Politics are moderating in the U.K.

When I see politicians like Braverman in power I tend to doubt politics is moderating.

Nope, just reliable statistics, polititians, experts and activists always have an agenda.

I think she does use 'sources', growstuff, despite saying that she doesn't. Otherwise what is she 'differently interpretating', as stated at 02.09 today?

Why, Katie59, can you not link to those sources that you are interpreting differently?

Katie59

The amount of public debt - in relation to GDP has mirrored the depreciation of sterling for decades, how can anyone say that is a success.
I’m did not say unlimited money should be created/borrowed I said more should be spent to grow the economy

QE and borrowing has the same effect, it is all time limited often 10yrs then has to be created/borrowed again, it all gets accounted for.

Unlike you Maisie I don’t use sources because most have an agenda of some kind, it is a fact that all borrowing/creation has to have a payback, the U.K. has not been getting a payback, it has just been spent to buy votes.

If you don't use sources on which to base your opinions, what do you use?

“ If you don't use sources what do you base your judgement on? We aren't born with an innate knowledge of economics and national budgets.”

Sources are usually biased by whatever agenda they are promoting, statistics are accurate but interpretation is very often biased.
Just because my interpretation is different does not make me wrong. Successive governments have been taking short term views selling off national assets to fund social improvement MMP has allowed them to do that, albeit at a falling value of sterling.
While imports were plentiful that loss was acceptable now shortages are hitting hard. At the same time there has been no incentive to invest in technology, so companies have to follow suit and take a short term view often selling out to foreign buyers, further diluting national interests.

Unlike you Maisie I don’t use sources because most have an agenda of some kind, it is a fact that all borrowing/creation has to have a payback, the U.K. has not been getting a payback, it has just been spent to buy votes.

If you don't use sources what do you base your judgement on? We aren't born with an innate knowledge of economics and national budgets.

QE and borrowing has the same effect, it is all time limited often 10yrs then has to be created/borrowed again, it all gets accounted for.

Government bonds are time limited but QE isn't. There is no reason at all for it to be 'paid back' because it's the government 'borrowing' from itself. It's pure money creation, albeit in a rather roundabout fashion.

The amount of public debt - in relation to GDP has mirrored the depreciation of sterling for decades, how can anyone say that is a success.

Sterling has been 'depreciating' in value over centuries. The pound today won't purchase anywhere near what it purchased 200 years ago. Ratio of 'debt' to GDP doesn't account for that at all.

I’m did not say unlimited money should be created/borrowed I said more should be spent to grow the economy

The only way to spend more at the moment (and I agree with you that we need to spend more to grow the economy) is for the state to issue more. Foreign investment is declining , foreign trade is declining (even though, in theory, a low sterling value should stimulate it) there's no other non governmental source of money.

^In 2007, the UK debt as a percentage of GDP is 35% and then there was a massive jump to almost 60% in 2009.
At the same time, the sterling/sing dollars exchange rate dropped sharply from $3 to $2.16^

That was during the global financial crisis when the pound dropped against the US $, too.

The UK 'debt' has been skewed since then by the fact that some £350billion of Quantitative Easing was injected to rescue the banks, but as it was money issued by the BoE, which belongs to the state, and is really owed to no-one it's not a liability for the state. The same applies to subsequent rounds of QE. They really should be deducted from the UK 'debt' figure.

But if you look at the £ to US$ value since 1974 it has fluctuated significantly over the period, while GDP has held fairly steady

£ to US$
www.macrotrends.net/2549/pound-dollar-exchange-rate-historical-chart

UK GDP

www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/gdp-gross-domestic-product

Then look at this debt to GDP ratio
www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/debt-to-gdp-ratio

In this last the ratio remains fairly stable. I can't see anything as far as the debt to GDP ration is concerned that accounts for the fluctuations in the US$ to £ valuations. The value was mostly affected by 'shocks', such as the attack on the £ which forced us to leave the ERM in the 1980 and the Brexit vote in 2016. These seem to me to be more related to pressure from the financial markets and speculation than to the Debt to GDP ratios.

The value of the £ is determined by the foreign exchange market, which not only traders wanting to buy sterling for payment for traded goods, but also speculators wanting to use fluctuations to make money. This

The amount of public debt - in relation to GDP has mirrored the depreciation of sterling for decades, how can anyone say that is a success.
I’m did not say unlimited money should be created/borrowed I said more should be spent to grow the economy

QE and borrowing has the same effect, it is all time limited often 10yrs then has to be created/borrowed again, it all gets accounted for.

Unlike you Maisie I don’t use sources because most have an agenda of some kind, it is a fact that all borrowing/creation has to have a payback, the U.K. has not been getting a payback, it has just been spent to buy votes.

MaizieD
“The falling value of sterling has nothing to do with money creation.”

The value of sterling pound has also fallen against the Singapore dollar. When I first met my husband in 1985, £1=$3.85 dollars. Now £1=1.65 dollars, so the pound has lost more than 50% of its value since then.

Out of curiosity, I compare the UK national debt over the years against the exchange rate between sterling/sing dollars over the years.

And this is what I find:-

In 2007, the UK debt as a percentage of GDP is 35% and then there was a massive jump to almost 60% in 2009.
At the same time, the sterling/sing dollars exchange rate dropped sharply from $3 to $2.16

To me, this shows that there is an inverse relationship between level of national debt due to creation of money and the value of the pound.

Am I right?

Grany

Mick Lynch said if Labour gets more moderate it will disappear

Unlikely. There are many more moderates than there are those as far left as you and Mick Lynch, Grany.

General elections are won or lost by a small number of floating voters in a small number of constituencies. It is more likely that extremes will lose numbers than that the centre plus the less extreme will.

Katie59

Modern Monetary Theory where the state can create or borrow money with no restriction works well in the US because the US dollar is the global reserve currency and the government controls public spending. The U.K. has been very poor at controlling public spending and the value of sterling has consistently fallen

The falling value of sterling has nothing to do with money creation.

Countries with sovereign currencies do it all the time. The UK has been doing it for decades. If it hadn't there wouldn't be enough money to go around in our ever increasing population.

Where do you get your idea from, Katie59?. At least I try to back what I say with my sources.

P.S. MMT doesn't say that money can be created with no restriction. And it's not really interested in borrowing as a source of government spending. It is a description of how state financing actually works.How about doing some reading on it? I'd recommend this website just for starters:

gimms.org.uk/

Katie59

nightowl

Maybe fleurpepper, maybe not. With the present government, it’s Labour’s to take, but we can’t count on them doing it. And if all the parties become central, that reduces choice anyway. Many people might conclude there’s not much point in voting if they’re all the same.

Don’t believe the polls predicting a Labour landslide, the UK could easily elect an awkward coalition, with small parties demanding unreasonable concessions.

Are you an oracle Katie59, you certainly make statements which fly in the face of earthly evidence?

Modern Monetary Theory where the state can create or borrow money with no restriction works well in the US because the US dollar is the global reserve currency and the government controls public spending. The U.K. has been very poor at controlling public spending and the value of sterling has consistently fallen

Fleurpepper

Coalitions don't have to be 'awkward' and concessions don't have to be bad either.

That depends which side of the fence you are, the history of coalitions in the UK has not been good

Coalitions don't have to be 'awkward' and concessions don't have to be bad either.

Like?

nightowl

Maybe fleurpepper, maybe not. With the present government, it’s Labour’s to take, but we can’t count on them doing it. And if all the parties become central, that reduces choice anyway. Many people might conclude there’s not much point in voting if they’re all the same.

Don’t believe the polls predicting a Labour landslide, the UK could easily elect an awkward coalition, with small parties demanding unreasonable concessions.

I look forward to them winning power and making an actual difference to peoples lives. Or not as the case may be.

Some suggestions as to who is the real leader of the opposition:
Mick Lynch
Eddie Dempsey
Carol Vorderman

From various sources

I think nightowl makes a good point about voter apathy if both the main parties are similar in their aims and outlook. But perhaps that pleases the main parties, less fightback about anything they choose to do.

Grany

Mick Lynch said if Labour gets more moderate it will disappear

Love this!
I'm not sure if Labour will disappear. It will probably get in because there isn't really an alternative. By the election after that a lot of the public will be disenchanted and (as in the Blair years) the numbers voting will fall, as people realise there isn't much difference between Tory and Tory-lite.

Choice dose not really exist as long as we have FPTP - if you live in 'the wrong place' - there is no choice. You know your vote will go straight in the bin- as I have known, every single time I voted. What 'choice' is that?

I think whatever these people are trying to prove is still a theory until it is accepted by their peers

What an extraordinary statement, DaisyAnne.

Are you saying that, for example, Darwin's theory of evolution wasn't valid until it was accepted by a critical mass of the scientific community? That's nonsense. His 'theory' was validated by the incontrovertible evidence on which it was based. It didn't make any difference whether one person validated it or one thousand people validated it; it was valid at the time that he proved it.

but nothing about borrowing Maizie

Must go, but I think you are obsessed by this word. I will try and think of a replacement for you.

Don't bother, I already have another word (well, phrase) for it. It is the savings and investments facility provided by the state to individuals and institutions.

I don't believe I am making that assumption, although it suits MMT supporters to assume people are as they can say they are saying something new.

If you weren't making that assumption you would have included the money created by the state in your attempt to convince me that there was nothing you didn't know in the research paper I posted excerpts from. As it is, all you talked of was taxation and borrowing. You clearly still think that the state is funded by these two mechanisms. Otherwise I don't understand why you are fighting so hard to discredit MMT, which is merely a description of how the state with a sovereign currency funds its spending.

Maybe fleurpepper, maybe not. With the present government, it’s Labour’s to take, but we can’t count on them doing it. And if all the parties become central, that reduces choice anyway. Many people might conclude there’s not much point in voting if they’re all the same.

“I am still unsure which lot can produce that. I do not see it being the Truss style far right economists or the MMT far left ones.”

The far left certainly won’t provide a solution, the problem Truss had was presentation, whatever plan there was was never justified and “sold” to the markets. We can only hope there will be a centrist plan that is embraced.

Taxation levels are too low and it’s too easy for wealth to be passed on in many ways, a typical couple will put most of their wealth into their house and not pay tax, their pension is taxed but when they retire most only pay a small amount if any. It’s not about bankers bonuses or taxing energy companies it’s everyone has to pay more, then there will be a surplus to invest to stimulate the economy.

I don’t see the Tories providing a solution, maybe Starmer will