Comments by "" (@charliemoore2551) on "Richard J Murphy" channel.

  1.  @MrMarinus18  Hmm. You seem to have misunderstood what I said. I completely agree with you about deregulation.
    1
  2.  @yaneznayoui1597  Most didn't vote for the Fascist. Most either voted for the corporate democrat bankers' stooge or didn't vote at all. Some of those who didn't vote would have been unable to bring themselves to vote for someone who has said that she will continue to support a genocide. Personally, I would have held my nose and voted for her as the (slightly) lesser of the two evils. But I'm sure as hell not going to condemn anyone for voting (or not voting) according to their conscience
    1
  3.  @tjwcoast  "What the US will not do is continue business as usual." The US seems to think it can call all the shots. That's no longer the case. It's in serious decline and can no longer bully others in the way it's been accustomed to. Trump's started a trade war that he's going to lose badly. Canada will learn the lesson that it cannot rely on its southern neighbour and will strengthen its trade links with others.
    1
  4. Yes. If we're not careful, we end up descending into tribalism (there's another one!) . We definitely see that in Scotland where SNP and Labour politicians, both broadly in agreement about most practical things, fight over political turf. The "ism" isn't important. The point is to get things done and to do it in a way, which is fair and sustainable.
    1
  5.  @simonjohn9525  All valid points. STV would be my preferred option but anything but FPTP or ATV
    1
  6.  @fanfeck2844  I agree. They are completely clueless. Most mainstream financial journalists still subscribe to the neoliberal nonsense which, incredibly, is still taught in universities.
    1
  7.  @marksesum  A bit of a waste of sock-puppet user. Surely you could have said something more profound or convincing than that
    1
  8. There actually two measures of extremism/moderation. The one which seems to be adopted (without question) by most mainstream journalists makes anyone an extremist who broadly agrees with what the UK Labour Party once stood for (public control of strategic industry and utilities, a strong NHS uncompromised by private companies, democratically accountable schooling, public provision of housing and a strong welfare state). Problem is that most people are supportive of most of those things. So perhaps we should consider to be extremists of the Right all those who oppose them? That would be all Tories, most Social Democrats and (amazingly) the leadership of today's Labour Party.
    1
  9. Yes. It's frightening. This government has a cultish devotion to the principles of neoliberalism. The NHS doesn't comply with them. It is probably one of the most efficient institutions of its size in the world but because it isn't based on the invisible hand of self-interest it must, to them, be deficient.
    1
  10. Quite right. The US is now in alliance with Europe's main enemy. So it has become an enemy. But it is an enemy which has a collection of air bases on our soil through which it can easily invade, privileged access to our intelligence systems and control over many of our armament systems. So that's what "special relationship" means!
    1
  11. I agree almost everything you are saying but I'm afraid I can't make the link with book-keeping. Surely, the book-keeper tends to be blinded to the non-financial consequences of expenditure by the need to make the corresponding counter entry in financial terms and this is the difference between book-keeping.accountancy and economics. The accountant knows how to track already existing wealth (actually meaning money) while the economist is concerned with the creation of it and it may not necessarily be money at all.
    1
  12. Boom and bust is a feature of "free" market capitalism generally but this is accentuated in the finance capitalism we currently have because many of the financial "products" which drive up the stock market are Ponzi style scams which will inevitably fold as soon as it becomes clear that they have no substance: They rise in price because people are buying them and people are buying them because they are rising in price. Sooner or later, someone looks down and sees that there is nothing underneath them and then gravity takes over.
    1
  13. Issuing currency is one of the most important preserves of the state. Provided the state is democratically accountable and those charged with managing currency are competent, this is a recipe for stability and popular accountability. Libertarians hate this because they hate democracy. They consider it to be a tyranny imposed on the individual. That is why they like Bitcoin: It undermines government and gives control to those who hold most of the currency. If that's not a good reason to oppose it, I don't know what is.
    1
  14. Starmer's not just wrong in the sense of being mistaken. He is lying. He genuinely believes in privatisation. He is a Neoliberal who believes in greed and self-interest as a force for good. The claims about costs are an excuse to leave these utilities in private hands - or potential donors, as I'm sure he sees them.
    1
  15. From a practical point of view, RM is quite right. Let's make sure we're getting everything we can from the sources we've got first. That means taxing dividends, capital gains and property rents properly but also looking for international cooperation to close down tax havens and money laundering.
    1
  16. "depoliticising it and involving professionals". That's a delusion. Most modern "economists" are more committed to Neoliberalism than they are to economics. They embrace the TINA doctrine of Thatcher and the utterly discredited academics that advised her and all Chancellors have gone along with it - including Labour ones.
    1
  17. @ Yeah! He's got a great record on promises. Remember "We're going to build a wall and Mexico's going to pay"? How'd that one go? He doesn't give a flying F@@@ what he promises. He's promised a lot of nonsense he doesn't understand. For example, Canada and Mexico don't pay tariffs, ordinary Americans do. The tariff goes on the price YOU pay for the goods. The supplying country doesn't pay anything. So he's keeping a promise to make ordinary Americans poorer - and you're impressed!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
    1
  18.  @joaniesimpson2016  At that point, I'm pretty sure the government of Scotland will be quite happy to allow it.
    1
  19.  @joaniesimpson2016  Indeed!
    1
  20. He's a professor of accounting with an excellent track record of advising government. He's advocating the very opposite of "arithmetic tricks" - or Neoliberalism, as we have come to know it.
    1
  21.  @aporiac1960  Way to misquote! I said " an excellent track record of advising government. " In other words giving advice on successful policies. I appreciate that this must be strange concept for Neoliberals - who have never given successful policy advice.
    1
  22. ​ @aporiac1960  If only it could be warded off just by voicing its name! Unfortunately, it has been the guiding ideology of all governments of the UK for the last 4 decades and is the cause of the woeful economic and political trajectory of the UK over that period. I often point that out. I'd be fascinated to find out how you know that. The term was actually coined by the far-right Mont Pelerin Society back in the 1950s but its adherents have tended to disown it as it has become increasingly associated with economic decline and oppressive regimes like Khameini's Iran or Pinochet's Chile. As for what you believe, that's entirely up to you. Believe what you want.
    1
  23.  @Arbitrary-z6j  Just like the amount of time you've been on YouTube makes a great deal of sense. That's VERY unprofessional sockpuppet trolling! Most of the Tufton Street mob are much better at hiding it.
    1
  24. "We're obsessed with inflation because it destroys incomes and savings. " Indeed. It discourages using money as a store of value and thereby NOT using it to facilitate the purchase and therefore production of goods. A little inflation is therefore a good thing.
    1
  25.  @foxmoongaze  Nonsense. They generally exceed the rate of inflation. They are a consequence of vendors attempting to gouge more money out of the consumer.
    1
  26.  @foxmoongaze  "Your comment just proves how little you understand about inflation". And the tone of your comment just shows that you are a patronising troll. IEA, perhaps? The richest 1% didn't get rich by hard work and ingenuity. Those who didn't inherit it got rich by robbing the rest of us - either by underpaying wages or overcharging prices.
    1
  27. To some extent, yes. Remember that the original Scottish nationalists came mostly from the Tory Party - which had far more Nazi sympathisers. In fact, it still does.
    1
  28. When Vic Reeves said "88.2% of statistics are made up on the spot", he must have known more than he was letting on.
    1
  29. Yes. That's the anti-democracy case. Good luck with that one, Nazi.
    1
  30. There's nothing "authoritarian" about democracy. "Freedom" is the buzzword libertarians like to use to attempt to legitimise the dominance of the rich.
    1
  31. Fear perhaps. But I also think that they are star-struck. Because they have swallowed the Neoliberal myth cultl, they believe that the wealthy created their wealth rather than extract it. Incredible though it might be to any rational person, they believe that the more these parasites extract from the economy, the better off we'll all be.
    1
  32.  @andyinsuffolk  Have you asked the ones who are hungry and homeless?
    1
  33.  @glynnwright1699  The "lavish" (🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣) spending is the result of the poverty, not the other way around. It was the policies of the Unionist parties which brought that about.
    1
  34.  @bernieburrows3731  It's true to say that the SNP have accepted too many of the Unionist parties' Neoliberal policies. But they're nowhere near as far to the right as Starmer's Labour. "Tartan Tory" may have had some resonance once but the SNP has been to the left of Labour for at least 50 years.
    1
  35. @glynnwright1699  sigh! The economy is reserved to Westminster. You can't blame the Scottish Government or the council for that!
    1
  36.  @glynnwright1699  Of course it would be higher than Guildford! I'm not talking about central government spending. I'm talking about economic policy. That's what's ruined Dundee - along with similar cities all around the UK. The problem is being part of an incompetently run country.
    1
  37. @glynnwright1699  That's not control of economic policy.
    1
  38.  @Number9s  It's less than Corbyn got,FFS! And 34% is NOT a mandate!
    1
  39. He's bought and paid for. Did anyone notice that Labour got less votes this time than in 2019, BTW? It won despite him, not because of him.
    1
  40. Voting records for parties are not a good indicator - especially in a FPTP system where people often vote tactically or (sadly) consider their vote to be a waste of time in safe seats. It's far more instructive to look at attitudes to specific issues such as public ownership of strategic industries and utilities such as rail and water or to public services like the NHS. When you do that, you find that the proportion with "left" leaning views is far higher than 57%.
    1
  41.  @williammcintyre-v6d  That still doesn't equate to the OBR and IFS figures, which you can easily google. It also doesn't take account of the fact that they are able to get part of their income as gains and hide money in trusts and overseas.
    1
  42. It's unusual for someone with an accountancy background to understand the meaning of wealth in the economics sense rather than in financial terms. This is the difference between neoliberalism and real economics too.
    1
  43.  @adenwellsmith6908  I didn't know I got a pension for being a socialist. Where do I apply?
    1
  44.  @adenwellsmith6908  You're talking about the myth of the state pension debt? Why didn't you say so? The state pension was introduced by David Lloyd George following the model developed by the government of Otto Von Bismark in Prussia. Anyone describing either of these two jokers as socialists either knows nothing about them or nothing about socialism. The system was introduced to alleviate age-related poverty, which economists of the time (qualified people, unlike the idiots who have the gall to call themselves economists now) had begun to realise was a drag on the economy. It was to be partly funded by general taxation and partly by a "stamp" to be paid out of wages. It has worked perfectly well since but offends the sensibilities of the glorified book-keepers (aka as neoliberals) who claim to be economists these days. The last time I saw this so-called "debt" mentioned it was 1.2 trillion pounds but that's academic because it's pure baloney anyway. Richard Murphy isn't a "government account", by the way.
    1
  45.  @adenwellsmith6908  There is no "debt". The state pension system is working as it was intended to.
    1
  46.  @gerhard7323  That's right. They're democracies. No one is asking for a referendum so no one is forcing one upon them.
    1
  47.  @adenwellsmith6908  you've described something completely irrelevant. What's more, the subject you've dragged into the discussion is not even pertinent to it. Just to remind you, the matter at hand is proportional representation. If you have any more to say about that, I'll engage firther.
    1
  48.  @adenwellsmith6908  Apart form the fact that you're talking complete bollocks, the matter has nothing to do with the discussion at hand which is proportional representation.
    1
  49.  @salopian4037  Tufton Street.
    1
  50.  @salopian4037  I think the "we" would be Tufton Street. And it's certainly never been "chosen".
    1