Forum menu
John McDonnell can post as many tweets as he likes with what should be done, without the ability to implement anything, or even provide any cost benefit analysis of this it’s a bit like anyone just throwing up a tweet saying ‘tax us less and give us more free money’, and has about the same level of chance of happening.
At least he has ideas. That's where it all starts. Tinkering at the seams is a band-aid.
What is this cost / benefit analysis you talk about? Sounding like a neolib think tank there.
Or presumably you think labour’s job is to never propose anything which isn’t acceptable to tory politicians and their supporters?
What on earth does that mean? I think your problem here is that Labour proposed a short term government intervention that the public could plainly see should and could be implemented at this time, by any party of any colour. Johnson's cabinet spent months claiming it couldn't or shouldn't be done. How do they look now? Don't confuse this one u-uturn with "job done" for Labour. Do welcome that the government have been shifted in way that will make a difference to millions of lives this year. Now... next... uprating benefits please...
Johnson’s cabinet spent months claiming it couldn’t or shouldn’t be done.
They were always odds on to do it or something similar.
The only question was timing.
I think your problem here is that Labour proposed a short term government intervention
My problem is that labour have dug themselves into a massive hole by allowing the tories claim the high ground on the single biggest issue people are worried about in advance of the next election, and have also allowed Johnson to partially repair his damaged reputation. The tories now have all the political ammunition they need going into the election campaign. You can write the slogans now: 'We got the cost of living crisis done'. The political naivety and incompetence is shocking.
The ammunition is... why don't the Tories just get out of the way and let Labour get on with the job that they clearly don't want to do themselves. That they've reluctantly done one thing that Labour pushed them to do... after saying for months that it was against their political instincts... just tells the voters that their political instincts are not to act for the good of people, and they might as well move on and let others take over.
why don’t the Tories just get out of the way and let Labour get on with the job that they clearly don’t want to do themselves. That they’ve reluctantly done one thing that Labour pushed them to do… after saying for months that it was against their political instincts
Not quite as catchy as 'we got the cost of living crisis done' is it? Especially when the following line will be 'while labour sniped from the sidelines'.
How about "we dragged the Tory's kicking and screaming into getting the cost of living crisis done, why don't we cut out the middle man"
Either way the are both singing from the same hymn sheet. Labour aren't aiming high enough - that would be a better strategy. And the Tories are doing it through the skin of their teeth.
Same end result.
But not enough. Nowhere near.
It's taken Labour months to get the Tories to do this little.
It’s taken Labour months to get the Tories to do this little. ?
Because against an 80 seat majority it’s really easy to force the government into U-turns
Let’s face it, they’ve only reverse ferreted on this to divert from Partygate.
Having said that, I don’t really understand why there is any whinging about it? It’s a good thing that the windfall tax is happening, no? Of course there should be more but that doesn’t disqualify this as being a good idea.
Unless of course you’re not really bothered about helping people and this can be used for just more political football
My problem is that labour
Is led by Starmer. If some-one else was in charge and they'd forced a massive U-turn on the govt. timed to hide their embarrassment over their leader's behaviour you'd be happy as a lop.
At least be honest with yourself.
Let’s face it, they’ve only reverse ferreted on this to divert from Partygate.
All we can hope is that it didn't work and partygate is back in the news again next week. Although main news channels will get bored of it soon. Looks like they have got bored of Ukraine with only Channel 4 news really covering anything about it now.
Having said that, I don’t really understand why there is any whinging about it? It’s a good thing that the windfall tax is happening, no?
Are you new here?
Starmer will never ever be forgiven for the cardinal sin of not being Jeremy Corbyn.
Otters nose?
'escaped' 🙄
https://twitter.com/johnestevens/status/1530216809122635776?t=jHuJPPHwNsSkMb3yx5aJ3w&s=19
Starmer will never ever be forgiven for the cardinal sin of not being Jeremy Corbyn.
And yet Starmer tried so hard to convince people that he was another Jeremy Corbyn.
In fact his website still makes the claim :
https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/
kimbers
Full Member‘escaped’ 🙄
Yup. Having spent weeks pretending there was some equivalence between Starmer and Johnston (and the entire bloody government) now they're setting up for the case inevitably being dismissed, it'll all be "got away with it" not "didn't break the rules" and endless references to Cummings "police let them both off for the same thing"
Starmer will never ever be forgiven for the cardinal sin of not being Jeremy Corbyn
Actually on its own terms the cardinal sin that he was going to be so much better than Corbyn.
But deflect as much as you want.
It appears labour’s lack of ambition to help working people wasn’t cowardice, it was entirely deliberate. They can go f*** themselves.
https://twitter.com/ciaranmcgurdy/status/1530257006891769866?s=21&t=DzR3-BPvtjHhlf1VYnfskA
It's truly diabolical that Keir and Rachel haven't done way more, i mean just because they aren't in power, or have the ability to fund things isn't an excuse, they should be doing way more than the sitting government, i mean not doing more just because you aren't the government, that's just a complete lack of ambition!
Well Starmer's inability to do his job properly will have consequences come the general election, so you are right to feel disappointed argee.
It appears labour’s lack of ambition to help working people wasn’t cowardice, it was entirely deliberate. They can go f*** themselves.
This is just flat out praying to the mythic right wing god of household budgeting for government finances.
It's technically incorrect that they would do the maths this way as we know.
But who are they kidding? If Sunak can just do what's right (albeit through the skin of his teeth) but Labour are still aligned to the insanity of 'costing' spending then they are now isolated ideologically as being wedded to an actual destructive response to the very people they should help - whilst the Tories just offer it up.
Looks like the only thing Labour ideologically have to guide them is a ****ing calculator.
No doubt someone be along in a minute to explain why this an amazing strategy and Beer Starmer is using reverse psychology for poor people. And they should be grateful for getting the government to give them £400-650 towards their £1500 uptick in energy bills.
It really isn't hard when you're in opposition to literally point any of this out.
It’s truly diabolical that Keir and Rachel haven’t done way more, i mean just because they aren’t in power, or have the ability to fund things isn’t an excuse, they should be doing way more than the sitting government,
Argee at what cost to the opposition would it pain them to have asked for £1500 toward the utility increase?
Would it have done them any more harm to for Labour to have pushed for more when we know people are still going to be in a shit state based on even the current uptick in prices?
They would have high-balled the Tories and even if the Tories didn't meet a 1500 grant it would have meant Labour appeared to be beating the Tories in support stakes.
Don't give me any fiscal excuses whatsoever. It's entirely doable.
https://twitter.com/labourlewis/status/1530137759540727808?t=75aus-CIk5E9qsDD_47GfA&s=19
Clive Lewis standing in for Starmer.
(I don't agree with his analysis of government spending but his sentiment is the correct message.)
Can I caveat some of what I say about effectively paying people's bills - it could be inflationary (by allowing continuation of large profits) not the hand-out to consumers so as the need goes up then there has to be smarter ways of bringing the money into people's pockets than just giving a hand out back to energy companies.
But for the time being as a stop gap then £400 doesn't cut it - it's just that a stop gap.
Like I say they're just trying hard to limit the affect of recession.
The bigger picture is much more of a mess.
More tax is clearly needed on the top end of wealth.
Can I caveat some of what I say about effectively paying people’s bills – it could be inflationary
It's tackling the problem from the wrong side. Instead of giving handouts to pay bills, instead they could have legislated price controls on energy and taken a shareholding in the energy companies to prevent them from going under. Of course they didn't do that because it the people who lose out are shareholders. So instead we have a sticking plaster solution which will fuel inflation and ultimately make people poorer whilst protecting the profits of energy firms.
Hi Daz, just thought i'd stick the full interview below, that snippet of the interview doesn't actually give any of the answers, but the below, fuller interview does.
“aren’t Labour stupid for proposing things to help people, and getting the government to implement some of them”? 🤷🏻
Wait. Are you saying the religious mantra of "you have to be in power to make changes" isnt quite true and you can do so by providing a viable alternate choice?
https://twitter.com/RachelReevesMP/status/1531528016924385281?t=LqZuDDnRfNTQE-Y6lh7U-w&s=19
Rachel Reeves taking the Tory hammer to the poor.
'Small cash injection could cause inflation' bullshit.
And how do we pay for it? How?
The spending process is initiated by the government drawing on a sovereign line of credit from the core legal and accounting structure known as the Consolidated Fund (CF). Under directions from the UK finance ministry, the Bank of England debits the CF’s account at the Bank and credits other accounts at the Bank held by government entities;
Same as always you Tory fool.
'Reeves's parliamentary credit card was stopped at the start of 2015, owing to a debt of £4,033.63, which she subsequently repaid. In 2018, she claimed £188,686 in expenses, of which £149,514 was in staffing costs and £22,089 in office costs, £30,422 more than the average parliamentary claim of £158,264.'
@ernielynch - because the Tories at least realise they have no economic choice as their beloved market economy doesn't offer up the results
It should be easy for Labour now but the are moving towards the older style Tory rhetoric of fiscal credibility because that stands in opposition to the Tories spending.
And yet swings right away from anything approaching what Labour should stand for.
I understand the thinking behind this Labour attack. Let the Tories explain how they fund things, have all their magic money tree, family credit card bullshit come back and haunt them.
BUT it could all go terribly wrong- a grown up conversation would be better.
Labour do need to hammer the Tories on fiscal responsibility, the Tories have wasted a shocking amount of cash not least through corruption.
I don't know if Yanis struggles to read English,but neither of the articles he links are particularly favourable to Johnson. So his claim that he can't imagine a better gift to a struggling PM makes little sense.
@BillMC, at least quote your source? (Wikipedia)
Reeves is even taking a pasting by local Tory fruitloop MP for saying we might be spending too much.
This is a new low for a Labour shadow Chancellor.
She can talk but she talks like an confused and angry focus group formed her thoughts.
the Tories at least realise they have no economic choice as their beloved market economy doesn’t offer up the results
I'm not sure there is a Tory consensus on that, hence Yanis Varoufakis "The Great Convergence" remark.
Labour should of course be exploiting the Tories's disarray on the economic crisis, but not from a right-wing perspective!
Labour do need to hammer the Tories on fiscal responsibility, the Tories have wasted a shocking amount of cash not least through corruption.
I came to type the same thing.
Are you saying the religious mantra of “you have to be in power to make changes” isnt quite true and you can do so by providing a viable alternate choice?
I'm surprised that Labour (and other opposition parties) have managed to push a significant (but short term) policy onto a majority government, for sure. Especially one that ministers have spend months telling us they were ideologically set against. In fact, I'm impressed. It's only one area of policy though... if they can apply pressure to achieve more, then great... but it's pretty obvious that it's still important who is actually in government.
Yep. Did you think I had to make it up?
I understand the thinking behind this Labour attack. Let the Tories explain how they fund things, have all their magic money tree, family credit card bullshit come back and haunt them.
In the middle of cost of living crisis it's totally impotent to justify how a government funds things when they should just fund things. Exactly as they did during covid.
If we all just accepted 400 billion of government spending during covid what is magic about 21 billion now?
There is no political argument that can distort the truth of government spending. Call it what you want but that magic money tree is an absolute truth.
And has been for a long time. The fact that Labour right are confused about it shows their embarrassing lack of knowledge and their adherence to an economic model that has expired.
Also it's not 'their' magic money tree - it's regular government spending that may or may not be backed by bond sales and/or;QE. It's entirely at the disposal to any government with a central banks, and its own currency.
Let the Tories explain how they fund things, have all their magic money tree, family credit card bullshit come back and haunt them.
Yeah, Labour are polling better when it comes to having the best policies about the economy. Pressing the Tories on their own traditional attack lines (how are you going to pay for this?) makes sense.
The fact that Labour right are confused about it shows their embarrassing lack of knowledge and their adherence to an economic model that has expired.
That "expired" model is how the vast majority of voters understand how it works. If Reeves or anyone on the opposition front bench try to sell the public a different story. (especially one that "allows" them to spend money endlessly) they'll just get trounced. I doubt they're "confused" or have an "embarrassing lack of knowledge" (just sounds like you're projecting TBH) They're just fighting on the battlefield that they have, not the one they'd like.
I don’t know if Yanis struggles to read English,but neither of the articles he links are particularly favourable to Johnson.
No he doesn't struggle reading English, not all foreigners do you know.
And yes that was precisely his point - neither article was favourable to Johnson.
Yeah, Labour are polling better when it comes to having the best policies about the economy. Pressing the Tories on their own traditional attack lines (how are you going to pay for this?) makes sense.
Then they're lying and doing a disservice to the public.
There is an absolute truth and both parties were prepared to pay for things.
Labour are being indignant. And just the like the public were swayed on Brexit you are applying favourabilty to polling based on a lie about government spending.
Only this time it's Labour.
That “expired” model is how the vast majority of voters understand how it works. If Reeves or anyone on the opposition front bench try to sell the public a different story. (especially one that “allows” them to spend money endlessly) they’ll just get trounced. I doubt their “confused” or have an “embarrassing lack of knowledge” (just sounds like you’re projecting TBH) They’re just fighting on the battlefield that they have, not the one they’d
Nonsense she's either lying about how government finances work or doesn't understand.
Either way the truth is better for the electorate.
I'm not projecting. Labour are wedded to a misunderstanding of finances of balancing the books.
Simply tell the truth.
And did she just not watch the 400 billion spent on covid? Does she not realise how that came about?
I mean how stupid could you be about spending?
Attacking the Tories for spending when it's directed to the struggling is just utterly ridiculous.
The suffering electorate are all up in arms and screaming please balance the books instead of supporting us and the economy.
Either way the truth is better for the electorate.
Which truth? C'mon, you know how this works. You think if Reeves (someone most of the electorate have never heard of) says "come on now, this is really how a country's finance works", everyone will just collectively smack their foreheads, and say "finally, my eyes can see?"
I don't see any "attacking for spending", just insisting that the government publish what they are doing.
Attacking the Tories for spending when it’s directed to the struggling is just utterly ridiculous.
Attacking the Tories for saying they couldn't spend money on struggling people and then reversing that decision under pressure from all the opposition parties and asking them the exact same question the Tories would ask Labour is exactly how I would expect them to behave..
Honestly, they aren't allowed to do anything without being shouted down, Rachel Reeves has asked the Office for Budget Responsibility to do their job, this £21 billion bill was done outside of a budget, which is extremely unusual, and it has not been assessed by the OBR.
Reeves can clearly see they've rushed this through without long term thinking, or even short term, if it is a huge counter to PartyGate and badly thought out, having the OBR provide a white paper on it will give Labour more evidence of Tory policy being on the hoof and not what the UK need at this time.
But of course, it's easier to say she, and her team, know nothing of policy and the Consolidated Fund, i mean she's only got 20 odd years experience in this and working with it daily, her team have decades of experience and some have governed in the past, but that's barely credible to those on here who can type the word wikipedia into their search bar 😂
"but it's right the country knows how the chancellor is paying for it."
Implies the chancellor is somehow restricted in his spending.
I can't believe that people run to the support of a Labour chancellor that is suggesting balancing the books is somehow relevant especially when the most vulnerable are suffering.
A) it's never relevant
B) it's a disingenuous way of attacking a government that Labour claimed u-turned on a spending plan they put forward.
Because they would have to fund it it in exactly the same way.
Honestly, they aren’t allowed to do anything without being shouted down, Rachel Reeves has asked the Office for Budget Responsibility to do their job, this £21 billion bill was done outside of a budget, which is extremely unusual, and it has not been assessed by the OBR.
Lmfao.
The government spent £400+ billion during pandemic and you think 21 billion post-pandemic is unusual?
You can't make this up.
We didn't return to normal. The economy will be feeling the shocks for years to come - and you think 21 billion is significant? In what way?
BTW The OBR are a joke. They don't even keep the Q/E on a balance sheet. They distort the government debt whilst not allowing BoE purchased bonds to be taken from the debt.
The Tories have shown an almost infinite recent capacity for appearing to spend vast sums of money for the public benefit (test and trace, PPE, furlough grants), but instead channelling it directly into the pockets of their mates, consultants, or losing it to fraud or just down the back of the sofa. It's perfectly legitimate for Her Majesty's Opposition to ask them to account for how they are spending the 21bn to make sure it is actually reaching people who need it. It's literally the opposition's (and the OBR's) job.
It’s perfectly legitimate for Her Majesty’s Opposition to ask them to account for how they are spending the 21bn to make sure it is actually reaching people who need
No, she wants to know how the chancellor is paying for it.
Could those stating she's attacking the tories for spending this £21 billion to tackle the cost of living crisis please show some evidence of this as well, all i see is her, or the labour party asking why it took so long for the tories to do something, why they didn't also tackle the cause as well as the symptoms and so on.
I've not read anything stating they shouldn't be spending this £21 billion, mostly due to it being what Labour have been banging on about for months?
All i can see is she is attacking them for the way they are going about funding this, i.e. not having an emergency budget, not having the OBR assess it, etc, etc.
But of course, it’s easier to say she, and her team, know nothing of policy and the Consolidated Fund, i mean she’s only got 20 odd years experience in this and working with it daily, her team have decades of experience and some have governed in the past, but that’s barely credible to those on here who can type the word wikipedia into their search bar 😂
Our very own chancellor said the government doesn't have money of its own.
You think the shadow chancellor thinks the same?
Come on.
It's not unusual for prominent politicians to not understand monetary operations. Most don't.
Just like they lie and distort every day.
All i can see is she is attacking them for the way they are going about funding this, i.e. not having an emergency budget, not having the OBR assess it, etc, etc.
I've told you time and time again. it's 'funded' exactly the same every time.
The fact they might 'borrow' or perform Q/E afterwards is entirely at their discretion, but is not needed for funding.
Please explain to me how the 400 billion was funded? Did Labour question that during the pandemic?
Let's try a different tact.
I'd prefer Labour to say this not enough money to fix an imploding economy heading towards recession.
I’ve told you time and time again. it’s ‘funded’ exactly the same every time.
The fact they might ‘borrow’ or perform Q/E afterwards is entirely at their discretion, but is not needed for funding.
Please explain to me how the 400 billion was funded? Did Labour question that during the pandemic?
You've told us time and time again what everyone knows, but the consolidated fund isn't just a big vault of money, it's exactly what it says it is, all the income and expenditure for UK PLC via their bank (BoE), to be funded it has to be costed, it has to be affordable, etc, etc, this is what the OBR do as their day job, Reeves is asking them to do this, which will potentially provide Labour with evidence for the future that the tories can circumvent policy and procedure when it benefits them.
As for COVID, that is a way more complex discussion, which occurred over several bills, several budgets and with several emergency processes being used, not to mention new laws being created to cover it, it was also roundly backed by all parties at the time due to the almost wartime footing the world was on.
but it’s pretty obvious that it’s still important who is actually in government.
It also makes it pretty obvious its more complex than the religious mantra of the centrist nutters.
That actually providing an opposition rather than a softer version of the other parties policies can be more productive in positioning political power in the long run. Rather than allowing that other parties policies to become considered as the norm and any alternatives as "far" and extreme.
which will potentially provide Labour with evidence for the future that the tories can circumvent policy and procedure when it benefits them.
The flipside is it can equally potentially fix the hard rights approach to government policy as being the norm and any deviation from that as being wrong.
Which truth? C’mon, you know how this works.
On the surface it looks like a clever political trick, positioning labour as the fiscally responsible party, especially when Johnson (and Sunak, reluctantly) is a proven money-printer. I could just about accept that if I thought Starmer/Reeves were just using it as an election tactic. The trouble is though I think they really believe this nonsense and when in power would follow through on it. It's been reported widely that Starmer had to have a 'economics 101' course delivered by one of the labour spads when he became leader. Reeves has always spouted this 'fiscally responsible' rubbish for as long as she's been a MP. It's not a tactic, it's what they actually believe. Instead of tory austerity we'll have labour austerity.
rone
Free Member
Let’s try a different tact.I’d prefer Labour to say this not enough money to fix an imploding economy heading towards recession.
Unfortunately this is a sure fire way to give the advantage to the Tories. "Labour want to spend £500 billion we are much more sensible and only want to spend £350 billion."
I don't like it either rone but Labour ultimately lose elections because they are not trusted with the economy.
I really want Labour to campaign on huge infrastructure investment but I get why they are doing this- to try and win the next GE.
I really want Labour to campaign on huge infrastructure investment but I get why they are doing this- to try and win the next GE.
And just like Blair and Brown they will restrict what they can do when in government with the stupid promises they make before. Who needs a tory govt when you have a labour party so willing to cut their own legs off?
If anyone is interested, there is a magic money tree and talk of 'affordability' and government expenditure being like a domestic economy etc is economically illiterate. See the conclusions on p19:
And thanks to @BillMC above for the full recent document. I know the guys who authored the original document. it is complicated from an operational point of view but essentially a load of hoop jumping to sub-divide the way the Treasury and BoE work.
There is a new-statesment 'friendly' version for people here which references that document.
www.newstatesman.com/economy/2022/05/why-british-state-is-magic-money-tree
Polls are all over the place right now, but starmer will be happier going into the jubilee weekend than johnson, who'd normally be capitalising on a patrotism bounce right nw if his own scandals wrent catching up with him
https://twitter.com/BalancePowerUK/status/1531555288318361600
I don’t like it either rone but Labour ultimately lose elections because they are not trusted with the economy.
That is a hard one to crack I admit. But then you have this neoliberal framework so beloved of the centre-right/left. They misunderstand how the economy works.
Labour at the last two elections unfortunately implemented their fiscal credibility rules for spending. And you could say that didn't work either.
Fiscal credibility is garbage in this context. And we have moved on since then in terms of understanding.
Polls are all over the place right now, but starmer will be happier going into the jubilee weekend than johnson, who’d normally be capitalising on a patrotism bounce right nw if his own scandals wrent catching up with him
That's a fair observation.
It’s not a tactic, it’s what they actually believe. Instead of tory austerity we’ll have labour austerity.
And not for the good of the country either.
It's real dumb. Especially given as the economy contracts we know who will be shafted.
I'm genuinely staggered how much energy goes into attacking Brexit (rightly) but more relevantly for me - how little people don't want to hold both major political parties to account for lying or misconstruing how government spending works, and thus starving the country of much needed investment, causing untold generations of despair.
The single biggest political lie of the last 40 years went right over our heads, but hey - Brexit.
I put this here not a slight to @rone and others who're fans of the theory, but it's always worth getting a contradictory view. Even if it just reinforces ones beliefs about something.
Criticism of MMT
Is anyone (including rone) talking about MMT though? Seems to me what we're talking about is traditional Keynesianism. The point is that at a time of economic contraction and flux we need to spend more to support the economy through the turbulence. For better or worse, that's what the govt is doing, and labour are questioning that at the altar of balancing the books rather than doing what they should be doing, which is demanding more and better targeted support. The MMT part of this is the debate about how a govt finances its spending, and that's not really disputed. All we're talking about is politicians of all colours being honest about it.
Ryan-Collins is no fan of MMT either. Is this a straw man or what?
Labour are just asking the government to transparently publish what they are doing. As is normally expected with what is, let’s face it, a budget announcement in all but name.
Labour are just asking the government to transparently publish what they are doing.
What's important is not the request for the OBR to report on this new spending, but the motives for doing so and the message it sends to voters. Labour clearly want to send the message that they would be more restrained than the govt are being, and their previous proposals back that up. The bigger question is whether labour actually believe this obsession with fiscal restraint or whether it's just politics?
Labour are just asking the government to transparently publish what they are doing. As is normally expected with what is, let’s face it, a budget announcement in all but name.
Yep, that's all i've read from about 3 pages ago now, Reeves looking for the OBR to do their job, Labour have done well from this, they had their policies nicked, but then implemented out of process.
We've now moved on to bringing in an entirely new economic model though, so Labour will still be getting it in the neck on here for not revolutionising the entire UK economic process on theory, as i don't think anywhere on the planet runs the models being discussed!
Labour clearly want to send the message that they would be more restrained than the govt are being,
I don't think that's what they're doing, the critism of Labour spending plans is always "Is it costed?" Labour are just flinging that back at the Tories, so yes, it's just politics.
Labour clearly want to send the message that they would be more restrained than the govt are being
I read it as wanting to send the message that the current government don’t know what they’re doing, hence the lack of transparency and scrutiny they are putting their Treasury announcement to.
What’s important is not the request for the OBR to report on this new spending, but the motives for doing so and the message it sends to voters.
That Rachel Reeves and Labour requested that an emergency budget occur, i'm glad you're backing her now Daz, she (and Labour, SNP, etc) wanted this done properly, with appropriate information provided to Parliament.
so Labour will still be getting it in the neck on here for not revolutionising the entire UK economic process on theory
I don't think anyone is talking about 'revolutionising' the uk economic system, just being straight with the public about how it works. Do that and we can move the debate on from where the money comes from, to where it should go and how it is used.
as i don’t think anywhere on the planet runs the models being discussed!
Most sovereign states who have their own currency already run on the model we're talking about. We just want them to be honest about it.
Most sovereign states who have their own currency already run on the model we’re talking about. We just want them to be honest about it.
You'll have to tell me again how we're doing it differently, the Central Fund model is pretty much aligned to most in the world, or if you change some of the terminology, how businesses around the planet function?
The models being discussed aren't hugely different either, it's working the models on what came first, the chicken or the egg in most instances.