• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Boris at it again and the contest to replace the lying c***

i had a long detailed response to that but I'll not bother.

I can't be bothered if you think money is created from nothing. Life's too short.
 
Jonathan Portes, a professor of economics at King's College London, wrote: "Anyone making claims that we 'can't afford' to support jobs and families during and after the pandemic, that there is 'no money left', that we've 'maxed out the nation's credit card', [or] that we're 'loading debt onto our children', is talking economically illiterate nonsense."

 
Don't take my word for it.

The BoE explained in 2014 how high street banks loan money to customers by simply creating the money by entering it digitally into their account. The BoE creates money in the same way except that they don't operate under any constraints unlike high street banks.



Unfortunately, much of the commentariat still believe taxes fund spending (they don't) and that money is held in big vaults (it isn't).
 
Well I for one think we should never have abandoned the gold standard; let's get all those little kids back in the mines.
 
Don't take my word for it.

The BoE explained in 2014 how high street banks loan money to customers by simply creating the money by entering it digitally into their account. The BoE creates money in the same way except that they don't operate under any constraints unlike high street banks.



Unfortunately, much of the commentariat still believe taxes fund spending (they don't) and that money is held in big vaults (it isn't).

Why bother with taxes then?
 
Why bother with taxes then?
Control inflation
Change behaviour
Prevent too much wealth inequality (in theory at least)

It also forces us to use pounds. If we had no system of taxation in place we could use dollars or euros or whatever. But we all need to pay taxes with pounds as the govt won't accept anything else. Because the govt can create pounds this give them the ability to buy what they need.
 
tenor.gif
 
From your link...

1. Currency makes up just a small amount of the overall money supply, much of which exists as credit money or electronic entries in financial ledgers.
2. While early currency derived its value from the content of precious metal inside of it, today's fiat money is backed entirely by social agreement and faith in the issuer.
3. Fiat money moreover derives its value from the trust in the government and its ability to levy and collect taxes.
4.The biggest hazard of printing too much money is hyperinflation.

I agree with all those points. 2 and 3 are crucial - the money only has value if there is faith it can be backed up. This is why people like to invest in UK bonds or 'debt' because they are seen by investors as the safest form if investment. This is because they are backed by the govt and investors know the UK govt can't go bust.

I also agree with point 4 which is one of the benefits of taxation.
 
Yet you want to give 15% of the working population a wage rise?

That 15% which will increase public borrowing and reduce the ability of the government to control inflation whilst all the time watching the private sector tax take reduce which knocks the confidence of investors in the government to collect appropriate taxation.

That's a downward spiral by any other measure, particularly as giving money to 15% of the population is a gamble that they may not spend any of it in the economy as so reduce the GDP, or spend it on imports which is just as bad.

The government could lend money to build infrastructure projects or invest in services, which would you rather have, a small percentage of the population benefitting from public borrowing or the chance to benefit everybody across a number of projects which will show up on the countries balance sheet?
 
It's not a pay rise people are annoyed about it's (another) pay freeze. Public sector workers have had something like a 12% pay cut from 2010-2017 then got 2% the last couple of years.

It's also a bit of a stretch (to say the least) to imagine that none of the public sector workers will spend their money in the real economy.
 
Aren't you even the slightest bit uncomfortable moaning you haven't had a pay rise when hundreds of thousands of people have and are in the process of losing their jobs?

Is that really socialism? I'm alright Jack?
 
EP Can I ask how you find these articles ? I am assuming you you don't subscribe to a newspaper that purely advocates an independent Scotland as I can't see the article on any other news outlet yet ?
How i find them? Do you think I actively looked it up? What a strange hot take.
 
The government could lend money to build infrastructure projects or invest in services, which would you rather have, a small percentage of the population benefitting from public borrowing or the chance to benefit everybody across a number of projects which will show up on the countries balance sheet?

I agree with this, they should be pouring money into infrastructure projects, it's good for jobs and therefore good for the economy and ultimately good for everyone as we have a better functioning society.

It would be grand if we could finance infrastructure projects, invest in services AND not give public sector workers a real terms pay cut, but we don't have a progressive government unfortunately.

Instead we see the biggest increase in the defence budget since the cold war, i'm not entirely sure why they have faced so little scrutiny over that, the timing is bizarre.

Also 22bn on the track and trace app now, which is apparently larger than the fire and police service budgets for one year.
 
Aren't you even the slightest bit uncomfortable moaning you haven't had a pay rise when hundreds of thousands of people have and are in the process of losing their jobs?

Is that really socialism? I'm alright Jack?

Nope, that's the free market.

So other people losing their jobs = public sector pay freeze?
 
Back
Top