics, but all these countless assertions about limitless money don’t pass the ‘sniff test’ for me.

No one is talking about limitless money. But the limit on how much money a govt can spend is not what is commonly described by politicians and the media. The limit is dependent on how much work an economy can do and what it can create with the raw physical materials which are available, not on how much tax it can raise or money it can 'borrow' or create. You don't have to be knowledgeable about economics to understand this, all you have to do is accept that money is not a finite thing and that the govt can create as much as it wants. Stop worrying about how much money exists and start worrying about where it goes (ie not to us!).

Admittedly I know absolutely nothing about economics, but all these countless assertions about limitless money don’t pass the ‘sniff test’ for me.

There can be limitless money (if you want to be hyperbolic), but the value of that money is limited depending on real economic activity, which is why the benefits of being able to create as much money as you like are sometimes overblown. Yes it is true, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't matter how much you use it (and all governments do use it) or what you use it on. Both matter greatly. As Truss and her man found out fast.

a country’s money and borrowing is nothing like an individuals money and borrowing

This.

[url] https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/brief-guides-and-explainers/public-finances/ [/url]

brief primer from somebody that should know.

I guess the difference between running a budget deficit and holding a lot of debt are the key pieces here..

there's also another piece on what printing money does, as I think it's been suggested we could just print money to pay off all the national debt.

[url] https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/634/economics/the-problem-with-printing-money/ [/url] is possibly another starting point

there’s also another piece on what printing money does, as I think it’s been suggested we could just print money to pay off all the national debt.

FFS no one has suggested paying off the national debt with printed money. If that's really what you think MMT or whatever you want to call it is about you really need to inform yourself better. Paying off the national debt would cause economic collapse, because it effectively means you'd have no more money in circulation. That's because the national debt represents all the money that the central bank has created and which has been spent by the govt. Please go and do some reading and try to understand this.

No one is talking about limitless money. But the limit on how much money a govt can spend is not what is commonly described by politicians and the media. The limit is dependent on how much work an economy can do and what it can create with the raw physical materials which are available, not on how much tax it can raise or money it can ‘borrow’ or create. You don’t have to be knowledgeable about economics to understand this, all you have to do is accept that money is not a finite thing and that the govt can create as much as it wants. Stop worrying about how much money exists and start worrying about where it goes (ie not to us!).

This makes sense to me, as does most of that linked by eep (thanks). Maybe it’s a language thing, that is leading me to misunderstand what people are saying at times. I’m not worried about how much money exists (did I suggest that?), but where it goes is of huge concern. A redistribution of wealth is well overdue.

A redistribution of wealth is well overdue.

Whatever Trussonomics is, it is definitely the opposite of this sentiment. She's told us often enough.

Has she resigned yet?

Thanks for clarifying its not been suggested

Any links on how paying off debt removes money?

My understanding is roughly half of the national debt is in gilts. Which can be purchased without the effect of removing money from circulation

Any links on how paying off debt removes money?

What do you mean by 'removes' money? Governments remove money from circulation by taxing people and businesses, not by paying off debts/gilts. When the govt pays back a gilt all it means is that it's repaid the gilt holder the capital they borrowed in the first place.

As a non-union member (I’m not sure any unions cover mid-level IT managers, nor cover the unemployed), I don’t have a say. That’s not democracy.

Unions can cover all levels of society, even the unemployed (as a previous T&G member it was possible to pay a small sub and stay represented 20 years ago). At a guess whatever the TSSC has become(a section of TGWU as was) would suffice. Don't whinge because you chose not to be represented and have a say. (That is the primary aim of the Tufton St gangsters). Go get a form and sign on.

I note the comments above cover the smaller more 'niche' unions and not Unite who represent millions. Not a couple of hundred thousand old gits mainly from the South of the Kingdom. EDIT Though the RMT has a similar membership to the number that voted for the new PM.

Whatever Trussonomics is, it is definitely the opposite of this sentiment. She’s told us often enough.

Nah she is in favour of a redistribution of wealth. Just the opposite way from how its normally used.

Whatever Trussonomics is, it is definitely the opposite of this sentiment.

well it is. just from the many to the few...

Point well made both of you. And her big mistake was not hiding it. Great for winning the race to be Conservative Party leader... but not for winning support from the many.

Paying off the national debt would cause economic collapse, because it effectively means you’d have no more money in circulation. That’s because the national debt represents all the money that the central bank has created and which has been spent by the govt. Please go and do some reading and try to understand this.

this is nonsense. Several countries have almost no national debt, and their economies still have money in circulation.

This kind of statement is why people (rightly) consider MMT not to represent reality

Who’s footing the bill? Who funds them? Who do they represent? Whose interest are they working in?

in both cases (unions vs "think tanks") - I don't fund them, they don't represent me, and they don't work in my interest. So from my perspective they are equally opaque

All is the wrong word, or word i shouldn’t have used.

Paying it all off isn’t achievable but paying it down is but has consiquences.

sorry for adding to confusion

So from my perspective they are equally opaque

Nonsense. You know who funds a union, who they represent, who they are charged with working in the interests of. You can question whether that aligns with your own interests, or if they're doing what they are tasked with in a way you agree with, but it's transparent.

As for all the organisations operating from Tufton St and elsewhere, you don't even know which country their backers are from. Totally Opaque.

As a member you can even vote on a unions leaders and polcies, actions etc

The Tufton St lot are completely opaque & decidedly dishonest

their latest venture is the anti-decolonise the National Trust nonsense, they denied strenuously that they were anything to do with Tufton St then went silent when their director turned out to be also a director at sevreal other 'charities based... guess where!)

from Austerity, to Brexit, to this latest farce of a budget the Tories have been dancing to their tune for years, ridiculous that the BBC's been platforming them for years without explaining who they are and what they represent

That’s because the national debt represents all the money that the central bank has created and which has been spent by the govt.

Are you sure about this bit? By which definition of "money does this work?

gauss1777

Admittedly I know absolutely nothing about economics, but all these countless assertions about limitless money don’t pass the ‘sniff test’ for me.

Basically what people are saying is if someone loans the government money in pounds the government just prints more money to pay it back... which creates inflation but they are paying it back.

However this assumes the lender has confidence that the value of that money will be the same or better...
So if for example an American 'loaned' the UK government a pound a year ago it would cost them $1.4 if they got paid back (or tried to sell that loan to someone else) on £1 Sept 26 2022 they'd get back $1 (fairly small rounding errors ignored)

So yes the government can say "yep your £1 was repaid"... because they are paying back in £ sterling but the investor is unlikely to feel that way and want to loan more money to them as they have lost confidence they will get back something equivalent or better for them that has the same buying power.

In reality they are obviously taking a punt based on a confidence that they will get back what they put in so they'd like to see how the government has done the maths on how £1 today will be worth >£1 in the future.

Kelvin

Point well made both of you. And her big mistake was not hiding it. Great for winning the race to be Conservative Party leader… but not for winning support from the many.

It wasn't a mistake unless she actually wanted support from the many ... not hiding it, indeed amplifying it by the 45% rise and bankers bonus's sent a very clear message to the markets. If she wanted to shatter market confidence in the pound it was absolutely not a mistake but planned along with "oh no OBR report", ooops forgot to discuss with the cabinet - and ooops didn't run past the BoE etc..

this is nonsense. Several countries have almost no national debt, and their economies still have money in circulation.

I'll let Richard Murphy explain. Which countries don't have any debt BTW? Do they issue their own currencies or use someone elses? Do they have a fiat currency or is it pegged to something else like the dollar? Of course I'm talking about countries like the UK which use their own currency and allow the value of that currency to be priced by the markets.

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2021/03/02/the-national-debt-paranoia/

"So, as a matter of fact a government like that of the UK that has its own currency and central bank has to run a deficit. It’s the only way it can keep the money supply going. Which is why almost all governments do run deficits in the modern era.

The answer is that it is not. This debt is just money that the government has created that it has decided not to tax back because it is still of use in the economy. That is all that the national debt is."

. Maybe it’s a language thing, that is leading me to misunderstand what people are saying at times.

Not just you, so don't let them wind you up. A couple of people on here have spent the last year or so making it sound like a sovereign nation/central bank can keep "producing" money, without adding the rider about needing to back it up economically.

Paying it all off isn’t achievable but paying it down is but has consiquences.

It does have consequences. If you plot a graph of the UK national debt vs GDP growth you'll see that periods where the govt runs a surplus or lower deficits (ie the debt is being paid down) correspond to periods where we have a recession. By running a surplus and paying the debt down, the govt is effectively removing money from the economy which causes a economic growth to contract and sometimes go negative. The opposite is also true, when the govt runs a big deficit (ie the debt is growing) we get more economic growth. If the government runs a deficit which is too big and there is not enough productive capacity in the economy to spend that money, then prices increase and we get inflation. It's really not difficult to understand.

Nonsense. You know who funds a union, who they represent, who they are charged with working in the interests of...

...As for all the organisations operating from Tufton St and elsewhere, you don’t even know which country their backers are from. Totally Opaque.

Is entirely true but,

(At the very significant risk of derailing further) does it actually matter? And I don't mean morally and ethically (and I think we likely will be in agreement on that), I mean practically.

You can question whether that aligns with your own interests, or if they’re doing what they are tasked with in a way you agree with, but it’s transparent.

It's not as if I'm forced to join the tuffty club, to vote for a party espousing their crap or fund them, I'll pretty sure those who do those things by choice probably find them rather more transparent than you, me or the charities commission.

I can't stop them chucking huge parties for Liz and kwazi in order to convince them to launch some batshit mental mini budget, but I can't stop the unions lobbying for fair wages for their members either.

Do I think one of those outcomes is better than the other, absolutely.

However it moves away from the basic principle of one person one vote and equal representation for all, it moves power towards those willing or able to pay for it, whether its six point some million union members at £15 a month or six bankers at £16 million a month. Its the sale of influence and democracy.

Do I think that more money buys more influence is inherently worse than any money buys any influence, no. Do I think its realistic to expect it to stop, alas, also no.

"Liz Truss has abandoned a key election pledge to raise state pensions in line with surging inflation, as she asks ministers to look for spending" cuts. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63303880

i wonder how thats going down at conservative clubs aroud the nation.

Are these the spending cuts that ‘absolutely… ABSOLUTELY!’ weren’t going to happen?

Like most Truss policies, yet another one that doesn’t make it to the end of the week.

Do you think she may be getting a reminder of what she said over the despatch box only 7 days ago at PMQ’s?

If she turns up?

Maybe she’ll let Jeremy take PMQ’s while she sits next to him, mute and blinking

The BBC north west news have just said present polling shows that if there were an election tomorrow there wouldn’t be a single Tory MP returned in the whole north west of England