Comments by "Curious Crow" (@CuriousCrow-mp4cx) on "Richard J Murphy" channel.

  1. Go to the top of the class. You hit a very important nail on the head.
    2
  2. Just like bots. Lol. I tell you a trick. Go and Google Richard J Murphy and see what you find. I know if we googled you, what we would find. Nothing.
    2
  3. Austerity was an attempt to reduce the size of the debt relative to GDP but, it has never worked because it also sucks investment out of the economy. It's like asking Dracula for a blood transfusion - deluded.
    2
  4. Outrage farming again.
    2
  5. Because he knows what he is talking about. You know you're in trouble when the people running our country tell us to ignore experts. And Richard J Murphy understands interrelated disciplines like economics, accounting, business and finance. Not many politicians are anywhere near that.
    2
  6. ​​ @Evertraveller Where were you when Trump doubled the money supply before Biden? Or Since 2008,when you bailed out your banks so they could crap all over you again? A Darwin Award for your comment is well deserved, as objective Truth has no ideology. And that's what's needed right now. Not MAGA bs.
    2
  7. You need to say Richard that whether the government uses MMT or QE/QT to deal with crises there also has to be the means of removing that excess money from the economy, or the value of the money spent will deflate the value of money already in circulation. Indeed, I think the Danish avoided that issue, largely by mostly lending money rather than handing it out willy nilly, or borrowing from the financial markets. And they taxed the profits made adequately too. Much like after pumpling tons of water into a structure on fire, after you put the fire out, the excess water remaining in it has to be removed, so it can become habitable once again. Government by borrowing from financial markets to fund their spending and not taxing the profits generated are failing to remove it. It's staying in the economy and devaluing the value of the currency. Governments only borrow to create wealth, but in choosing to borrow and not tax the commercial profits in that they are both devaluing the currency and encouraging malinvestment. Thus the economic growth they're all going on about will do little constructive in the real economy - the one that produces real jobs and real wages. The speculative economy will be fine.
    2
  8. The source is not the ownership of said assets. And that's what the EU wanted, and the Square Mile didn't.
    2
  9. Actually, that's your bias, and not reality. If the Republicans wanted to help tax payers, they would make the Tax System simpler, use AI to automate it, and remove the need to use tax specialists. That alone would reduce costs to taxpayers and the government, which would reduce the need to increase taxes in the first place. Funny that no-one suggests doing that. Instead, they're leaving the labyrinthine tax rules in place, which help wealthy corporations pay less taxes, and dumping more of the Tax Burden on the assetless, and the asset-limited. That's going to work out well, isn't it? Just like the Portrait of Dorian Gray. What was stuck up in the attic of the American historical consciousness - that it was designed as a factory to turn suffering into gold - is now out and proud in its nastiness, because there's nothing left outside the attic except the American people to reenslave. The economic and political norms of Imperialism and colonialism are coming home to the American people. And it's going to get ugly over the next decade or so.
    2
  10. The pension funds would be happy to swap those for government bonds, as the latter is a better form of collateral. Water company Shares are illiquid assets, and their value has declined. Pension funds use liability management with bonds already to cover future liabilities. And offering Gilts as collateral for their investing financing will be cheaper than offering shares.
    2
  11. I think you are mistaken. Leasehold is the problematic land tenure, not Freehold, which is held free of any charges to a landlord and can only override by The Crown. Not knowing that is strange, as anyone buying a home would know the difference. And it leasehold is not a tax, but rent for the right to occupy and use land for a limited time. It's a form of subletting a freehold owned by a landlord. Is it a scam? Not really, if the costs are fair. But the lack of mechanisms to challenge assessments and to ensure that the landlord fufils his obligations under the contract creates the possibility for extortion. Also, the sums demanded to extend or renew leaseholds when close to the end of their duration can be onerous, and are not open to challenge either. But should leasehold be dispensed with, or should it be reformed or replaced? These are reasonable questions, and they have yet to be tackled. Property rights are a tough nut to crack, because it is potentially amending principles of ownership of land, the most protected form of property everywhere. Good luck with that.
    2
  12. You can think what you like, but it doesn't make it true.
    2
  13. I'm sorry, but you really are making a critical error: not everyone is like you. They may need or want direction, and they may not be able to afford a ketogenic diet, as animal proteins are expensive. So, really it's not about you. It's about everyone, and the state serves everyone, whether they need it or not. And Digital exclusion is a thing. And few don't in some way or another. I mean, you remind of the state of affairs in London before 1666. Then, people who could afford to pay would buy the services of a private fire brigade, to guard their properties from burning down. Only the houses carrying the plaque of a Insurance Company were protect. But unfortunately, that was only a minority of properties who could or did access those services. So when the Great Fire of London took hold, the uninsured houses helped the fire spread, which in many places, overwhelmed the private firefighters, and burnt down those insured properties too... Huge swathes of London were destroyed and people died, because of the lack of communal services, or joined up thinking. Everyone was, as they thought, was protecting themselves, with no thought of how their choices could impact others. So, arguably no Freedom comes without Responsibility. And waiting until a post-mortem after a disaster happens is pretty late to learn that a community response is sometimes far more effective than an individual or familial one. Good Luck with your weight loss.
    2
  14. Actually, no. What is devaluing the value of money is our consumer spending-driven economy. We have encouraged rentier economics, and that relies on debt to be sustained. As long as policy favours asset owners over the rest of the economy, wealth inequality is inevitable, and the value of currency will be degraded because the flow of funds is not being directed toward constructive economic investment, but malinvestment.
    2
  15. I think the Economic History from 1914 onwards is on part a history of the US using its financial power to hobble it's rivals. The Special Relationship myth obscured the hard-nosed truth about Geopolitics and financial and economic Imperialism of that period. Let's not be shy about it. Both world wars were opportunities used to elbow its rivals - mainly France and Britain - into complying with its plan to dominate the world economically and financially as its rivals had done before. "Geopolitics is a poker game where all the players are lying," and nothing has changed that truth. Perhaps if we were more willing ourselves to confront our own history of Imperialism, weight be better equipped to recognise its appeal to others. But our elites don't want to open that can of worms, because they're still involved in it many ways. Hence, the hypocrisy and avoidance of confronting our complicity in many ways in the present. In avoiding facing up to it, we in turn become victims of it, because no empire, figuratively or literally, lasts forever. History practically is the best tool to reveal this truth. Knowing our economic and financial history, and linking it to political and geopolitical changes would have warned us much earlier of people like Trump, being the consequence of when one global economic hegemony is coming to its end of its potential for growth. The declining power turns to economic and political aggression to stave off its decline. It starts to try and find new sources of wealth for money to throw at the problem. That's what we did with our empire, and that's what the US is doing now, and they are so desperate that they turn on their allies and attempt to shake them down and bend them to their will. It's the imperialistic form of looking for change down the back of the sofa, when the prepayment meter is running out. So much for the heavies, turning to protectionism and intimidation of those they deem weaker. It's not the first time our country has been subject to such treatment, and it won't be the last. Our domestic politics is literally a scramble for change down the back of the sofa, because winter has come, because our oligarchs deceived themselves, and deceived us in turn about the harsh truth. What to do? Put aside the delusions, because they will not help. Trump is trying to rattle us, because he perceives us as weak and clueless. And in some ways, we've been naive. We should stop lying to ourselves about what is being done in our name. We should stop appeasing the asset wealthy, because they're aren't focussed on solving our problems, but satisfying their obsession with having more at any cost. They shaped the narrative to suit their goals, and if we let them, they will impoverish us further and damage our economic potential permanently. And they need to give up their untenable obsession with infinite wealth on a finite planet. We are at a tipping point in history, and the only way to not damage ourselves further is not to pretend that there is no alternative, as we falsely keep being told. We need to push back on that. Richard's 14 Questions need to be asked not only of Keir Starmer or Labour, but of every politician wanting to govern us. Indeed, the American people should be asking this of their leaders too. Because, we need to face up to the fact that what they are proposing can't work. Business as usual isn't going to work to rebuild economies whose foundations have been neglected and need attention to survive, and are weakening our social fabric. There's nowhere to hide from this. There's no ladder to pull up, as the latter itself is rotting. So we need to look at things more differently and more honestly if we are to come out the other side permanently diminished economically and socially.
    2
  16. Nope, because sovereign countries can't afford to pay them. So businesses will shut down. Especially as the asset limited and the assetless can't afford to buy them anyway. And American firms won't be able to import the commodities to build American replacements to meet need, never mind demand. It's the equivalent of putting trade sanctions on yourselves.
    2
  17. Your generational labelling is off. Baby boomers were born in the Post-World War II baby boom, and those children came of age in the mid 1960s. That cohort's children would have come of age from 1970s to early 1980s at the earliest. And how helpful are such imprecise generalisations any way? All they seem to do is to muddy the waters.
    2
  18. I think you're being gentle here, Richard. It's not only the US domestic economy which has skin in the game, but the global economy too, because USD is the global reserve currency, and in effect and practice, the Fed is Lender of Last Resort to the global banking system. Like all central banks since 2008, the Fed already has a credibility issue when it insists that it directly controls interest rates, but in reality are more like the Wizard of Oz, reliant on perception than concrete power. Mainly because the perception of risk differs somewhat in the financial markets to that of the Fed. It's not the first time in history this has happened, as Frank L. Baum's satire attests. So the Pull Me, Push You between Powell and Trump is going to be political theatre all over again. Trump thinks he's the Good Guy, and Powell is the Heel, so Trump's going to win this bout? Not really. I think the Bulge Bracket Banks will tag-team with Powell and defeat Trump, whose approval rating is heading where our blood pressure should be - lower.
    2
  19. Because all the way back to 1945, the Welfare State has been disliked by the Conservatives, and the recent generation of conservatives are radical intent on destroying it. Since 1951 they've been resentful of it. Yet it took Margaret Thatcher to put a huge nail in its coffin. Google "The Rape of The National Insurance Fund". You will see that successive governments fiddled the figures.
    2
  20. Yes, and no. Chip Design is often smaller than manufacturers. And Nvidia doesn't make it's own designs. That's subcontracted out.
    2
  21. He's a chartered accountant as well as a political economist, so he probably has a pretty good idea where it went. For your information, the same pension contribution holiday thing impacted the National Insurance Fund from the time of Thatcher to Teresa May, and we know where that money went: to Buying votes with tax cuts.
    2
  22. Lol. Try harder.
    1
  23. Whenever has a degree been a measure of ability? A degree in any subject is a focussed specialism. Outside of it you may be as ignorant as anyone else. And undergraduate drgrees are only introductions to a subject to boot. It teaches you how to navigate through a subject, but it doesn't always supply you with the means to create new knowledge in that area. Learning is a skill, and degrees allow one to demonstrate competence in learning. Practice is something else, and knowledge ≠ wisdom. In fact, using higher education as a Sorting Hat for a society determined to prefer drones rather than creative and analytical thinkers just ends up destroying those talents, because they are less applied to making the human condition better than creating wealth for a few. Monkey minds and bulls in a China shop still abound but they have degrees attached. I'm not anti-education, but I do question what are the priorities we are trying to meet with it. Human happiness and effectiveness seems to be low priority, and falling lower as the buffers of our economic system seem to be coming up faster than our overlords can cope with in an humane way. And they're all educated don't you know!
    1
  24. Economies are meant to serve the welfare of the people within them, not endanger their means of survival. Economics 101.
    1
  25. Depends on the job doesn't it. The job determines which payscale, and then hours worked, service, and location. So we're guesing, which isn't a good way to construct a grounded and factual assessment. You need the numbers of people at each band, within each payscale, and the median hours worked for each and the median pay. Then one can make a decent guess. And remember some nurses do agency work as well. So that needs to be noted. HMRC Should have real-time PAYE data for NHS staff, and the appropriate select committee could asked for a analysis to be done on that anonymised data.
    1
  26. Private equity doesn't work that way. Sorry. Asset stripping has nothing to do with the banks. In fact, private equity is trying to replace them. Why private equity is less regulated than banks, so they can to the global money markets and get loans for "dry powder funds" as offshore entities to finance acquisitions. Banks are only the conduit. They are not the pump.
    1
  27. You still want to access health services that are collectively insured? Then your freedom comes with a responsibility not to abuse it. Your choice has consequences. Choose wisely.
    1
  28. Why do facts dont suddenly don't matter? You have a leaking pipe leaking enough to rot your house slowly from the inside, and your solution is to make the leak bigger by sticking a crude, flat headed tool, like a screwdriver into the hole, making it bigger. Magical thinking about reality is a road to hell. Instead of fixing income and wealth being extracted to to the already asset wealthy, Flat taxes, would accelerate that process, because far more speculation than productive investment is going on in the economy. What you ignore is that the asset wealthy don't deserve the tax breaks they are given, because they aren't investing it to help the economy create more jobs, build more infrastructure, or to increase the quality of services so that the economy can grow sustainably, they are effectively extracting it, hoarding it, and speculating with it. That's why the economy is tanking, because there is no money being spent on keeping the economy stable and sustainable. Taxes on the wealthy are the only tool to prevent the whole economy sinking further into dysfunction. FYI we have a debt based economy, and the asset wealthy own all of that debt, and by debt farming, they're actually preventing the economy from being stable and secure. That's why asset bubbles instead of productive investment dominate our economy, and why more people are getting poorer. And the only tool to stop this madness is to tax those profits, and distribute them away from asset bubbles and asset stripping into the real, productive economy. Cause and effect cannot simply be wished away, and the effects of misininvestment are what you see. And it's not good to accelerate that through demonstrably bad policies like flat taxes.
    1
  29. ​ @ThomasVWorm And going public works both ways. Shares unless structured, will dilute ownership.
    1
  30. Can't disagree with one word you have said. Winning is necessary but insufficient by itself to create consensus, or to address the divisions in the country. Labour have only said so far: "We're not the Tories". And that's it. And their behaviour is utterly contrary to that. So, whomsoever they are, I'm not sure they know that narrative. They are blind to their own contradictions to the extent that they are opaque. They have no overarching narrative, that is their USP. They may be in the end a bookmark in history, a placeholder government, when they should be writing their own story.
    1
  31. I disagree. On the basis of the trends in the Popular Vote - which partirs individual voters actually voted for - since 1945, the country has always been more left wing than First Past The Post allows in seats in Parliament. That's the problem. A rigged system that negates one's vote is arguably democratic in name only. It arguably smug that the country that gave PR to West Germany after World War II to prevent another rise of Nazism, never thought to give that to its own population. Yes, British lawyers drafted West Germany's constitution. Yet that same country's leaders ignored the warnings of Lord Hailsham only a generation later about the emergence of an elected dictatorship which was intent on hoarding power to itself. Really smug, and we are suffering the consequences of that. So no real reform can take place without constitutional reform, beginning with PR and evolving more power away from Westminster to the Regions. England needs devolution, and local authorities needed to act not as Aunt Sallys, with decreasing power to respond to their local problems, but as real local governments with the power to deal with their problems. That with economic reform, will provide not only more responsive government, but a more responsive and growing economy that doesn't ignore market failures, but actively works to avoid them.
    1
  32. Based in these economic policies, Reform UK are economically illiterate. Anyone who wants to investigate the Gold Standard Crisis in the 1920s, read "England's Cross of Gold" by James Ashley Morrison published in 2020. The Reform UK party are economically and politically blind to sell out Great Britain to the highest bidder by replicating mistakes of the past. We should not let them. They don't have the best interests of the asset limited, Income-limited people reliant on wages at heart. Not by a long chalk. They imagine themselves to be the new nobility of a completely privatised state cometely dominated billionaires and trillionaires. Not democratic control, but corporate control of every dimension of life, because the plutocrats will own and control it all, and democracy will be surplus to requirements,along with humanist values like rights for those who are not asset wealthy. They are not nationalists, because power will be wielded only by the plutoctrats who will run the state like regional corporations like the city states in medieval Italy. And we know how that worked out for the Italians. Don't trust them. If you think what we have now cannot get worse, you haven't seen the worse, or understand that this has been tried before. Remember, their wet dream is to rule not with human interventions, but with machines. Thus they will allow excess humans, surplus to need to die, or be killed in the turf wars that will follow as a consequence of them taking power. Don't give in to them.
    1
  33. ​​ @LordStraightBanana Only you are saying it is. Why not actually read the Report, then you'll actually know what he's suggesting. Then you'll know what you agree or disagree with, instead of shouting into the ether.
    1
  34. You're comment suggests that you can't see the wood for the trees. Economics was created by people, and it's about people, and what people do. But - like any academic discipline - it's a framework, or a model, or a lens through which we examine human activity. Rather than be dehumanised, it is all too human, in that it is shaped and directed by the powerful in society. It reflects their proclivities and concerns more than others. The fact that we study it at all is a culmination of choices made by those who can influence it the most. But like a famous British statistician said: "All models are wrong. But some are useful." You see, academic disciplines are technologies of knowledge. They are tools, that are designed to make up for our deficiencies as humans. But as we are imperfect very often so are our tools. We craft them to achieve certain outcomes that we think might help us achieve some goal. But as always what goal we pursue has to be analysed and tested against the reality of it's pros and cons. And we can't ask the tool to do something it was not designed to do. The designer or the user, or both may be at fault. Indeed, if you read Adam Smith's the "Wealth of Nations", you might not recognise it as the discipline we have today, because certain concerns of Smith are not the focus of the discipline today. And that's because human inquiry is subject to human attitudes, biases, and beliefs. Being human is... not straightforward or simple. And neither are our choices. If you want the tool to be updated, one might remember that the Map is not the Territory. Therefore, it has to be updated as things change, and as we change. Just a thought.
    1
  35. Richard, have you read the book entitled "The Dictator’s Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics (2022 expanded edition)" by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith? I think you may find your answers there as to why this Labour government is turning out the way it is. And most likely anyone else who might succeed them. If what de Mesquita and Smith argue is true, solving the very real problems of the electorate and the economy cannot be the first priorities. The electorate are interchangeable, as they vote purely in what they imagine is their best interests. Therefore, the concerns of the masses are to be met with slogans aimed at whom the government thinks will need to vote for them so they can stay in power. Likewise, the influential in our polity are next up the ladder, and they will only play ball if they can at least hold onto their wealth, and better still make more. And finally, there's the winning coalition who must also rewarded for their loyalty, and continue to benefit. To pay for all these handouts, they need money, and borrowing more to fund these dispensation is unpopular with those who want such borrowing to be done via the private sector, and not via an overdraft from the BoE. So, to keep the interchangeable voters happy, they have to throw them some red meat, whilst pretending they can draw blood from a stone. Or, that low pay still isn't embedded in our economy, and with the advent of AI, a service economy such as ours will be hollowed out within the next decade. So many people have died during both austerity and the mismanaged pandemic response, and perhaps more are to come. Meanwhile, I hope we can find a way not to inflict another disaster on ourselves. You see, even if NF or a Tory becomes PM, the same game will play out. There's a political cartoon in from The Guardian where 2 dogs are playing Tug of War with a bone. the 2 dogs were the two wings of the Conservative Party, and the bone was the party itself. Likewise, the interchangeables, are the bone our First Past the Post system will tear at to win power at all costs. When they, the politicians, run out of scapegoats, they will have to find new ones of course. Pastor Niemöller understood that all too well.
    1
  36. Yes, and no. Small businesses aren't trying to run the country, or funding politicians to get contracts that are a waste of public money. They're not lying about the externalities aof their businesses being converted into costs for the public, while they keep their profits. And taxpayers are not being asked to bail them out when they get greedy. Something will have to be done about things like that.
    1
  37. You haven't got to grips with your spellchecker.
    1
  38. Richard, I found a working paper from the Bank of International Settlements published in 2015, which is entitled "Why does financial sector growth crowd out real economic growth?" by Stephen G Cecchetti and Enisse Kharroubi. Their conclusions were that the financial sector outcompeted other sectors for resources and reduces real growth in the economy, as credit booms do little to improve real productivity because they starve Growth-enhancing activities such as R & D of finance. So, unwittingly, decisions made 30 years ago, have set up the circumstances that made it more likely that real economic growth would be stymied. Our financial sector has turned cancerous because it's too big relative to the rest of the economy, and after 2008, it became even more risk adverse and funding to develop new industries was sucked into speculation instead of productive investment. The economy is so starved of cap ex finance that it cannot grow. That's why Reeves/Sunak were quite happy to allow pension funds to be siphoned off instead of taxing capital gains to reduce the growth and boom and bust of the financial sector. OMG.
    1
  39. If you can find the figures, check out how much is actually paid in interest. You'll find that the amount is marginal, effectively being an Accounting entry, because they are credited to accounts where the assets are not realised, but are reinvested. Most premium bonds are not cashed out until maturity. Therefore actuaries can model that, and the government creates reserves for that from revenues.
    1
  40. Lol. It's you who doesn't understand finance. Thinking like yours explains why most mainstream economists didn't realise 2008 was coming. I suggest you actually look at how HM Debt Management Office and the UK Government Actuaries actually quite successfully use Liability-driven Management Techniques to create reserves and invest those to meet future liabilities. That is Finance, not Economics, and there are few economists who actually understand the difference. And Richard is one of them. Finance is actually centuries older than Economics as a discipline, because money existed long before Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Get a grip.
    1
  41. One person savings (assets) is another person's debt (liabilities). Google it to see it in action.
    1
  42. I think you are mistaken in your understanding of what is being said. Premium bonds are not sovereign debt because they can not be traded. Premium bonds are a purely retail product sold by the UK government to its citizens. It is in effect a lottery, where you can get your stake back. The return on Premium Bonds is neglibile, because it depends on you winning a prize in the monthly draw. These bonds cannot be traded, in contrast to sovereign debt instruments that frequently are as a proxy for cash. The fact that you don't know the difference strongly suggests you didn't research the subject before commenting. It's not a good look. Just a thought.
    1
  43. You don't own anything because you are on your way to the grave, and you can't take anything beyond that. You don't own the air you breathe or the water you drink, you only have the right to use it exclusively. And the climate doesn't belong to you. It belongs to everyone alive, and it's changing in response to the collective actions of humans. So what do you own? Nothing. You are a guardian of what you have around you, and in that you have a responsibility to those that follow you. Once you are dead, you can't take anything with you. So time to understand that ownership is not ownership, but a right to use but not destroy.
    1
  44. Don't worry, your call up papers will come soon.
    1
  45. Lol.
    1
  46. What gets me is that the remaining rump of the Tory Party *hasn't* got anyone with a functioning, pragmatic political *brain cell* left. It's just full of entitled wannabes with no original thinkers among them, utterly lacking in self-awareness or strategy. They are the British elite *malaise incarnate**, filling a void in our politics that exists because of the decline in **institutional* trust. Kemi Badenoch is nothing but a *war hammer in search of any war* to remain relevant. She is not a pragmatic *politician**, and her ideology is **suspiciously convenient**, suiting the ends of those who employed her as a wrecking tool. But after you've knocked down everything there is to be knocked down, **what use are you?* Kemi Badenoch is *clueless* about what should actually replace her targets. She is *clueless* about solutions to address the immediate political and economic problems that the majority of voters *prioritize**—not the minority who **fantasize about being* Bane or The Joker, destroying Gotham City for its sins, yet who *fail to grasp* the realities beyond comic book metaphors. She's pretty good at knocking things down, but seems to have no interest in *fixing* them, repairing, or rebuilding the damage. While she might *see herself* as a virtuous destroyer, she lacks the capacity to *envision* or communicate a meaningful future for the country. (In that, Kemi and Keir are in *the* same boat—*neither steering it themselves, but instead following a course set by others* who have no long-term vision that the British people as a whole can get behind. That is not the plan. The plan is to drive forward their own political and economic agenda. And consent for that has to be manufactured. And Kemi and Keir are tools to do that. Indeed, between Keir and Kemi, there is only a choice of **soft or hard technocracy**. Britain is not being led—it's being managed, and the inequality driving institutional distrust among the public is being left relatively undisturbed.)
    1
  47. Ask Google - it's their platform. And BTW, all caption are placed over video and film.
    1
  48. Sorry mate, but you need a better AI to help you write your comments. Quantity is not quality, when an argument meant is not based in reality. And there's certain clues in your comment that show you used an AI to create it. Why? There's no thread linking the factual beads your trying to string together. It's just a list of issues which doesn't reflect reality. You're outrage farming.
    1
  49. Yep, Trump's Art of The Steal. It's a game of Distraction. The National Debt is the Savings of those who own that debt. Who owns the majority of US Treasuries? Americans do. So Trump wants to nuke the savings of Americans. Oops! Then the Tax Cuts are to pay his donors back for supporting him. And then he's going grift Americans by increasing the debt, thereby increasing the cost to American taxpayers of servicing it? Americans will learn the Art of The Steal, as other countries are waking up to the fact that the rest of the world is being bilked, by American Bilko. That cannot stand. Looks like the BANCOR scheme might just be on the cards nearly 80 years since it was proposed, because American oligarchs are pushing their luck.
    1
  50. Actually, there has been a correlation between the two, but not as you imagine. If bank credit is the dominant form of money, and the central bank creates bank credit, where does that form of money end up first? Or, who gets that money first? Or, during the pandemic when global central banks issued billions of dollars of credit where did that money end up? Follow the money and find out where it eventually ended up. Then compare where in your economy endogenous inflation - inflation not caused by supply shocks - appeared. Then you will see exactly who got the money created by QT since 2008. I'll give you 3 clues: 1) multiple rounds of Quantitative Easing pumped through dealer commercial banks by central banks; 2) Covid spending spent on households vs corporations; 3) luxury spending volumes post-lockdown.
    1