The Budget

That is the reason why it is always best to post a link to the information you are quoting from, then other posters have the full context and can make their points accordingly? We are caught between chat and serious discussion so often because some post one way and some another.

DAR - I personally do not understand your stance in the slightest.

tbh, comes across as RR is your DD.
And will be defended whatever.

MaizieD

Mollygo

My info came from the ifs. It amazes me how people reject any sources that don’t fit their views.
Actually, Thats not true. It doesn’t amaze me. I’ve come to expect it.

I’ve completely lost the thread of this argument but the IFS, like all the ‘accepted’ neoliberal organisations and commentators, that supports and disseminates the big lie which has led to the current state of the UK. Failing public services, ever growing poverty, division, anger and hopelessness.

That lie is that taxes fund spending and that shortfalls have to be made up with borrowing. The first enables threads like the ones on the abolition of the 2 child cap, the second enables wealthy gamblers to play havoc with our monetary systems.

The lies have been proved to be lies, but they have enabled tge growth of extreme wealth and of the power which goes with it.

Fighting over the minor lie of a poor chancellor is a waste of energy…

Maizie your views on economics are bonkers, not just La La Land but down right scurrilous, there is no state that runs its finances the way you suggest.

Whether we like it or not there is a standard way that global financial exchanges operate, we cannot change that. Maybe. At some point in the future that may change by agreement, until then the UK has to conform to that standard.

I don’t mind arguing with you but you should stop giving others unrealistic ideas about changes that can be made.

fancythat

DAR - I personally do not understand your stance in the slightest.

That's okay There's no rule that you have to.

I wonder if telling you a little anecdote would help? I once belonged to a group which met monthly and every few months we discussed a current topic. We would divide the topic up and a few people would research those areas and present what they had learned. We then had the discussion. One month someone new had joined us. I had a few smiles from friends as the debate progressed but this women looked very quizzically at me. I asked if she was okay. She said she didn't understand. She had noticed that at the beginning I was arguing one side of the topic and now I was arguing the other. I explained that the discussion had seemed a little one-sided so I was trying to balance it.

My aim in joining this thread was to track down the truth. I am simply not tribal. I hope this helps.

Maybe! Thanks for trying.
I need a while to digest what you are saying.

I could report you for a personal attack, David, but as I'm quite happy to return the compliment I'll not bother...

Every state that has a sovereign currency, and isn't mired in foreign currency debt, issues money into its economy in the way described by MMT. How it handles its economy after doing that is a matter of ideological and political choice.

I asked AI the question:

comparing neoliberal economic theory with modern monetary theory which gives a more accurate account of money in the domestic economy

Its response:

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) gives a more accurate account of how money works in a domestic economy than neoliberal economics. Neoliberalism treats government budgets like household budgets, assuming money is scarce and debt dangerous, while MMT recognizes that sovereign governments issuing their own currency can create money through spending, with inflation—not insolvency—the real constraint

You could try it yourself. I used Windows Copilot, you could try another one...

I don't know if anyone watched Starmer's speech - and perhaps you knew this - but he was saying that the OBR Productivity Review hasn't been done for 15 years. It is not annual.

DaisyAnneReturns

I don't know if anyone watched Starmer's speech - and perhaps you knew this - but he was saying that the OBR Productivity Review hasn't been done for 15 years. It is not annual.

So 15 years ago, did we have a Labour govt then, do they only do it for Labour?

I'm sorry to put the other sides arguement Maizie particularly as you we just on the end of an unfair post but, if you ask AI for the opposing view to your answer, this is what I get.

MMT overstates the freedom and safety with which governments can create money. While it’s true that countries issuing their own fiat currency cannot ‘run out’ of money in a technical sense, treating government spending as essentially unconstrained is dangerously incomplete.

I think this is how I feel. There is more to be said/something is missing/it's not "wrong" but it doesn't feel finished.

It can't be that bad as it is being taught as part of the economics degrees in at least a couple of universities and as first degrees tend to be quite broad that's an achievement in itself.

theworriedwell

DaisyAnneReturns

I don't know if anyone watched Starmer's speech - and perhaps you knew this - but he was saying that the OBR Productivity Review hasn't been done for 15 years. It is not annual.

So 15 years ago, did we have a Labour govt then, do they only do it for Labour?

There's a thought or (just for balance) did the Conservatives choose not to have it done!

Fighting over the minor lie of a poor chancellor is a waste of energy

No lie is minor in my book.

And if true, this is very far from minor.

I would list my 3 exceptions to he above, but this is not the time or place.

fancythat

^Fighting over the minor lie of a poor chancellor is a waste of energy^

No lie is minor in my book.

And if true, this is very far from minor.

Much of what has been said today seems to refute the idea of a lie.

There does seem to have been a pause between one tranche of information which had the government concerned that they would have to consider breaking their manifesto promise. This seems to have come from the OBR Productivity Review which has not been carried out for the last 15 years - quite an update. Figures later obtained from other areas (tax receipts) were better than expected and meant they would not have to break manifesto promises.

Listening to "Today" it seems the complaint had changed from accusations of lying to feeling that they were not given enough information. But then that has always been the complaint from journalists under all governments.

DaisyAnneReturns

I'm sorry to put the other sides arguement Maizie particularly as you we just on the end of an unfair post but, if you ask AI for the opposing view to your answer, this is what I get.

MMT overstates the freedom and safety with which governments can create money. While it’s true that countries issuing their own fiat currency cannot ‘run out’ of money in a technical sense, treating government spending as essentially unconstrained is dangerously incomplete.

I think this is how I feel. There is more to be said/something is missing/it's not "wrong" but it doesn't feel finished.

It can't be that bad as it is being taught as part of the economics degrees in at least a couple of universities and as first degrees tend to be quite broad that's an achievement in itself.

What question did you ask it?

Because MMT most emphatically doesn't advocate unrestrained government spending. The constraint it recognises is the availability of resources to purchase. If the resources weren't available for purchase the government wouldn't 'spend'.

Also, 'MMT' is the description of how the national monetary system actually works. MMT doesn't 'state' or advocate anything.

Maizie I put your statement in and I think I asked what would be the "opposing view" of this but I'm not sure. It could have been "counter argument". I often ask for something along those lines when I ask for information I want. It gives a better balance.

fancythat

^Fighting over the minor lie of a poor chancellor is a waste of energy^

No lie is minor in my book.

And if true, this is very far from minor.

Well, governments have been lying for years about how the state is financed and you seem to have been perfectly happy to accept that.

So why the fuss now?

“Every state that has a sovereign currency, and isn't mired in foreign currency debt, issues money into its economy in the way described by MMT. How it handles its economy after doing that is a matter of ideological and political choice”

Yes, they do but all have to trade globally, most commodities are traded in US dollars. If confidence is lost the local currency get devalued, many states have worthless currencies, countries like Argentina where Inflation is 50%, 100%, 200% and all commercial trade is done in dollars.

Weve all been on holiday to those places where tourists pay for most services in dollars because the local currency is so unstable, even India which is far from the worst.

So let’s print unlimited money and watch the sterling plummet, thankfully that’s not going to happen because this government and the previous governments realized (except Truss) how stupid that would be. It’s all about confidence, which is why QE is counted as borrowing so the money supply is transparent and everyone know what’s happening.

'Misled' is the word I have heard it described as by Chris Mason who, I believe, is a scrupulously careful in his reports.

That is being economical with the truth imo, in order to deceive.

MaizieD

fancythat

Fighting over the minor lie of a poor chancellor is a waste of energy

No lie is minor in my book.

And if true, this is very far from minor.

Well, governments have been lying for years about how the state is financed and you seem to have been perfectly happy to accept that.

So why the fuss now?

I am not!

And you cant possibly say "I have been perfectly happy".
You dont know me properly, you couldnt know that anyway, and you cant see inside my head.

Amd your attempt at deflection from what you yourself originally said, has far from worked either.

I want the standards of MPs to be very high.
Not very low.

If the Uk population is not careful, we will slide into accepting corruption and the like. If not worse.
Assuming we are not already at that point.

I doubt if in reality the moral compass of MPs is any different to what it has always been fancythat. However the advent of more aggressive investigating and reporting of misdemeanours, and the planting of stories, often on social media, that turn out to be untrue is rife now.

Allira

'Misled' is the word I have heard it described as by Chris Mason who, I believe, is a scrupulously careful in his reports.

That is being economical with the truth imo, in order to deceive.

Yes 👍

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

I did make a mistake in saying you'd been happy with the lie. you don't seem to be happy about anything

!