Starmer's vision quest

[BoldonLad]

View: https://youtu.be/WS9nP-BKa3M


It's about the US economy, but it's all essentially the same.

I know that trying to wind up Adam is a sport of sorts for you, but it's making you sound like Theresa May. Was everyone who talks like this asleep during the pandemic, when even Rishi Sunak was forced to concede that national governments can afford to do pretty much whatever they want simply by deciding to spend money on it? I'm going to vote for the first party that acknowledges this and explains it to a mainstream journalist.

Are you saying that Government can spend as much as they wish, based on borrowing, without consequences?, or, does the spending, including servicing any debt, have to be funded by income (eg taxes)?

 

[multitool]

I know that trying to wind up Adam is a sport of sorts for you, but it's making you sound like Theresa May

It's almost impossible not to wind up Adam, bar acquiescing to his every word ...which is not going to happen from me to him, or indeed you.

Was everyone who talks like this asleep during the pandemic, when even Rishi Sunak was forced to concede that national governments can afford to do pretty much whatever they want simply by deciding to spend money on it? I'm going to vote for the first party that acknowledges this and explains it to a mainstream journalist.

Somebody has to pay for money spent on public services. Its not free, and public debt matters. Your video extols one view. Other expert views are available.

The way national debt matters varies between countries that have their own currency (UK, US, Japan etc) and those that don't (Eurozone, many emerging markets). We may not default in the way other countries, but we do default in a way that results in debasement of the currency. This results in high inflation, and low interest rates as a way of controlling it.

Sound familiar?

Japan is in an unprecedented situation with OTOH national debt being about 240% of GDP. It is unprecedented, and has drawn warnings from IMF. They too are facing an ageing population time bomb, as are we.

 

[theclaud]

It's almost impossible not to wind up Adam, bar acquiescing to his every word ...which is not going to happen from me to him, or indeed you.



Somebody has to pay for money spent on public services. Its not free, and public debt matters. Your video extols one view. Other expert views are available.

The way national debt matters varies between countries that have their own currency (UK, US, Japan etc) and those that don't (Eurozone, many emerging markets). We may not default in the way other countries, but we do default in a way that results in debasement of the currency. This results in high inflation, and low interest rates as a way of controlling it.

Sound familiar?

Japan is in an unprecedented situation with OTOH national debt being about 240% of GDP. It is unprecedented, and has drawn warnings from IMF. They too are facing an ageing population time bomb, as are we.

I'm merely proposing that serious people stop propagating or colluding in the myth that the national economy is like a household budget, or a shopping basket. It's a rationalisation for Austerity, and it's damaging. Nowhere have I suggested that it makes no difference how much governments spend, and on what, or that it should have no relationship with taxation. It's important that people understand that politicians are lying when they claim there is no money to pay nurses (or whatever), and then we can move on to the more important question of why they don't want to pay nurses.

 

[theclaud]

does the spending, including servicing any debt, have to be funded by income

No.

 

[multitool]

I'm merely proposing that serious people stop propagating or colluding in the myth that the national economy is like a household budget, or a shopping basket. It's a rationalisation for Austerity, and it's damaging. Nowhere have I suggested that it makes no difference how much governments spend, and on what, or that it should have no relationship with taxation. It's important that people understand that politicians are lying when they claim there is no money to pay nurses (or whatever), and then we can move on to the more important question of why they don't want to pay nurses.

And where have I propagated that myth, or suggested austerity was a good thing?

I've even commented upthread that Rachel Reeves explicitly stated that austerity had not only harmed people's lives, but also harmed the economy. I really would not be entirely surprised if, in private, Osborne had accepted it was a mistake. Reeves comments do not give the impression that she intends another round of austerity, despite Adam's shrill doom-mongering.

At the same time, like Japan, we face a demographic time bomb with an ageing population, living longer and therefore needing more expensive care for longer whilst not being productive. All the while our debt will grow, as will the proportion of our national spend financing that debt which will correspondingly grow because the cost of borrowing will grow. We have already seen our credit rating drop from AAA to Aa3 with a negative outlook. This is a potentially very serious structural problem we are building up for ourselves in the long-term.

Sure, this does not mean money cannot be spent, but there are choices to be made. Currently, the Conservatives favour starving much of the public sector, and allowing the very wealthy to keep a large portion of their wealth. The answer as to why they won't pay the nurses, is for the same reason as to why they won't pay teachers. They think they can get away with it. As for Labour, they are inheriting a shïtty stick, and understandably I cannot see them committing to any spending plans at present, unless they have to.

 

[Deleted member 49]

As for Labour, they are inheriting a shïtty stick, and understandably I cannot see them committing to any spending plans at present, unless they have to.

Yawn...

 

[multitool]

Yawn...

Here you go Adam. Something to arouse you from your sleepiness

 

[theclaud]

And where have I propagated that myth

With your 'Where will the money come from?' question to Adam. It wasn't even about a particular policy, and yet managed to invoke the idea that there isn't any money.

I've even commented upthread that Rachel Reeves explicitly stated that austerity had not only harmed people's lives, but also harmed the economy

I couldn't get past the paywall (usual solutions not working) but wasn't it an interview with Reeves, not an article by her?

Reeves comments do not give the impression that she intends another round of austerity,

I can only go on what she says elsewhere. This is part of the same shopping-basket rhetoric: "As Chancellor, I will treat taxpayers' money with the respect it deserves." The government's money is not "taxpayers' money".

 

[multitool]

With your 'Where will the money come from?' question to Adam. It wasn't even about a particular policy, and yet managed to invoke the idea that there isn't any money.

Ultimately, that money does have to come from somewhere, even if, locally, out of our pockets via higher inflation.

I couldn't get past the paywall (usual solutions not working) but wasn't it an interview with Reeves, not an article by her?

I can't remember, and I can't be arsed to wade through and find it. I'm currently fighting a war on three fronts, one with you and Adam, another with a truculent daughter who doesn't want to do her homework, and a third with a box of Tunnock's Teacakes which is calling me from downstairs in the kitchen cupboard. You've no idea.

I can only go on what she says elsewhere. This is part of the same shopping-basket rhetoric: "As Chancellor, I will treat taxpayers' money with the respect it deserves." The government's money is not "taxpayers' money".

Well, ok, so the question is...if there is no consequence to a huge public spend, which would be electorally somewhat popular, why are Labour not committing themselves to one?

 

[AndyRM]

A "war"? Get over yourself.

 

[multitool]

A "war"? Get over yourself.

Fûck off Andy, you humourless twât. It's very clearly tongue-in-cheek

 

[multitool]

On austerity, this might be worth a listen if you can bear Alistair Campbell:


View: https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1657803112667594756?s=20

Doesn't mean you have to accept what either of them say, but it might be interesting to hear Osborne's justifications, and I predict that AC won't let him off the hook. As per my previous posts, I think we are 20 years away from hearing them speak the truth on it

 

[theclaud]

if you can bear Alistair Campbell:

I can't.

Doesn't mean you have to accept what either of them say,

I don't.

it might be interesting to hear Osborne's justifications

It isn't.

 

[multitool]

Well isn't that something.

I don't.

You don't accept something you haven't heard.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Ultimately, that money does have to come from somewhere, even if, locally, out of our pockets via higher inflation.

Tool Economics 101
Here's another quote from him
“My policies are based not on some economics theory, but on things I and millions like me were brought up with: an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay; live within your means; put by a nest egg for a rainy day; pay your bills on time; support the police.”