Liz! Truss!

I love the fact that we were all paid to stay at home (not out of taxes) and there are still stupid comments such as this.

I worked all thru it

I know many folk who got nothing or a measly 20 quid on top of starvation level benefits when their job disappeared

As ever. Furlogh money went disproportionately into the pockets of the well off

No one paid you to stay at home binners?

No wonder you are so grumpy

I’m a freelancer.

There are 3.5 million of us who never saw a penny of government money

We are schrodinger’s workers. We are neither employee nor self-employed. As far as the government were/are concerned, we don’t exist, despite us always paying tax just like the 2 groups we definitely aren’t part of.

Luckily for me I managed to diversify and not end up committing suicide like many did.

Hurray for me, eh?

I’m not remotely bitter about it either. Honest! 😃

No, you’re right… that’d work

What could possibly go wrong? 😂

Are you really citing the Weimar?

Really?

Last time on this – Weimar Republic was a driven by a debt denominated in a foreign currency.

We have control of our own currency and bank. We owe money to ourselves effectively when we spend.

All government spending is new money. Even Starmer’s 29bn package is still new money. It only comes from one place.

On the dollar/pound:

The £/$ has been in falling for years. And is defined by a market place. Sterling is a Fiat currency influenced by buyers and sellers not the amount of money spent by the government.

The US economy is considered strong and ours weak. It’s weak for lots of reasons.

I’m a freelancer.

There are 3.5 million of us who never saw a penny of government money

Point being – the government could have supported you they chose not to.

Not that they didn’t have the funds.

I’m a freelancer and have a company I got support.

But none of this means they can’t do it. They’re Tories.

The US economy is considered strong and ours weak. It’s weak for lots of reasons

And printing money won’t make it weaker?

Righto

Can we please get back on topic because we’ve been through this a million times?

You and the usual 4 others vocally believe in MMT. Nobody else is buying it. If you were a political party and went into an election advocating it as an economic policy, you’d be laughed out of town

And printing money won’t make it weaker?

Righto

No. It won’t.

Other conditions might. Sterling is fiat it’s not pegged.

Basically the private sector has drained the economy of cash and so the government has to replace that cash.

We have no growth or negative growth so there is lack of money in general circulation. It’s being hoarded. Thats why we are where we are.

You’ve got a lot of catching up do. And there is no such thing as printing money in this context.

What have you been reading?

(Sterling is weak because we have lots of shit productivity problems. )

Do we have productivity problems because so many people are a bit crap at their jobs? Because they haven’t b been effectively trained in basic skills through the education system?

You and the usual 4 others vocally believe in MMT. Nobody else is buying it. If you were a political party and went into an election advocating it as an economic policy, you’d be laughed out of town

To be honest it’s a bit troubling you won’t even take the time to understand how government spending is integral to these debates.

And it’s not economic policy. It’s an accurate description with 25 years behind of info behind it.

I won’t be laughed out of town. You’re wrong on that.

One thing’s for sure like others you’ve totally misunderstood its value. And misrepresented what I’m trying to debate with you.

Only a twit would think a government with its own bank and currency would believe you have to borrow money from the private sector. Sigh.

So… back on topic…

It looks like we’re shortly going to have someone who once publicly advocated abolishing the monarchy ‘doing a Blair’ and leading an orgy of Daily Mail endorsed cap-doffing and emotional incontinence

I’m sure, like Blair with Diana, she’ll milk it for all it’s worth. She’ll be on to her designer getting her funeral outfit sorted as we speak

rone
Full Member

Right, you’ve made your points. Next!

Do we have productivity problems because so many people are a bit crap at their jobs? Because they haven’t b been effectively trained in basic skills through the education system

Massive lack of investment in training / resources as I understand. There will people better than me at explaining that one.

Quick question that I haven’t seen asked or answered as I’ve had to skip a few pages in this fast moving thread but is anybody managing the upside on the fuel situation? Obviously if the price cap is put in place and the Govt promises to fill in the difference, there’s no limit to how much **** we (the country) can get into. Surely it’s a gift for the oil/gas companies?

So… back on topic…

The topic was about Truss spending 140bn to subsidise energy bills etc. And how that might happen.

It wasn’t off-topic.

Pure ignroance.

Speeder
Full Member
Quick question that I haven’t seen asked or answered as I’ve had to skip a few pages in this fast moving thread but is anybody managing the upside on the fuel situation? Obviously if the price cap is put in place and the Govt promises to fill in the difference, there’s no limit to how much **** we (the country) can get into. Surely it’s a gift for the oil/gas companies?

Without someway of, at minimum, taxing the extra profits, yes it’s absolutely a gift to the energy companies.

I’d nationalise everything to do with energy.

rone
Full Member
So… back on topic…

The topic was about Truss spending 140bn to subsidise energy bills etc. And how that might happen.

It wasn’t off-topic.

Pure ignroance.

We all understand the concept of deficit, and that we spend more than we tax. Next point please.

Obviously if the price cap is put in place and the Govt promises to fill in the difference, there’s no limit to how much **** we (the country) can get into. Surely it’s a gift for the oil/gas companies?

She’s just effectively written the energy companies a taxpayer funded blank cheque

The profiteering they’ve already been gleefully indulging in is going to pale into insignificance compared to what they’re going to get up to this winter in an orgy of price-gouging

Welcome to corporate socialism

Corporate theft.

Righto

Can we please get back on topic because we’ve been through this a million times?

Not because your reference to the Weimar Republic and the pressure that the Treaty of Versailles put on Germany exactly a 100 years ago is ridiculous?

Obviously if the price cap is put in place and the Govt promises to fill in the difference, there’s no limit to how much **** we (the country) can get into. Surely it’s a gift for the oil/

Yes there is some truth in that but the only rapid fix for the short term is to subsidise the bills.

Long term we need a better plan.

The tax take is largely irrelevant in this process. Hence the Tories aren’t doing it because it’s not needed in the process.

It’s basically like Brown bailing the banks out then giving them the nod that they could happily carry on with the whole sub-prime mortgage thing

We all understand the concept of deficit, and that we spend more than we tax.

Are you sure? Are you sure that voters understand and/or Labour are articulating that point to them?

Labour’s counterproposal doesn’t seem to.

Edit: The coalition government’s austerity measures, which cost approx 57000 lives, were sold on claim of the necessity of balanced budgets.

She’s just effectively written the energy companies a taxpayer funded blank cheque

Rubbish. Absolute rubbish.

For a start they haven’t published the funding details yet and taxes don’t pay for government spending.

Second Q/E might get used in which case the process would not involve any tax payers at all.

You see, it’s convenient to marginalise me because it shows terrible flaws in your analysis.

(Labour’s plan only was for 29bn and only 8bn was windfall tax – where do you think the other bit was coming from?)

It’s basically like Brown bailing the banks out then giving them the nod that they could happily carry on with the whole sub-prime mortgage thing

Sub prime was a US affair that affected the world.

I don’t understand Brown’s contribution to sub-prime?

Have I missed something?

So,

Liz Truss, then?

ernielynch
Free Member
We all understand the concept of deficit, and that we spend more than we tax.

Are you sure? Are you sure that voters understand and/or Labour are articulating that point to them?

Labour’s counterproposal doesn’t seem to.

Up here in Scotland we all learned what it was 10 years ago, people wouldn’t shut up about it. Dunno about down south mind. Interesting that now it’s fully admitted that the uk runs a deficit, guess you could be forgiven for thinking that it was only Scotland that ran one. 😆

We all understand the concept of deficit, and that we spend more than we tax. Next point please

Fair enough (not everyone does.)

Okay so then you understand that the deficit spend becomes a private sector surplus?

How else do you think money enters the economy if not through deficit spending?

The opposite of this is contraction and austerity. You see?

So,

Liz Truss, then?

Ask again in 6 months. How can anyone judge based on two days in charge and one policy announcement.

So,

Liz Truss, then

To be fair Cougar how is this not linked to Truss’s plans to spend?

I’m only getting away from it when people have a ridiculous dig.

I’d nationalise everything to do with energy.

I completely agree but neoliberal parties aren’t going for this currently are they?

I worked all thru it

I know many folk who got nothing or a measly 20 quid on top of starvation level benefits when their job disappeared

As ever. Furlogh money went disproportionately into the pockets of the well off

Again – I sympathise. It wasn’t because they couldn’t do it. Tories chose not to but a lot of people did get help using the mechanisms we discuss.

Yes. Disproportionately to the well off

rone
Full Member
We all understand the concept of deficit, and that we spend more than we tax. Next point please

Fair enough (not everyone does.)

Okay so then you understand that the deficit spend becomes a private sector surplus?

How else do you think money enters the economy if not through deficit spending?

The opposite of this is contraction and austerity. You see?

Yeah, I get it, but the whole thing is broken if it isn’t got back, which is clearly what truss is intending here. It’s just a money transfer to already rich companies.

rone
Full Member
I’d nationalise everything to do with energy.

I completely agree but neoliberal parties aren’t going for this currently are they?

If enough people woke up to the fact and demanded it, it’s not beyond possibility.

I thought that even Tory voters had woken up to this fact?

Labour have currently moved into the opposite direction and recently ruled out nationalisation of energy. In contrast to their previous position.

Starmer claims that the pandemic has “changed everything” and the nationalisation which he previously envisaged is no longer affordable.

Yeah, I get it, but the whole thing is broken if it isn’t got back, which is clearly what truss is intending here. It’s just a money transfer to already rich companies which is no use to you or I.

But the major problem we have currently is paying people’s bills. Otherwise everything is screwed.

Blame the system in the first place for allowing them to get to that point.

It’s just a money transfer to already rich companies.

And don’t forget that she’s about to cut corporation tax for them too

Ker-****ing-ching!

It really is win/win/win for the oil and gas firms

And removing barriers to them fracking and “accelerating” North Sea extraction, while promising to put more barriers in the way of solar and onshore wind. Let the planet burn. But hey, she’s spending lots of money and letting her backers keep it, proving that’s always possible, so all’s good.

rone
Full Member
Yeah, I get it, but the whole thing is broken if it isn’t got back, which is clearly what truss is intending here. It’s just a money transfer to already rich companies which is no use to you or I.

But the major problem we have currently is paying people’s bills. Otherwise everything is screwed.

Blame the system in the first place for allowing them to get to that point.

I’m not against it to cover the current crisis. I can just see what Truss is doing, so her policy needs heavily criticised. It’s not even hidden, it’s an open money transfer. It’s wild economics. Meanwhile tax rates are going to get cut too at the upper end. Utterly batshit.

Yep, spend to “keep the lights on”, but tax more of it back from the companies that will make huge profits from that spend, not less. There is no reason not to do so. Unless you are personally ideologically bound to the fossil fuel companies by money, and so is your party.

Blame the system in the first place for allowing them to get to that point

I thought it was gob-smacking listening to her blaming the mess we’re in now on the failure of regulation of energy firms and the complete failure of government energy policy and lack of planning

Like she was talking about a previous administration from a different party, she had absolutely nothing to do with, instead of having been a minister in that very government for over a decade and being personally responsible for all that

She’s harder-faced than Boris