Comments by "Aden Wellsmith" (@adenwellsmith6908) on "The government can never run out of money" video.

Inflation linked debt is for purchasing power. The state has run out of purchasing power.
3
Becuase its wrong. Here's a simple thought experiment. Lets have a new currency. It needs a name. We call it the voucher. No need for taxes. The state pays its workers in vouchers. Heck it even doubles their wages. If you earned £50K, you now get 100K of vouchers. You can never run out of vouchers. What everyone else does is use the $ as an example. Shops, private sector, all use the dollar. Of course there's a problem when those public sector workers want to spend their new found wealth. Richard's selling a fairy story.
3
@markturner5534 the government can never run out of money ======= Doesn't mean they can pay their debts.
2
@clementattlee6984 So print. Double the money supply to pay the debts. Now look at the equation of exchange. Prices double. So what happens to the inflation linked detb? 16 trillion pounds of pension debts are now 32 trillion. Now if you had 2.2 trillion of fixed rate debts, that's still 2.2 trillion of fixed rate debts. Inflation linked debt is a different beast.
2
@markturner5534 So spend money to tax people more, making them poorer. Ho hum. You could borrow lots of money, spend it. GDP goes up. Then you have to repay the debt. So GDP goes down. More than the boom, because you've debt costs on top.
2
They can't afford a UBI for a small subset, pensioners. How can they afford that for all?
1
@markturner5534 The left are wrong about money and purchasing power. They are wrong about fixed rate debt and inflation linked debt. They are being conned.
1
@markturner5534 You need to read up on MMT
1
@markturner5534 No. For fixed rate debts they can print to pay. For inflation linked debts, it doesn't work. An 90% of the state's debts are inflation linked, directly or effectively. Even on the 10% that's borrowing, a proportion of that is inflation linked. You've been sold a fairy story.
1
@markturner5534 You are. You said grow the economy to tax people more. All the benefits of working harder goes to the state not the workers. If you want a tax more plan that works try this. Break even, where the state starts getting more money than its spends is 40K a year. Put a 40K a year minimum tax on economic migrants, coupled with no welfare. 1. Spending drops 2. Tax goes up. 3. Housing crisis solved. 4. Wages rise for others 5. Social security spending falls because its not needed.
1
@markturner5534 So pull in lots of migrants. They pay £1000 a year in tax on min wage. They cost £14,000. That's increased your GDP number, but its a disaster because other people lose services, suffer a cost of living crisis, because they have to fund it. You are deliberately being selective. Put that 40K minimum tax on economic migrants. Lots of money raised.
1
@markturner5534 So post your evidence of government investment that has a positive return. Education. There's a deficit. The average output of a state education is a liability. A failed investment. HS2? Another failure. ... Back to the question you are ignoring. Why import poverty? The spending side also matters.
1
@markturner5534 OK. Only Covid. What about the £16 trillion pension debt? Nothing to do with COVID.
1
@markturner5534 So governments are bad at spending effectively. Why get them to repeat the process as you advocate?
1
@markturner5534 So list all the debts. In particular the pension debts. What you will discover is that state spending is coming at the expense of the wealth of the masses. But you'll never come back with the number for that debt will you, or the others bar the money owed to bankers. It's all an illusion. Spending on other people's credit cards, then walk away. So how big are the pension debts? Current value, balance sheet number?
1
@markturner5534 So how big are those unfunded pension debts? All the wealth spent? What do you think the connection is between taxes going up, running a deficit?
1
@markturner5534 No you are wrong. Borrowing to GDP is 100%. The deficit is 3-10% based on recent numbers. Debt to GDP however is another matter. FOr that you need to know the pension debt. Can you find the number?
1
@markturner5534 Or start off listing the debts. That's probably a good starting point for you to find out what's really going on .
1
@markturner5534 No they aren't. THe borrowing to GDP percentanges are easy to find. The debt you can't get. Total Amount Outstanding (including inflation uplift for index-linked gilts) = £2,547.18 billion nominal That's the number for UK borrowing at 9.00 am this morning. Up to date if you know where to look. It's the DMO gilts in issue report. Now you prove that you are right. Find the number for the government's pension debts, current value. You of course won't be able to post that debt number, which proves my point.
1
@markturner5534 you aren't taxing people more, you're spending productively creating more jobs, thus more tax revenue You've just contradicted yourself. More tax is needed to fund it all So come on, what number do you have for the pension debts. Easy to find isn't it for a man with your knowledge. Notice that the borrowing number is around the 100% of GDP. No pension debts included. No pensions for public sector workers.
1
@markturner5534 The size isn't the problem if the contributions had been invested. The problem is that they spent the contributions and have hidden the debt. Can you find the current value of the pension debts?
1
@markturner5534 Making progress. It exists. Good. The size of it? Hmmm How big is the debt? I don't support in any way shape or form the poor spending into investment What do you mean by that? Ah yes, keep em poor. Don't allow them any assets. We can't have the peasants getting wealthy. Why would you want to inflict that on the poor?
1
@markturner5534 So pushing you on the productive spending. The state has taken the wealth from the workers and spent it. Something you have advocated. Now you can't admit to the size of that debt. That's the consequences of your 'productive spending'. Because its dire you won't admit to it. Couple that with the simple fact you can't find the number for the pension debts. You can of course admit to not being able to find the debt.
1
@markturner5534 There's another example of your 'productive spending' in the news today Scottish National Investment Bank has made a loss. Politicians running a bank. Productive - Not.
1
@markturner5534 lack of productive spending ======== That's because its going on the debts. The debts that you cannot quantify. That's why the debt number matters. When you have that debt number, you will see the source of the problem. But you can't produce that number. Now I don't blame you for not finding it. I do blame you for not questioning why you can't find it.
1
@markturner5534 I already acknowledged the size of it. When? What's the number? I've never seen you post the number. If I had I would certainly have congratulated you for being honest. Repost the number and the reference.
1
@markturner5534 Still waiting for the number. The demographic argument. You can run a pension system in two ways. The socialist way, where you spend the contributions. That's what we have for the state [unless you are an MP, and LG schemes. With LG schemes look at the deficits]. The capitalist way. Contributions are invested, owned by the workers. That's used to pay the pensions. Turns out that if the money had been invested, there wouldn't have been a problem. That's with the same demographics. So its not the demographics that are the problem. The problem is the contributions were spent, and now they can't pay.
1
@markturner5534 Nothing to do with the deficit. It's all about the debt. The deficit argument is about Kenysian spending, and why the last 25 years of deficit spending hasn't worked. Remember the New Deal was 1% of GPD for a handful of years. Still waiting for that debt number. This is the issue. You're in denial about the debt. Because you can't find the debt, you can't work out the consequences of the debt.
1
@markturner5534 Debt to GDP is massive. It's borrowing to GDP that's 100%. Back to your problem. Why can't you find the pension debt number? That's why you can't see the problem.
1
@markturner5534 Borrowing State pension Civil service pension Unpaid wages Unpaid invoices The EU Expected losses on insurance contracts Expected damages (Post office, NHS etc) Nuclear clean up (paid up front, state pays for the work) Expected losses on guarantees. There are the debts. The top 10 of government debts. I've posted the number for the borrowing, as of 9:00 am this morning. Can you find any numbers for the others? You've got that economist problem. It's a game of what if. What if the debts didn't exist. It's a challenge for you. Not posting the numbers just proves my point. Posting borrowing to GDP ratios and implying that must mean all the debts, proves my point. If you can't find the numbers, explain why?
1
@markturner5534 The 100% ratio is just the borrowing. What's this 300% number?
1
@markturner5534 So lets look at the borrowing bit. Major increase in borrowing in recent times. Who was the lender? There's just one. Company 06806063 on the UK register was the only real lender.
1
@markturner5534 Recent OBR stats highlighted uk soaring debt because of an ageing population, that included pensions. So what's the link for the OBR stats on pension debts. I'm trolling you on this. I've got direct quotes from them saying we do not report the pension debts because we won't pay them. Same for the treasury, the ONS.
1
@markturner5534 For pensions the issuse is debt less assets held to pay the pension debts. The demographics is an excuse. If the capitalist route had been choosen, no demographic issue , but the demographics are the same.
1
@markturner5534 Correct. But that debt is cause by spending the contributions. If the money had been invested, then the problem is assets less liabilities, and assets would exceed current liabilities. No demographic issue. The money hasn't been invested. So liabilities, trillions, assets zero. You're getting warmer. How many trillions of debt with no assets? What we have is politiicans saying evil public. By living longer you've exposed our fraud.
1
@markturner5534 It's in debt now. Future debt, caused by taking more contributions in the future isn't included in current debt. You're getting warmer. Affordability of the debt. Remember its inflation linked debt. MMT is clear, you can't print your way out of inflation linked debt. So what measures? 1. Debt / GDP 2. Debt / Taxes 3. Debt / (Taxes - core spending) 4. Debt per tax payer 5. Annual rate of increase in the debt 6. Rate of increase - increase of GDP All examples of what that total debt number tells you. It also tells you why they hide the debt number.
1