Keir Starmer, yearly review

MaizieD

^And then there is MMT. I don't think that came from the right. Jeremy Corbyn was in favour of it, I believe.^

I missed this yesterday, DaisyAnne, probably because I don't always pay much attention to your self justifying posts.

I will point out, yet again, that MMT is politically neutral. It is merely an evidence based account of how any government finances work if the country has a sovereign currency. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. A government can use its ability to create money for any purpose it wants to, be it right or left wing, and governments have been doing so for decades.

www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/sites/bartlett_public_purpose/files/the_self-financing_state_an_institutional_analysis_of_government_expenditure_revenue_collection_and_debt_issuance_operations_in_the_united_kingdom.pdf

Maizie, do I care? Does any larger group on GN care? The Morning Star recently ran an article saying that the Labour Party's failure to support MMT was a “throwback to neoliberalism". That is quite an extreme comment coming from the source it does.

Your continued battering of those who say they don't naturally think MMT is the only way of seeing economics gives, in my opinion, a distorted and inflated sense of it's value. I expect parts of it will eventually be absorbed into the general view of economics eventually. But at the moment it is my view that it is being driven by those who have other axes to grind.

Siope

There’s a headline in todays Guardian which sums it up. It’s along the lines of ‘Starmer trying to balance inspiring [left leaning] and not scaring [right-leaning] voters’.

I hope he’s succeeding at the latter, because he’s sadly not inspiring me or most left-of-centre voters I know.

But that is not the headline, is it Siope. It is your version and your opinion of what groups "inspiring" and "scaring" refer to.

If you cannot even clarify the truth of your posts why should anyone take any notice of them.

growstuff

Pardon? Your post seemed defensive (even aggressive) to me.

Look in a mirror if you want to see rude questioning.

Have a lovely day!

I did, thank you.

Wow! How rude!

If you read the article in the Guardian Siope's interpretation of the headline and the intention of the writer is absolutely spot on.

I'm afraid, ExperiencedNotOld that both you and Starmer are wrong

No arrogance there then

Even though your think you are the fount of all knowledge it appears ExperiencedNotOld has different views and that Starmer wants people to know he understands the things they, and others, are concerned about.

Do you know, I have a feeling Starmer and his team know more about doing this than you do It will be interesting watching that's for certain.

growstuff

Wow! How rude!

If you read the article in the Guardian Siope's interpretation of the headline and the intention of the writer is absolutely spot on.

That is an opinion growstuff. If you alter a quote to add an opinion you should make it clear.

MaizieD

^Throwing state funding at public services is not going to resolve all the issues,^

I hardly call it 'throwing' state funding at public services to attempt to restore their funding to anything like what it was when the tories started their fund cutting rampage post 2010 Casdon. There was no need for it at all.

Restore the funding, get the services into a better state than they are now, then start looking at any reforms that might be needed.

If it isn't done we will be in deep recession.

Neoliberal monetary economics aren't the only players in the game. Heard of Keynes?

What alternative would you suggest?

I agree.

I was careful to point out my lack of affiliation. I did give MY opinion, something I believe - not giving a scooby about the same few giving the fairly usual you’re wrong listen to my right reply. I would be quite happy to discuss but it seems that posters prefer to shout down others instead. Or blame bloody Brexit!

DaisyAnne

MaizieD

And then there is MMT. I don't think that came from the right. Jeremy Corbyn was in favour of it, I believe.

I missed this yesterday, DaisyAnne, probably because I don't always pay much attention to your self justifying posts.

I will point out, yet again, that MMT is politically neutral. It is merely an evidence based account of how any government finances work if the country has a sovereign currency. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. A government can use its ability to create money for any purpose it wants to, be it right or left wing, and governments have been doing so for decades.

www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/sites/bartlett_public_purpose/files/the_self-financing_state_an_institutional_analysis_of_government_expenditure_revenue_collection_and_debt_issuance_operations_in_the_united_kingdom.pdf

Maizie, do I care? Does any larger group on GN care? The Morning Star recently ran an article saying that the Labour Party's failure to support MMT was a “throwback to neoliberalism". That is quite an extreme comment coming from the source it does.

Your continued battering of those who say they don't naturally think MMT is the only way of seeing economics gives, in my opinion, a distorted and inflated sense of it's value. I expect parts of it will eventually be absorbed into the general view of economics eventually. But at the moment it is my view that it is being driven by those who have other axes to grind.

MMT is not a 'way of seeing economics'.

IT IS AN ACADEMICALLY RESEARCHED DESCRIPTION OF HOW A STATE WITH A SOVEREIGN CURRENCY FUNDS ITSELF

See the link I posted.

I concur with your posts at 16.49 and 16.52 growstuff.

I just wasn't quite sure about the earlier comment.

Starmer is Labour leader, elected and until rejected by the membership, he\ll be leader and if we are fortunate, prime minister instead of some Tory. Austerity wasn’t needed. It’s awful outcomes were predicted by anyone with any sense/compassion/understanding there is such a thing as society.

ExperiencedNotOld

I was careful to point out my lack of affiliation. I did give MY opinion, something I believe - not giving a scooby about the same few giving the fairly usual you’re wrong listen to my right reply. I would be quite happy to discuss but it seems that posters prefer to shout down others instead. Or blame bloody Brexit!

Would you care to discuss, then, exactly how a country's finances work, citing the authorities you depend on for your explanation?

I'm game.

MaizieD Some professor at Harvard has critiqued MMT better than I can and Xmas and life intervened. It’s by no means an accepted economic theory but it is of some interest and presents an intellectual challenge which is all to the good.

ronib

MaizieD Some professor at Harvard has critiqued MMT better than I can and Xmas and life intervened. It’s by no means an accepted economic theory but it is of some interest and presents an intellectual challenge which is all to the good.

I guess you realise that even Richard Murphy and Ann Pettifor disagree about how MMT works in practice. What almost no respected economist disagrees about is that countries with sovereign currencies don't need to balance the books in the same way as a household does. It is a fact that sovereign countries borrow money before they spend it. They then tax for a number of reasons, including decreasing the amount of money in circulation or redistributing wealth (amongst others).

PS. Which professor at Harvard?

Hands up! Am I the only one here who had to look it up?

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT):

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is a macroeconomic theory that says government spending should not be restrained by fears of rising debt.

Professor N Gregory Mankiw Harvard

MaizieD

DaisyAnne

MaizieD

And then there is MMT. I don't think that came from the right. Jeremy Corbyn was in favour of it, I believe.

I missed this yesterday, DaisyAnne, probably because I don't always pay much attention to your self justifying posts.

I will point out, yet again, that MMT is politically neutral. It is merely an evidence based account of how any government finances work if the country has a sovereign currency. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. A government can use its ability to create money for any purpose it wants to, be it right or left wing, and governments have been doing so for decades.

www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/sites/bartlett_public_purpose/files/the_self-financing_state_an_institutional_analysis_of_government_expenditure_revenue_collection_and_debt_issuance_operations_in_the_united_kingdom.pdf

Maizie, do I care? Does any larger group on GN care? The Morning Star recently ran an article saying that the Labour Party's failure to support MMT was a “throwback to neoliberalism". That is quite an extreme comment coming from the source it does.

Your continued battering of those who say they don't naturally think MMT is the only way of seeing economics gives, in my opinion, a distorted and inflated sense of it's value. I expect parts of it will eventually be absorbed into the general view of economics eventually. But at the moment it is my view that it is being driven by those who have other axes to grind.

MMT is not a 'way of seeing economics'.

IT IS AN ACADEMICALLY RESEARCHED DESCRIPTION OF HOW A STATE WITH A SOVEREIGN CURRENCY FUNDS ITSELF

See the link I posted.

I don't want to read any more links Maizie. Don't you understand plain English? My opinion is that this theory (economics is about theories, it is not an empirical science) will add to our knowledge. I will wait to see what that added knowledge is.

SHOUTING AT ME DOESN'T HELP. Why are you so angry that I don't share your religion? My issue with the theory is that those who want it to be true come from a strong, left-wing political position that would make them want it to be true. I understand why they want that but, sadly, that doesn't make true.

Telling every poor old granny and grandad that they are idiots for thinking that tax pays for the services they receive will not get them wanting to know more about this. They are happy with the simple belief that it does. They do not want another repeat of "how our economy works".

I know this means a lot to you, but can't you accept that it means much, much less to others?

DaisyAnne

growstuff

Wow! How rude!

If you read the article in the Guardian Siope's interpretation of the headline and the intention of the writer is absolutely spot on.

That is an opinion growstuff. If you alter a quote to add an opinion you should make it clear.

Wow! Just wow!

DaisyAnne

Dickens

Dinahmo

Much as she doesn't need my input I have to disagree with the idea that MaizieD is far left. From where I sit she's left leaning (as am I) but not extreme. IMO most sensible, caring people should be thinking about voting Labour in the next election after the mess that the Tories have made of the economy and social services over the last 12 or so years.

Unfortunately there will still be lies peddled about previous Labour govts, such as Brown ruined the economy, which he didn't. Even George Osborne admits that and also now agrees that Brown did a lot to stop world financial chaos.

Well some people think Sunak is a socialist.

Perceptions vary - obviously.

It would appear that if you hold the view that public services need to be properly funded in order to provide the service to the public that they were set up to do - you are far-left.

Which will come as a surprise to my NDN who is a traditional Conservative voter and also holds this view!

It's not like you to twist what was said Dickens. Shame on you.

I believe that public services need to be properly funded, but get attacked all the time because I neither believe in nationalisation nor do I think it would help. Some people should be reading The Water Babies and remembering Mrs Doasyouwouldbedoneby.

"Far-Left"

People's interpretation of far-left politics vary, even among scholars.
For many, it's not a neutral observation either - both far-left and far-right are used pejoratively.
Considering that there are those who think Sunak is a socialist - and I've seen the same comment about Boris Johnson on more than one occasion, indeed I've read comments from those who believe the current Tory party are too left-wing, although when asked they failed to support their view with any evidence other than Sunak's furlough support.
So it really does seem to be a matter of perception from the person using this kind of terminology.

You use the term far-left to describe posters who you say are to the left of your own political stand. But we don't know where you stand, so it's pretty meaningless. You're not really making an objective observation are you?

You said MaizieD was far-left. I think that puzzled one or two of us because nothing she's written appears to support that view. You mention MMT as supportive 'evidence', but MMT is an economic model - it is basically agnostic in theory.

Will you tell us what far-left means to you? Then we might have a better understanding of where you're coming from, so to speak.
I consider myself left-of-centre but suspect you would lump me with the far-left? Which would be amusing because when I debate with those who are to the left of me, they accuse me of being a Tory in disguise!

growstuff

DaisyAnne

growstuff

Wow! How rude!

If you read the article in the Guardian Siope's interpretation of the headline and the intention of the writer is absolutely spot on.

That is an opinion growstuff. If you alter a quote to add an opinion you should make it clear.

Wow! Just wow!

Why. When Siope put the bracketed comments in she should have owned them. They were her opinion of the article writers opinion.

I just want a different kind of politics.

One where we aren't pitted against each other.

Vintagenonna

I just want a different kind of politics.

One where we aren't pitted against each other.

So do most people. Some however think everyone is wrong but them.

To me, whatever they support, be it right, left or the arrival of little green men, that makes them extreme in their politics or "far" in whatever direction they are shouting about.

Probably ought to shut up before they start talking about burning the heretics who won't, don't, can't totally agree with them.

growstuff

DaisyAnne

growstuff

Wow! How rude!

If you read the article in the Guardian Siope's interpretation of the headline and the intention of the writer is absolutely spot on.

That is an opinion growstuff. If you alter a quote to add an opinion you should make it clear.

Wow! Just wow!

The rudest post ever, and shouting at someone for shouting! Wow! Just wow!

LilyGransnet

Hi folks

Can we have a bit of peace and love, please?

Exactly. Whilst I have my opinion, I’m no expert, but through reasoned discussion might gain a more developed view. I doubt anyone on here really knows more than what they’ve read somewhere (the Guardian gets quoted a lot by some!). I didn’t answer the challenge above as I don’t wish to adopt someone else’s opinion just to suit an ongoing argument. What I do know is that we’ve generally lost the ability to differentiate between what we really need and what we want. Posters say we must fund care/nhs/wage rise etc etc - but never say what should be done without to meet that. I can think of plenty I could do without on a personal and on a societal level. Can others.? Or would they rather we all pay more taxes - a lot more.