An ideal government

DaisyAnne

I know you feel very strongly about MMT Maizie. It was just not as relevant as the other things I wanted to say at that point. I have learned a great deal about it from you and try to pass that on - as in yesterday having coffee with an old friend. (I would say 'poor soul' but we have been putting the world to rights for 54 years now).

Appreciated, DaisyAnne.

I do feel strongly because I think that understanding the very source of our money would make a radical difference to how we view politics and judge governments.

I don't want another government to be more of the same nonsense about balancing the books, spending taxpayers money prudently, fiscal responsibility, etc. etc. I want one that will run an economy that works for everyone. And doesn't lie about where the money comes from.

I’ve learned so much about money/ economics on these threads and always appreciate the efforts MaizieD and others go to so that we get a better understanding of how governments could be handling things.

Which countries actually do what you suggest Maizie?

I'm not sure what your question is asking, Pantglas.

I'm not altogether sure if your post is dripping with irony or not as we usually seem to have opposing views

Honour. That would cover everything for me.

Ha ha Maizie - I recall we both agreed that the selling of council houses by Thatcher wasn’t a good thing! I may not agree with lots that you and others post but always read and digest as I didn’t have benefit of tertiary education!

My tribute and question was genuine - are the Scandinavian countries doing your system?

I would like a completely centrist government that actually worked for the people they are supposed to serve. Honesty and integrity should be the most important attributes for any politician. There are good and bad ideas and good and bad politicians from all the parties and these should be adopted in my ideal government. In this way we would have a true socialist party working for the social good of the country. As it is, I find it very hard to vote for any party as they stand at the moment.

?

Well, I don't know about Scandanavian countries, but the UK has certainly been working on currency issued by the government for decades. That's why, despite population increase over the years, we still have enough money to go round (even though it is very unevenly distributed). If the amount of money the country had was a finite, fixed amount, we'd all have about 10p each...

Consider, population of the UK in the 1950s, about 50 million. average wage probably less than £1,000 pa. Population now, 68 million. Average wage about £25,000 pa. Where did all that extra money come from? It wasn't trade because we've mostly had a trade deficit in the period 1950 - 2020. It wasn't taxation, because taxing £1,000 pa wouldn't produce enough to finance today's wages or the cost of public services.

Was it borrowing? Well, 'borrowing' is selling government bonds to raise money, people buy them as an investment or to save their money in a safe place because they know that the government will always be able to repay them. But some 70% of government bonds are held by UK entities, financial institutions or individuals. The money for them will come from within the existing 'stock' in the UK, so that's not increasing the actual quantity of money. Government pays interest on them, too, which diminishes the money it has available.

The government does count Quantitative Easing as 'borrowing' but that is partly where the con is. Because the Treasury (government) creates new bonds, which are bought by the Bank of England. the money is transferred from the BoE to the government account. But as the government 'owns' the BoE, it cannot owe itself money. The BoE actually pays all the government's bills. Even though it is shown in the public accounts it will never be repaid, it doesn't have to be. The bank rescue in the global financial crisis, propping up sterling after the Brexit vote and paying for the covid pandemic has all been 'financed' by QE. Non repayable 'debt'. In effect, money creation.

And that is how the supply of money in the country has always been increased. Not by QE usually, but just by the BoE 'creating' more money to put into the economy.

This can only be done by countries which have monetary sovereignty, the ability to issue their own currency. That's why it was a very good idea not to join the Euro, we would truly have given up a vital area of sovereignty. If we were to rejoin the EU at some point we would be wise not to join the Euro. We might have to 'say' that we would but then, Sweden has been about to join the Euro for years, still has its own currency...

That is why, when a party devises its manifesto and runs on it at election time, the question to ask is not 'How are you going to pay for it?', because things can always be paid for, but, 'Is this inflationary?' and 'How are you going to control inflation?'

That's why I say it's a game changer.

There is no such thing as an ideal government, and never will be because no party, ever has or ever will be capable of living up to these ideal standards.

In fact an 'ideal' government would probably be riddled with hypocracy because as no one could not meet these standards they would all have to pretend they did.

One that isn't Tory.

Thank you, Maizie, I think I’ve got it... and if I haven’t, I’ll be back?

Thatcher had morals? Who knew ? Didn't she say there IS no society while destroying lives and communities ,politicising the police and testing her vile policies on ..well us .If thats your version of morals I feel sorry for you

Well she didn’t lie and never went to Eton paddyann and maybe her morals weren’t yours....2 out of 3 aint so bad really! You could have had Blair - oh wait...!

Pantglas2

Well she didn’t lie and never went to Eton paddyann and maybe her morals weren’t yours....2 out of 3 aint so bad really! You could have had Blair - oh wait...!

So, apart from Iraq, what exactly did Blair do that was so awful?

I keep wondering about that too MayBee.

Seriously? Apart from Iraq? ?‍♀️

I’ll pause awhile... he managed to persuade 50% of school leavers to go to university (with all the debt that entailed) so that his unemployment figures looked good, some of them haven’t had decent jobs since!

Most could have served an apprenticeship with proper skills, going on to run their own business as plumbers, electricians etc without his efforts to downgrade their livelihoods!

The biggest joke is that his son has made millions setting up all of the above...

Maybe70
^ So, apart from Iraq, what exactly did Blair do that was so awful?^

Well Iraq was so terrible, is still terrible, the deaths that go on, the suffering. It led to ISIS and the terrible things they did including the virtual destruction of the Yazidhi community. Isn't that enough to totally damn the reputation of the Prime Minister who did it forever? In fact it is so bad it could be shared out across many Prime Ministers and it would be sufficient to damn them all.

M0nica

Maybe70
^ So, apart from Iraq, what exactly did Blair do that was so awful?^

Well Iraq was so terrible, is still terrible, the deaths that go on, the suffering. It led to ISIS and the terrible things they did including the virtual destruction of the Yazidhi community. Isn't that enough to totally damn the reputation of the Prime Minister who did it forever? In fact it is so bad it could be shared out across many Prime Ministers and it would be sufficient to damn them all.

You could utterly condemn a good many of our past PMs in the last 300 years for atrocities committed by the British in other countries, MOnica. You must be very uncomfortable to be British when you look at our history. Slavery, famines in India and Ireland, opium wars, concentration camps in South Africa, treatment of the Mau Mau in Kenya, looting other countries and repressing their native populations; our crimes against humanity are many.

Why do we have to single Blair out for special opprobrium?

None of those compare with the full horror that was, and still is, Iraq.

I might add, while not defending slavery in anyway, that the current fashion is to act as if the British and only the British were involved in slavery, but Portugal, Spain and USA were also enthusiastic participators, who continued after we left off.

Not to mention the chiefs and kings whose tradition of enthusiastic slaving led to the start of the trade. I have just been reading a book about the British anti-slavery naval squadron, sent out when we abolished slavery, and who, for one hundred years patrolled the African coast, where the slaves came from and whose job was to try and capture slaving ships and free the slaves.

I was shocked to the core to find out how enthusiastically the local kings and chiefs, without any intimidation, were willing to round up people, or instigate wars on all kinds of pretexts, to gather slaves to sell to the slave traders, even though they knew what happened to these captives. and how these same African kings and chiefs actively colluded with the Portuguese and other slaving nations to keep the trade going after we banned it and sent a squadron to try and stop it.

This is the side of slaving, that is convenient and comfortable to forget.

m0nica that is whataboutery & does not detract from the fact that European traders used human beings as a commodity. Their actions sparked a chain reaction in local West African areas that may not have otherwise occurred. Not admirable at all & not condoned but it does not in any way minimise the colonials' appalling actions.

Re Blair, his dreadful decision to go to war on Iraq blotted out any other promising policies his government may have promoted or introduced.

Still he's OK, living the life of Riley as opposed to many Iraqis.

PECS

Re Blair, his dreadful decision to go to war on Iraq blotted out any other promising policies his government may have promoted or introduced.

Still he's OK, living the life of Riley as opposed to many Iraqis.

He helped bring peace to Yugoslavia and Ireland. Saddam Hussein was slaughtering his own people. He was a despot who needed taking out. I would imagine not a day goes by when Blair doesn’t regret the war but it wasn’t just this country and parliament did vote for it. Maybe he wanted young people to go to university to better themselves? Not to fiddle the unemployment figures. The ones that Johnson stands up in parliament every week and lies about.

PECS

m0nica that is whataboutery & does not detract from the fact that European traders used human beings as a commodity. Their actions sparked a chain reaction in local West African areas that may not have otherwise occurred. Not admirable at all & not condoned but it does not in any way minimise the colonials' appalling actions.

There were slavery issues in West Africa prior to European intervention. Slaves were traded across Africa by African and Arab nations. The one difference was that these slaves had some chance of becoming free citizens in their new environment. Europeans just had more goods to trade, copper being just one of those very important minerals.

Europeans took the slave trade one step further with transportation to a new continent, enslavement for life and abdominal treatment, all justified by the Bible. Additionally it made fortunes and even helped to provide the immense wealth that fuelled the industrial revolution. Britain, France, Spain and Portugal were all heavily involved with the Netherlands having a smaller stake. The USA continued with slavery after it’s independence.

BTW, I know this is off the original post so apologies.

M0nica

None of those compare with the full horror that was, and still is, Iraq.

I'm sure that the victims, and the descendants of the victims, of British brutality and genocide over the centuries would be delighted to know that their pain and suffering was nothing compared to Iraq.

And your subsequent whataboutery about the British involvement in slavery disgusts me.