Comments by "" (@blackbulldog4897) on "Keir Starmer’s big mistake: confusing money with capital?" video.

It's been this way since 1979. There's little prospect of anything material changing as long as neoliberalism is the dominant ideology.
9
@inthegutterstaringathestars Richard often seems confused as to how our fiat money system works, particularly govt fiscal ops so I've no idea what his "ideology" is. We have a currency issuing govt which has never, except for the brief period after WWII, used it's currency issuing capacity to organise the resources available to it for the public good. Since that brief period, the entire political landscape of the UK has been utterly corrupted and the only available "ideology" is neoliberalism. As the old saying goes " if voting could change anything we wouldn't be allowed to do it".
4
@inthegutterstaringathestars he often gets confused about tax too. Taxation can be used to redistribute wealth but it's not it's primary function. Tax isn't a funding mechanism for our currency issuing govt; our government is self financing. QE is a simple asset swap, reserves for Gilts; it simply reverses the initial transaction which swapped Gilts for reserves. My ideology is our currency issuing govt should use the resources at it's disposal for the public good. When was the last time you saw a Heterodox economist on MSM espousing the capacity of our currency issuing state?
3
Our government doesn't "borrow" in the same way you or I do. It's the currency issuer so every time it spends/buys something it issues new £s (via instructing it's own bank to mark up accounts of recipients) into existence. Agree about the tax system.
3
No need to set up an investment bank, the UK govt already has it's own bank, the BofE and the Consolidated Fund.
1
 @melch4040 the BofE is wholly owned by the UK govt, not "the city". Govt needs banking, it doesn't need a bank but chooses to use it's own.
1
@inthegutterstaringathestars it's not an option, it's how floating, fiat money systems work. All, that's all, govt spending is via direct money creation; new £s every time. Mazzucato has sold out, she signed the letter to the times (or whoever it was) with blanchflower and the rest of the idiots. When were keen or kelton (who was recently on Novara 🤔) on legacy media espousing the capacity of the currency issuing state?
1
@inthegutterstaringathestars regarding QE, I wasn't suggesting that at all, because it's nonsensical. Govt issues Gilts by political choice, they aren't a funding operation, they are a refinancing operation. If Gilts weren't issued the excess reserves would sit in the banking system so what's the difference between reserves and Gilts? Mazzucato gets on legacy media because she's sold out. What has keen written in the ft? Where else has he appeared on legacy media?
1
@inthegutterstaringathestars QE does not and cannot "reduce govt debt". All it does is change the name tag on the Gilts involved. QE is "used to reduce interest rates"? Why bother with QE when the MPC could simply reduce the bank rate? Trying to run the economy on varying the price of money is a ridiculous notion, QE is an extension of that ridiculous notion, even the BofE explanation of it is intellectually incoherent.
1
@inthegutterstaringathestars you don't seem to understand what government debt is or how it comes about so, ok,we are going to have to go back to basics here so, for now, let's ignore QE, ok? If someone asked you to describe how (in high-ish level terms) govt fiscal ops work on a daily basis and the legislation involved, what would you say?
1
@inthegutterstaringathestars talking of classic retorts ... Your "argument" isn't based on reality and your "what does the legislation have to do with it?" comment reveals your lack of understanding. What do you have to back up your "argument"? Govt is the currency issuer, individuals are currency users, there's a fundamental difference. Once again, Gilts are issued ex-post of spending and by political choice, there's no good reason to issue them. You say my argument is incorrect, ok, what do you think my argument is and where do you think it's incorrect?
1
@inthegutterstaringathestars well, you talked about QE, that's it. We can come back to the rest of your post but, for now, let's get back to basics ... You said "legislation is there to provide a framework for govt debt..." so explain what you mean by that and which legislation you are referring to.
1
@inthegutterstaringathestars ok, so no explanation of legislative architecture which covers govt spending, fair enough. So, please explain which legislation you are referring to which "cover the limits for govt securities and the levels at which those are set", which specific Acts are you referring to?
1
@inthegutterstaringathestars I do indeed understand what government debt is and how it comes about. I'm happy to talk about it with anyone who is interested in finding out about how our fiat money system works, particularly government fiscal ops. The Charter for Budget Responsibility and Finance Acts have nothing whatsoever to do with how government fiscal ops actually work or the capacity of our currency issuing govt.
1
@inthegutterstaringathestars it's not contradictory at all. The Finance Act lays out the taxation regime for the following year, it doesn't explain how our fiat money system or govt fiscal ops actually work. The obr has absolutely nothing to do with govt fiscal ops.
1
@inthegutterstaringathestars there is no contradiction whatsoever. You are confusing policy choices (Obr, QE, finance act provisions etc) with the reality of our fiat money system and currency issuing govt. You understand the difference between the reality of govt fiscal ops in our fiat, floating system and the application of policy as mentioned above, right?
1
@inthegutterstaringathestars this is painful, it's clear you don't understand how our fiat money system works. The operation of the system is in no way affected by any of the things you referred to. It operates the same way every day regardless of any of the policy choices you keep confusing with reality. We have a fiat currency (not convertible on demand to anything) which floats against other currencies. There aren't multiple floating systems, the bank rate doesn't "float", it's set by govt via the MPC. If someone asked you to explain the basics of govt fiscal ops, what would you say? Let's take the example of govt paying me for some work I've done or govt paying pensioners every day...
1
@inthegutterstaringathestars I've been consistent throughout and haven't flip flopped in any way. For the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, it's clear: . you don't understand and cannot explain what government debt is or how it comes about . you don't understand and cannot explain, even at a simple level, how our fiat money system works . you don't understand and cannot explain (despite being asked multiple times) how govt fiscal ops work on a daily basis . you mistaken policy choices for system operations The above is a non-exhaustive list of things you don't understand. You don't understand anything about how the money system works so how can you analyse any kind of policy choice within it; you can't. Given the above and your refusal to explain, even at the simplest level, how govt pays pensions every day why on earth do you think anyone should take any of your opinions on the matter under discussion seriously? It beggars belief.
1
@inthegutterstaringathestars ok then, here's your chance to show you understand and can explain any of this ... Explain the legislative architecture (the three/four Acts of Parliament) and processes which constitute the system of govt spending (hint: it's nothing to do with any of the things you have referred to previously) and how they fit together. Over to you...
1
@inthegutterstaringathestars you seem confused about what "permission" is. However, if you want your opinions on a subject to be taken seriously by anyone but yourself then you are going to have to prove you understand and can explain the system under discussion. You never asked me to explain anything at all, you were too busy putting forward your unbacked and completely made up opinions and confused them with an explanation of the realities of our fiat money system and govt fiscal ops. If you don't take the opportunity to demonstrate you understand the subject and can explain it that by doing exactly then means you obviously don't understand and cannot explain. Case closed.
1
@inthegutterstaringathestars well, you can settle the matter of whether you understand and can explain how govt fiscal ops both at the higher level and on a daily basis (paying pensioners for example) is by explaining how the system works, including the legislative architecture, at those levels. If you don't take the opportunity to demonstrate your understanding then why on earth would anyone take any of your unbacked opinions on the subject seriously. So either ... Over to you to explain or ... It's Case Closed. Narrator: everyone knew it was Case Closed.
1
@inthegutterstaringathestars any time you can muster the mental and physical resources to be able to explain the simple things you say you understand, please come back and do so. Until then, keep raging with yourself. Bye 👋
1
 @skyblazeeterno £s can never "leave the country", they will always remain in the sterling area. The name tags on the £s may change but the £s can never leave.
1