How Does Robber Reeves Do Her Sums?

Allsorts

Reeves, has not a clue, every time she makes an announcement she refers to Liz Truss!!! The country is in a hole, 25,000 extra people and the people already here are broke. I can't see a way out now it's gone too far. Farage will get in because people see no hope now.

👏👏👏👏

GrannyGravy13

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Pull a lever, spin the wheel, look at the tea leaves 🍃 ask a magpie 🐦‍⬛ , .... 🤷‍♀️

Absolutely 👍🏻

Might be better !😂

Allsorts

Reeves, has not a clue, every time she makes an announcement she refers to Liz Truss!!! The country is in a hole, 25,000 extra people and the people already here are broke. I can't see a way out now it's gone too far. Farage will get in because people see no hope now.

There is more - much more - to the economy than immigration. Farage has no answers, so he whips up fears and keeps immigration in the headlines.

We now know that she has been very economical with the truth about her qualifications for such an important role and it shows. She needs replacing pronto before things get any worse.

Some things might need a full and detailed record of what you have done. Others need an outline. If you apply for some jobs in a foreign country, for instance, you may need full details of the framework of your degree/s. You would not put that in an application.

Nit-picking a favourite target rather than anyone deliberately being economical with the truth methinks.

windmill1

Because in just over 12 months the 22billion "black hole" ,which was her all-purpose excuse for financially crucifying pensioners, has managed to become 41billion.

Almost doubled?!!!!!!!

Show your working Rachel from Accounts.

I don’t see how means testing a payment of £200 or £300 is financially crucifying anybody, the poorest pensioners still received the winter fuel allowance and it was rightfully taken away from millions of higher rate tax paying pensioners, those of us in the middle managed without it.

I do find the puerile language being used in politics at the moment is disgusting eg, ‘Robber Reeves’, Tice’s use of ‘net stupid zero’ and Zia Yusuf’s use of ‘the blob’, I have no idea what that even means, and the even more disgusting words being used for Keir Starmer that I won’t repeat. DH and I were talking about politics this morning and we have more or less decided to stop voting for the first time since we were 21.

The MMT idea that governments can ho on printing money is not highly regarded by most distinguished economists and many see it as a political manifesto for progressive politics rather than a theory based on evidence. Be that as it may it's weakness in my opinion is that it focuses on money and if that were the essential element in an economy whereas the real economy is one essentially based on energy availability and the cost of providing energy. Theories of money are simply dealing with the descriptive language superimposed on the underlying physical economy. Printing money doesn't create energy to power civilisations, especially when the energy invested to obtain more energy starts to rise as it does for example in shale drilling. The rate of energy return from energy invested is a serious underlying problem which can't be solved by manipulating the money supply.

Sorry - few fat finger spelling errors in the above. I do wish GN had an edit button.

Chocolatelovinggran

I haven't entered the fray here but I do want to say how much I dislike the playground- type name calling.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not Robber Reeves, and the PM is not Two Tier anything.
I disliked Prime Minister Johnson most heartily, but did not feel the need to call him a childish nickname, and refrained from referring to Ms Truss as Lettuce, or Lee Anderson as 30p Lee.
Could we speak about others in more adult terms, please.

Well said!

Sarnia

We now know that she has been very economical with the truth about her qualifications for such an important role and it shows. She needs replacing pronto before things get any worse.

You don't get interviewed for the job of Chancellor. You just get given it by the PM.

George Osborne had no economic knowledge whatsoever being an Arts graduate. apart from the household fallacy, of course. He initiated the disastrous austerity policy. It threw thousands out of work and slowed our recovery from the GFC. His real objective was to further cut public spending and we're suffering from it now.

Very few, if any, Chancellors have had any training in economics.

Crossstitchfan

Chocolatelovinggran

I haven't entered the fray here but I do want to say how much I dislike the playground- type name calling.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not Robber Reeves, and the PM is not Two Tier anything.
I disliked Prime Minister Johnson most heartily, but did not feel the need to call him a childish nickname, and refrained from referring to Ms Truss as Lettuce, or Lee Anderson as 30p Lee.
Could we speak about others in more adult terms, please.

Well said!

Dizzy Disraeli anyone?
It's been happening for centuries.

The MMT idea that governments can ho on printing money is not highly regarded by most distinguished economists and many see it as a political manifesto for progressive politics rather than a theory based on evidence.

I'm afraid that evidence is completely against you, Grantanow, whatever these 'distinguished economists' might say.

Perhaps you could point me to some links of 'distinguished economists' explaining exactly what the source of our money is? I.e, the physical currency or the digital currency (not crypto, that's something entirely different though 'created in the same way, out of thin air) circulating in the economy.

Be that as it may it's weakness in my opinion is that it focuses on money and if that were the essential element in an economy

Oooh. I'd like to see what happens if someone tried to run an economy without any money...

..whereas the real economy is one essentially based on energy availability and the cost of providing energy.

I think your theory might fall down somewhat if you tried going back a couple of 100 years to economies which had little dependence on energy...

It's certainly a component of a modern industrialised economy, and is ignored by many economists, but it's a post industrialisation development. Or are you classing manpower and horse power as 'energy'?

I have read many critiques of MMT by other economists and I have never seen any denial of the fact that money is created by the state. Critiques are solely based on policy proposals made by MMT adherents, who tend to be progressives. But the fact of the ability to create money could equally be used to promote right wing objectives. It's entirely apolitical.

I suggest you read Tim Morgan's book Life after Growth (Harriman House, 2014, 2nd ed.). He sets out the differencs between the real, underlying economy - all of which which depends on the surplus energy available to man ( and that does go right back to the beginnings of agriculture c.9,000 BCE) - and the descriptive economy using money as its language. He puts it much better than I could.

He is, of course, writing pre-pandemic, pre-Brexit and early in climate change politics but he continues to develop his work on a website.

I think his ideas are worth consideration.

I will try to get hold of a copy, Grantanow. Have you a link to his website?

But I'm still puzzled as to how you can argue that money is not an essential element in an economy.