Comments by "" (@blackbulldog4897) on "Richard J Murphy" channel.

  1.  @c.j.griffin  MMT doesn't describe those things, it's not a policy regime (except for the Job Guarantee). It's a framework for understanding and explaining the capacity of a currency issuing state with it's own fiat, floating currency. Understanding the framework allows you to look at policy options using what's termed as the "MMT Lens".
    3
  2. I suppose the "big deal" is this: The UK govt faces no purely fiscal constraint, the only constraints it faces are availability of resources at a price it's willing to pay and politics. Therefore, when you hear politicians rolling out excuses like "there's no money for xyz", "where's the money going to come from?", "we can't afford it" etc, you know they are gaslighting.
    3
  3. @shauneden4229  it's clear the 1946 Act brings the bank under public control, the share capital of the BofE is owned by the Treasury solicitor on behalf of HMT. The 1946 Act, along with the Bank of England Act 1998 show exactly which is master and which is servant. So the BofE, owned and controlled by govt must, by law, comply with authorised requests from HMT. I've seen all the "it's not owned by govt etc." before but the legislation clearly shows who owns and controls it so I don't understand why people would say otherwise.
    3
  4.  @alexjeffrey3981  I've tried to reply four times now, each one has been delete. Seems like I'm hitting some kind of filter. I'll try again later.
    3
  5. Tax the rich (if you can) by all means but not because it will govt more £s to spend - it won't.
    3
  6. How about simply using the resources at it's disposal for the public good.
    3
  7.  @asumazilla  energy security, food security, better resourced NHS, education system, infrastructure etc Problem is we can only do what we can do, it's all about the people we've got.
    3
  8. I'm not sure what you mean. Spending comes via the supply process, taxation is laid out in the finance bill.
    3
  9.  @jonathanevans3024  "believer in MMT" = understanding how our fiat money system works, particularly govt fiscal ops, and the capacity of the currency issuing state.
    3
  10.  @charlesc266  sure, but the problem is, apart from a brief period after WWII, the economy has never "worked for everyone".
    3
  11. Well, either they do know how our fiat money system works and they are gaslighting OR they don't know how our fiat money system works. Which is worse?
    2
  12. The UK govt doesn't need to raise revenue to be able to spend, it's the currency issuer. Every time it spends it issues new £s into existence. Taxes exist for multiple reasons, primarily freeing up resources for govt to use and driving demand for the currency; revenue raising isn't one of those functions.
    2
  13. @adb9125  ah, right. In reality, the only borrowing the UK govt undertakes is via it's own bank, the BofE. Try to think of the "national debt" as the amount of £s govt has spent into the economy minus the £s it's drained from the economy via taxation. It's a different paradigm to the one we are normally exposed to but, unlike the normal narrative, it's correct and based on reality.
    2
  14.  @antonyjh1234  The so-called "national debt" is simply the difference between all the £s govt has injected via buying things/spending and all the £s it's drained via taxation. In other words, it's the net money supply, the net financial assets in the private sector. "Paying it back" means draining the private sector of it's net financial assets. All money is debt.
    2
  15.  @physiocrat7143  my point is every now and again someone who doesn't know what they are talking about will glibly roll out the "printing money causes inflation" line.
    2
  16.  @physiocrat7143  I'm telling you because you glibly rolled out the "printing money causes inflation" nonsense. That's analogous to saying "all money creation is inflationary" which, of course, is nonsense. It's more accurate to say"all money creation is potentially inflationary ". You seem unaware that all govt injected £s (except those which are saved) are withdrawn via taxation.
    2
  17. @physiocrat7143  Yes, taxation is poorly understood isn't it. I'm coming from what is often called the MMT perspective, I prefer to call it the fact based economics perspective in which the primary purpose of taxation is to free up resources for govt to use (plus drive demand for the currency etc.) The problem with taxation as it stands is it's more of a carpet bombing operation than a surgical intervention. As far as the value of sterling goes, the BofE is targeted to achieve 2% inflation annually so if the BofE hits it's target (which it hardly ever does, I wonder why 🤔) then it's bound to devalue isn't it. What ideas do you have for changing the tax system
    2
  18. @physiocrat7143  I've seen some people of an MMT persuasion posit a LVT may be acceptable but generally it's rejected by MMT folk, particularly in the UK. It's rejected because the point of taxation in the MMT paradigm is to free up resources for govt to use, govt doesn't have much need for land so why tax it? Agree with stamp duty, vat, cgt, it etc. if they don't free up resources, then why bother?
    2
  19. @physiocrat7143  I get it, LVT people are often evangelical (as, I suppose, MMT folk can be too). Sure, if a public project needs land then govt has the tools to be able to acquire it when it needs to. Well, taxation above and beyond that necessary for govt to provision itself is a very bad idea but, as I said before, taxation is more carpet bombing than surgical intervention so that's one of the reasons the Job Guarantee is core to MMT. The descriptive portion of MMT is descriptive, for sure. Don't forget the rest of it though 👍
    2
  20.  @grolfe3210 it's a pity you can't understand what I've explained. if you check back, you'll see I explained what fiat is and then outlined the basics of how fiat works in relation to govt fiscal ops. So, to answer your question: every single major economy with a fiat, floating currency (UK, USA, Jpn etc) has operated by, in your words, "printing vast amounts of money" since 1971 at least. It seems you don't understand what QE is either; it's not a funding mechanism for govt, it's a simple asset swap - reserves for Gilts. It simply reverses the initial transaction which swapped Gilts for reserves.
    2
  21.  @grolfe3210  Hmmm, there's an awful lot in there, particularly your support form Friedman's "QTM" ... it's been debunked multiple times and he distanced himself from his own theory, but you know all that, right? We can come back to Zim etc later, and QE. Also, it seems as though you have come to understand my earlier posts about MMT being a factual description of how fiat money systems work and not something you adopt or don't adopt, so well done there! For now though, can you explain how ecatly, in your view, "you print another £100" which would double the money supply, why this would happen and why suddenly everyone would want buy a house?
    2
  22.  @adenwellsmith6908  really, you are still using "the dog ate my homework excuse" 😂 If you had read the core literature and understood it then you wouldn't be posting this guff, so ... Go and read the core literature and, if you can understand it, you'll realise what nonsense you've been posting. Come back when you've read it 👍
    2
  23.  @dboynette  we have a currency issuing govt, it's self financing. Simplified, every time it buys something/spends it instructs it's bank, the BofE, to mark up accounts of recipients; new £s created every time.
    2
  24.  @kaz4845  you're right, there's no need to issue bonds, it's a political choice. It's true to say govt neither has nor doesn't have £s, it issues them into existence every time it needs them.
    2
  25.  @dboynette  it really doesn't matter who owns the debt as it's all denominated in £s.
    2
  26.  @piccadillyvision3761  No-one can be seen to overrule the BofE, it would give the game away. Even the PM wasn't allowed to do it, even though all the necessary legislation is in place.
    2
  27.  @peterweston1356  it's important to realise that roughly 10% of the £s govt injects into the economy is saved, not spent. So, for every £100 govt injects the national debt increases by around £10. Money doesn't circulate, it's an injection (creation) and drain (delete) model.
    2
  28. We need to get away from the idea of "fiscal rules" altogether as it's starting from the wrong place.
    2
  29.  @count-beany  Sure, there are other factors involved but interest rate setting is a fundamental, it's the mechanism used to attempt to regulate the money supply and cause enough unemployment for any inflationary pressure to be relieved. I'd recommend reading the core literature to get a fuller understanding of what MMT actually is then, once you have the basics, maybe read Bill Mitchell's Essence of MMT series and see what you think.
    2
  30.  @count-beany  the MMT framework asserts the base rate should always be set to zero (or close to). The MPC is a nonsense, it's completely under the control of govt; it's govts way of being able to point and say "it wasn't us, it was them".
    2
  31.  @katiecannon8186  yes, my fellow traveller, I agree. Many don't realise that private sector credit creation is a political choice.
    2
  32. @katiecannon8186  potentially, yes but I don't think we're allowed to say that are we.
    2
  33. Imagine thinking there's such a thing as "free markets" and government doesn't control and regulate markets.
    2
  34. Can you explain what you think ZimWei etc have to do with anything I said?
    2
  35.  @therealrobertbirchall  No, that's not the case at all; MMT doesn't "work" or "not work". If a country has it's own floating, fiat currency then the (descriptive part of) MMT describes the money system in that country. That's it.
    2
  36. The Act you are looking for is the The Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866, sections 13 & 15 are the important ones. To answer your second question, government doesn't "have to auction Gilts", it chooses to. Gilts aren't a funding operation, they are a refinancing operation.
    2
  37. Sort of. All govt spending, which is "borrowed" from it's own bank, is returned to the issuer; except that which is saved. These savings are what's referred to as the national debt.
    2
  38.  @garysmith5025  Well, whatever we can do we can afford is a truism. Why do you think all spending has to be balanced by taxation?
    2
  39.  @garysmith5025  Taxation has multiple functions, primarily to drain demand so there are resources available for govt to use, drive demand for the currency etc. I'm of the opinion our govt should use it's fiscal power to organise the resources at it's disposal for the public good. Taxing the wealthy probably won't do anything productive at all.
    2
  40. The Bank of England Act 1946 disagrees with you.
    2
  41.  @chrisnew5724  Of course they understand the powers they have, they use them all the time. Whether they use the ones we want them to use, in the way we want them to is another matter.
    2
  42. ​ @milkybaravenger given the UK is a currency issuing state, credit ratings are not relevant in any way. All, that's all, govt spending is via HMT instructing it's own bank (the BoE) to mark up the reserve accounts of recipients retail banks. The UK govt is the sole issuer of £s, it never needs to "borrow" £s from anywhere or anyone except it's own bank.
    2
  43. @andybrice2711  There's no doubt about the legislative position, the BoE is completely under political control. The Bank of England Act 1998, particularly sections 1, 1a, 12 (in relation to section 11) and 19 show exactly which party is master and which is servant. Sacking Bailey would not have been allowed as it would have given the game away.
    2
  44.  @evildrome  Sure, govt could provide liquidity. Private credit creation is a political choice.
    2
  45. Ex[orts are a cost, it's us sending real resources out of our country in return for someone's digital tokens.
    2
  46. How do you think govt fiscal ops work on a day to day basis? What power do you think the IMF has over our sovereign government?
    2
  47.  @Tensquaremetreworkshop  Correct, the IMF has zero power over the UK govt. So, why would a govt with it's own fiat, floating currency ever need the IMF for anything at all?
    2
  48. MMT doesn't "prevent" anything, it's a description of how fiat money systems work, particularly govt fiscal ops. The "overdraft" is simply the amount of £s the UK has issued into existence but not yet taken back via taxation.
    2
  49.  @SlowCarToChina  UK govt is the sole issuer of £s, it never needs to raise revenue to spend it simply issues £s into existence every time it buys something; the other side is that the UK govt "deletes" £s every time it taxes. The only place £s can come from is govt injecting them, via buying something, into the economy. Whenever parliament passes a Supply and Appropriation Bill then the spending within it cannot legally be prevented; that's the source of all £s (we'll ignore bank credit for now). So, £s are never the issue; it's always resources, people mostly. There's no "black hole", that's pure obfuscation and the govt saying "we don't want to spend on these things". There is an "overdraft" but it's nothing like an overdraft you or I would have. There's enough productive capacity in the UK for everyone to have a job, a house and a pension without inflation being a problem; as ever it's a question of political priorities. Interest rate rises? Would you say they are an injection or a drain?
    2
  50.  @SlowCarToChina  I was referring to interest rates being an injection or drain in terms of govt spending. For example, in December 2023 interest payments on govt debt (it's a purely political choice to pay this interest) had increased by 4% of GDP since 2020; more than energy subsidies and standard benefit increases combined.
    2