An ideal government

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.

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.

?

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.

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.

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?

Honour. That would cover everything for me.

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

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?

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 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).

DaisyAnne

MMT is a view of the economy Maizie, and one the government do not share. I would just like a government that moved away from killing off the elderly, sick and unemployed because of their almost religious belief in austerity.

If I used a word you find offensive I apologise.

The very basic FACT at the heart of MMT is that a nation which has a sovereign currency (i.e it is their own, unique currency) issues that currency into the economy. Currency issuing comes before taxation.

The rest of MMT is about how that fact can be used to inform government spending and it can be used in whatever way a government chooses.

Understanding that the government is the issuer of currency and that tax revenue is not the source of the nation's money is a complete game changer.

Here is an explanation:

Making sense of money

Although it isn’t necessary to read or understand the long history of money creation in order to understand the economy, there are some basic principles contained in the history that make sense of what we are talking about in MMT. Because most of us don’t think about money other than in terms of whether we can afford to pay for what we want to pay for, it is very easy to fall into the habit of thinking of the government spending and earning its income in the same way that we do. Because money has real value to us and it affects our everyday lives, we assume that the currency itself has an intrinsic value. Once we can shift our thinking to the idea that at government level money isn’t a commodity, but a tool for carrying out government purpose then the MMT concepts start to fall into place.

gimms.org.uk/fact-sheets/a-brief-history-of-money/

I didn't find anything offensive. I just think that talking of MMT as something to 'move towards' is mistaken because its basic principle already exists (sovereign governments have always issued currency) and has become more important since we moved off the gold standard in the early 1970s.

Would like this from the Royals as well if they are to remain as Royals after latest revelations re Andrew, Sarah, Bea and Eugenie and Turks! Lies, conniving, taking us all for mugs!

MMT is a view of the economy Maizie, and one the government do not share. I would just like a government that moved away from killing off the elderly, sick and unemployed because of their almost religious belief in austerity.

If I used a word you find offensive I apologise.

I would like people who understand economics too. Having become so retrograde in their views, I would accept a Keynesian economy with progress towards MMT.

The thing about MMT is that it isn't an economic 'theory'. It is a description of how a government with a sovereign currency issues money into the economy.

It is completely apolitical. It is up to the government to choose how to spend the money it can create. We have a sterling example of this with the current government which has issued £billions into the economy to deal with the covid crisis and has cheerfully placed enormous chunks of it in the direction of their friends and donors. A different government with a different political ideology could have spent the same amount of money completely differently; it could have taken a more public services oriented approach; improving NHS pay, improving the NHS infrastructure, funding existing local authority expertise for test & trace for example.

MMT already exists. I would like a government that comes clean about it and stops trying to con people into believing that taxation alone funds government spending. Then we might be able to think more clearly about the political choices parties make and whether or not to vote for them.

Integrity, humility and ability would be a good base for me. Unfortunately don't see much of these in evidence at the moment.

I would rather like people who believe in democracy. We seem to have moved into an oligarchy (1)

I would like people who understand economics too. Having become so retrograde in their views, I would accept a Keynesian economy with progress towards MMT.

Thatcher is the reason we are where we are now. I can't believe people still hold her in any sort of esteem.

(1) Any system of government in which virtually all political power is held by a very small number of wealthy but otherwise unmeritorious people who shape public policy primarily to benefit themselves financially through direct subsidies to their agricultural estates or business firms, lucrative government contracts, and protectionist measures aimed at damaging their economic competitors — while displaying little or no concern for the broader interests of the rest of the citizenry. “Oligarchy” is also used as a collective term to denote all the individual members of the small corrupt ruling group in such a system.

A willingness to co-operate with others who have different views to achieve the best result for the most people, without ignoring the special needs of the most vulnerable in our society.

Exactly PECS 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'.

Honesty and the ability to see further than the next election when taking what have to be long-term decisions [flying pig emoji]

No such thing as an ideal government and don't expect any government to look after you. I depend on myself, that's all you can count on apart from if you are fortunate to have good family and friends. Trustworthy politicians are a fantasy.

We had one like that Oldbat - Thatcher, and not many on this forum approved of her either!

Possess morals!
Not to lie.
Is not Eton educated!

Integrity
Respect for democracy

In the case of my own MP, the current Conservative policies enable her to push her right-wing principles. She's not the slightest bit interested in her constituency or the people who live in it. If she'd been honest when she was selected and subsequently elected, I doubt if her majority would have been so massive.

Sorry, I think it's naive to claim that some MPs only act the way they do because they don't want to be de-selected. Some of them are cheerleaders for what's happening.

No government will ever suit everyone. Yet I am finding the current lying culture absolutely unbelievable. Johnson can lie through his teeth, but if an MP calls him out on it, he/she have to leave the chamber. I was wondering what would happen if the Speaker accused Johnson of lying. Would he have to remove himself? Yes I know politicians are often economical with the truth, but this current Tory bunch take the biscuit. Just another way that our blond, overweight leader is emulating the dreaded trump.