A New Political Movement or Uprising?

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

That's the best you can come up with? I've given you a lengthy lse endorsed essay about the reality of money and you come back with a remark based on what's in your head rather than what is real.

 

So far today I've given you a raft of evidence and all you have in return is your opinion. 

You didn't write it yourself though, so it's hardly been much effort. It's a fair point he is making, Greece went over the edge due to not cutting back in tough times and are now on the brink despite austerity. 

What do you do, when the money runs out completely?

[LiberalFox]

16 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Oh I still am, however I've no confidence in Theresa May. I just Hope David Davis plays a key role in the negotiations because despite not liking the EU, it would still be better to have a FTA with them. Although I'm certain brexit will prove right in the long term (I'm not talking economics), I think it's important, that it isn't dreadful to begin with (which it could be). I didn't expect it to divide the country quite so viciously as it has, naively I thought the opposite would be more likely.

I do think the more vocal remainers, would be more appeased if Labour/Corbyn delivered the brexit, and if he is committed to leaving the single market, I could vote for that (as it could be best for the country at that time). Like I said earlier it's a bit of a crossroads, both paths look troublesome  

Fair enough. I simply want a sensible solution that doesn't wreck the economy. It's concerning that inflation is now running above target and predicted to be 3% this year. 

 

It remains to be seen what sort of compromise the EU will actually offer. 

[Kopfkino]

24 minutes ago, toddybad said:

This is not how the economy - or money - works. They are genuinally entirely different to what people imagine - including most of our politicians.

 

http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/the-production-of-money-ann-pettifors-lse-lecture

 

 

I went to that lecture; she was actually a decent lecturer and the points she raised were interesting and all that. I was gonna read the book but I can't really be arsed. The problem is that she is a little confused, selective, and muddled in some of what she says or so said some of the senior staff in the Econ department. She's also a little confrontational but who isn't.

 

In all honesty, when I left, she sort of had me convinced of Hayek's idea of privatising the supply of money. Not her intention of course but some of what she says backs that up.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, LiberalFox said:

Fair enough. I simply want a sensible solution that doesn't wreck the economy. It's concerning that inflation is now running above target and predicted to be 3% this year. 

 

It remains to be seen what sort of compromise the EU will actually offer. 

It does and it is. My reasons for wanting out of the EU extend beyond the economic benefits, so even if it's to our detriment via GPD I still think we will benefit eventually. 

Inflation at 3% really isn't that big of a deal and tbqh, I genuinely would have thought it would be more right now. You can't announce you are leaving the biggest trading block in the world and not expect a rough ride for a while. I hoped we could corner the EU into making a decent deal but we really have to have our wits about us right now. If we can see how weak May is, then they will smell it a mile off. I know not everyone will share this view but David Davis is brilliant and I just hope he will be able to push May to one side and get on with it.

It will be tough, we will have rough times ahead but we have had tough times whilst in the EU, it's not infallible.

[LiberalFox]

5 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

I went to that lecture; she was actually a decent lecturer and the points she raised were interesting and all that. I was gonna read the book but I can't really be arsed. The problem is that she is a little confused, selective, and muddled in some of what she says or so said some of the senior staff in the Econ department. She's also a little confrontational but who isn't.

 

In all honesty, when I left, she sort of had me convinced of Hayek's idea of privatising the supply of money. Not her intention of course but some of what she says backs that up.

Well she's a woman so I'm sure she couldn't be talking too much sense.

[Strokes]

6 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

I went to that lecture; she was actually a decent lecturer and the points she raised were interesting and all that. I was gonna read the book but I can't really be arsed. The problem is that she is a little confused, selective, and muddled in some of what she says or so said some of the senior staff in the Econ department. She's also a little confrontational but who isn't.

 

In all honesty, when I left, she sort of had me convinced of Hayek's idea of privatising the supply of money. Not her intention of course but some of what she says backs that up.

Excuse my ignorance but how does privatising the supply of money work?

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

I went to that lecture; she was actually a decent lecturer and the points she raised were interesting and all that. I was gonna read the book but I can't really be arsed. The problem is that she is a little confused, selective, and muddled in some of what she says or so said some of the senior staff in the Econ department. She's also a little confrontational but who isn't.

 

In all honesty, when I left, she sort of had me convinced of Hayek's idea of privatising the supply of money. Not her intention of course but some of what she says backs that up.

But as you know it's all theoretical so there's no saying the senior staff are right. There are multiple examples of similar arguments both at lse and other serious institutions worldwide.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It does and it is. My reasons for wanting out of the EU extend beyond the economic benefits, so even if it's to our detriment via GPD I still think we will benefit eventually. 

Inflation at 3% really isn't that big of a deal and tbqh, I genuinely would have thought it would be more right now. You can't announce you are leaving the biggest trading block in the world and not expect a rough ride for a while. I hoped we could corner the EU into making a decent deal but we really have to have our wits about us right now. If we can see how weak May is, then they will smell it a mile off. I know not everyone will share this view but David Davis is brilliant and I just hope he will be able to push May to one side and get on with it.

It will be tough, we will have rough times ahead but we have had tough times whilst in the EU, it's not infallible.

I can't be the only one concerned the negotiations alone are going to be disastrous. The europhile tories will smell blood and are capable of defeating the government in concert with the other parties. May will be lucky to see out the first month of negotiations and we could end up with a leadership contest. We'll then have the prospect of the dup/tory pact falling apart. We could end up with another general election at any time. Nobody can seriously look at the tories as strong and stable at the most important time in our history as everybody knows the vultures are circling the pm. I've come round to thinking that may needs to be guaranteed 2 years, the parties need to agree to work together for 2 years on brexit that have another election at that point. I say that despite the fact it is preferable for the labour party to get another election asap as brexit has the potential to wipe the floor with this country. No one party should be negotiating it alone based on forming a government with the help of a minor party. This isn't a party issue.

[Webbo]

57 minutes ago, toddybad said:

That's the best you can come up with? I've given you a lengthy lse endorsed essay about the reality of money and you come back with a remark based on what's in your head rather than what is real.

 

So far today I've given you a raft of evidence and all you have in return is your opinion. 

It's not evidence it's an opinion and if you look what that site says it's aims are;

 

• Develop and frame macroeconomic theories, applications and solutions to the severe economic, social and ecological problems of the world.
• Restore the use of macroeconomic theory to its proper place, i.e. the analysis of macroeconomic conditions.
• Promote policies for greater equality, full and decently-paid employment, and ecologically sustainable economic activity.
• Promote understanding of the nature of credit and its role in determining macroeconomic outcomes.
• Promote policies for a new global financial architecture and national and international monetary systems that are based on international justice, equity and stability.

If what that article is saying is true, Greece would be the richest country in Europe as well as the most indebted.

[Kopfkino]

44 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Excuse my ignorance but how does privatising the supply of money work?

 

I'm not necessarily actually an advocate of this, it's somewhat pie in the sky thinking. I am also not entirely sound on the thinking behind it. But it's sort of happening already given the array of crypto currencies out there. Obviously Bitcoin is the one everyone knows but there are loads more. 

 

You open it up to private companies, say banks, to create their own currencies and compete in the same way other markets do to create lower prices and better quality. What exactly is the reason for, in effect, the state having a monopoly over the supply of money? Hayek described ‘the government monopoly of the issue and control of money’ as ‘the source and root of all monetary evil'. Why is it that we should trust government sponsored money, given we know the actions that government takes with respect to money (bit more difficult these days considering central banks are supposed to be independent) over a business whose fortunes is wholly dependant on issuing money. We already have Visa and MasterCard who are well placed to give it a try.

 

The theory would be that it promotes economic stability as there is a real incentive to control supply of money in the same way that there is a real desire to control the supply of any other good that a private firm produces. I also believe it would control some of the problems of speculation but i'm not entirely sure.

 

For an actual explanation of how you could transition to that now and just for a better explanation than my weak effort, read this: https://mises.org/library/hayeks-plan-private-money

[Kopfkino]

44 minutes ago, toddybad said:

But as you know it's all theoretical so there's no saying the senior staff are right. There are multiple examples of similar arguments both at lse and other serious institutions worldwide.

 

Of course, I only said that because I was saying it wasn't what I thought and it didn't cross my mind til I heard these people say it.

 

I'm all for actual debates on these things if people actually bother to pay attention to the other side and then make a sensible, articulate argument back and it doesnt even require much effort. There's too much mudslinging and a lack of desire to actually listen.

[Strokes]

15 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

I'm not necessarily actually an advocate of this, it's somewhat pie in the sky thinking. I am also not entirely sound on the thinking behind it. But it's sort of happening already given the array of crypto currencies out there. Obviously Bitcoin is the one everyone knows but there are loads more. 

 

You open it up to private companies, say banks, to create their own currencies and compete in the same way other markets do to create lower prices and better quality. What exactly is the reason for, in effect, the state having a monopoly over the supply of money? Hayek described ‘the government monopoly of the issue and control of money’ as ‘the source and root of all monetary evil'. Why is it that we should trust government sponsored money, given we know the actions that government takes with respect to money (bit more difficult these days considering central banks are supposed to be independent) over a business whose fortunes is wholly dependant on issuing money. We already have Visa and MasterCard who are well placed to give it a try.

 

The theory would be that it promotes economic stability as there is a real incentive to control supply of money in the same way that there is a real desire to control the supply of any other good that a private firm produces. I also believe it would control some of the problems of speculation but i'm not entirely sure.

 

For an actual explanation of how you could transition to that now and just for a better explanation than my weak effort, read this: https://mises.org/library/hayeks-plan-private-money

My mind is now blown to bits  

Although I've been drinking since midday, I might re read tomorrow  

[Thracian]

14 hours ago, toddybad said:

This is not how the economy - or money - works. They are genuinally entirely different to what people imagine - including most of our politicians.

 

http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/the-production-of-money-ann-pettifors-lse-lecture

 

Selected quotes:

 

"There is no such thing as debt-free money, or if there is, it is very likely something quite different – a grant or a gift."

 

 

"In a developed monetary system, all money is based on a system of claims: assets and liabilities backed up by collateral. 

All money is a claim on another – an obligation to be reciprocated – or a debt. 

The Italian economist Andrea Terzi has it right: in a monetary economy saving is different from the business of building up a surplus of corn, and then lending it on. The corn can be saved without it ever affecting others. Only if you decide to lend it will you establish a relationship with others. 

However, saving in an economy based on money always ‘affects others’ because it is always an act that sets up a financial relationship with others: a claim. Terzi again: 

'In a monetary economy, saving is not a real quantity that anyone can independently own, like corn or gold or a collection of rare stamps. In a monetary economy, as opposed to a non-monetary economy, saving is an act that [establishes a relationship with others] … in the form of a financial claim.'

Given this, it is the case that if savings in an economy are to expand, then it will be necessary for debt to expand too. 

That is what orthodox economists find so difficult to grasp as they battle to cut government debt, in the vain hope of accumulating savings. 

That is the very reverse of what they should do: for savings to expand, then it will be necessary for debt (either private or public) to expand too. 

Savings need to be funded, and if the money supply has shrunk, because the private sector has lost confidence, then the best way to fund savings would be for governments or private banks to issue new debt. 

Don’t hold your breath. These are difficult concepts for our politicians to grasp, and so dear friends, austerity is with us for a little longer. 

At a time of economic failure or slump, when unemployment rises, incomes and tax revenues fall – that is the time for the government to increase both private economic activity and savings in the economy, by issuing debt. 

So debt is vital to the monetary system, and to the health of the economy."

Italy's an iffy place to turn to for an economist and, assuming you've understood and quoted Terzi correctly,  it's demonstrably wrong to say that "for savings to expand it will be necessary for debt to expand."

 

Think about a fictional Lester City - just for the fun of it.

 

Costs occur in having a team, ground, training ground and staff balanced against income from ticket sales, shop sales, advertising and television income plus various incidentals (the economy),   

 

Lets say our owners take over the club at a time it costs £100m to run and has exactly the same £100m income. It breaks even but has assets of £25m in the notional value of the team.  

 

The owners decide to invest £100m of their "savings" in the club from the start and their aim is to grow the savings without expanding any debt, which begins at zero.

 

This means that income, ie sale of assets, needs to grow faster than the level of debt.

 

Let's say, from a "savings" point of view the owners see the sale of players as providing the growth and a reduction of unproductive debt as helping to control the basic economy.

 

So they buy the ground for £40m and reduce annual costs from £100m pa to £60m but also increase the club's asset to being the entire value of the ground, a notional 40m that can be added to savings making £140m.in total savings from the £100m start. 

 

With the ground rent off the annual costs we already have a situation where savings/assets are up and debt down (payments on the ground).  

 

And that's the way it has to go on, year in year out.

 

Lester's owners continued to be brilliant at it and should probably run the country! lol.

 

They added players like Kranke, Maywhiz, Rasper and Hardy to their core of 20 other players and although only selling Kranke from those four made a  profit of £(say) 25m - savings thus growing to £165m  with assets also soaring.

 

Meanwhile the core economy. while growing due to higher wages. remained notionally balanced due to increased sales of tickets/television income, footballing prizemoney, shop sales and advertising.  

 

Thus, savings grew without expanding debt and could continue to do so with prudent decision-making leaving Terzi's theory flat on the floor.

 

Basically, in economic terms, assets are good and debt is a burden that can easily grow heavier and heavier til it can no longer be carried.

 

There's no need to differentiate between types of economies. The principles are the same and there is no reason people shouldn't be able to invest tangibly in any aspect of their function, as actually happens in various ways and makes some people lots of money to buy assets and build still further.

 

It's not the politics of envy we want but the politics of practical and beneficial education.     

 

.    

           

    

 

 

 

 

 .  

 

[Thracian]

2 hours ago, toddybad said:

That's the best you can come up with? I've given you a lengthy lse endorsed essay about the reality of money and you come back with a remark based on what's in your head rather than what is real.

 

So far today I've given you a raft of evidence and all you have in return is your opinion. 

Your "essay" didn't sound like your own thoughts and evaluations more a  willingness to take something published for granted. Take almost any theory you like and test it through the internet and you'll be swamped by all sorts of different opinions. 

 

I'm no academic but it seems to me the skill is to doubt everything until your own logic gives it credence = always assuming you have a sense of logic and consequence.

 

As I've suggested before, people need to be taught how to think rather than what to think.    

[Carl the Llama]

4 hours ago, Strokes said:

You didn't write it yourself though, so it's hardly been much effort. It's a fair point he is making, Greece went over the edge due to not cutting back in tough times and are now on the brink despite austerity. 

What do you do, when the money runs out completely?

Greece went over the edge due to joining a monetary union thus handing over control over their ability to devalue their currency despite having a vastly worse debt & deficit than officially declared and therefore putting the whole Euro zone at risk unless subsidised while subjected to significant financial restraints.

[ozleicester]

The EU has been Printing 60 BILLION Euros a month for the past 3+ years.... That is creating money...more than $1 TRILLION euros in two years

 

Tell me again how we cant just print more?  Nope, not going to fall for the inflation line... this $1trillion hasnt caused any problem, the rich and the bankers have done just fine.

 

Lets just slip one months printing to the NHS, public housing, and aged care..problem solved.

 

 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Thracian said:

Italy's an iffy place to turn to for an economist and, assuming you've understood and quoted Terzi correctly,  it's demonstrably wrong to say that "for savings to expand it will be necessary for debt to expand."

 

Think about a fictional Lester City - just for the fun of it.

 

Costs occur in having a team, ground, training ground and staff balanced against income from ticket sales, shop sales, advertising and television income plus various incidentals (the economy),   

 

Lets say our owners take over the club at a time it costs £100m to run and has exactly the same £100m income. It breaks even but has assets of £25m in the notional value of the team.  

 

The owners decide to invest £100m of their "savings" in the club from the start and their aim is to grow the savings without expanding any debt, which begins at zero.

 

This means that income, ie sale of assets, needs to grow faster than the level of debt.

 

Let's say, from a "savings" point of view the owners see the sale of players as providing the growth and a reduction of unproductive debt as helping to control the basic economy.

 

So they buy the ground for £40m and reduce annual costs from £100m pa to £60m but also increase the club's asset to being the entire value of the ground, a notional 40m that can be added to savings making £140m.in total savings from the £100m start. 

 

With the ground rent off the annual costs we already have a situation where savings/assets are up and debt down (payments on the ground).  

 

And that's the way it has to go on, year in year out.

 

Lester's owners continued to be brilliant at it and should probably run the country! lol.

 

They added players like Kranke, Maywhiz, Rasper and Hardy to their core of 20 other players and although only selling Kranke from those four made a  profit of £(say) 25m - savings thus growing to £165m  with assets also soaring.

 

Meanwhile the core economy. while growing due to higher wages. remained notionally balanced due to increased sales of tickets/television income, footballing prizemoney, shop sales and advertising.  

 

Thus, savings grew without expanding debt and could continue to do so with prudent decision-making leaving Terzi's theory flat on the floor.

 

Basically, in economic terms, assets are good and debt is a burden that can easily grow heavier and heavier til it can no longer be carried.

 

There's no need to differentiate between types of economies. The principles are the same and there is no reason people shouldn't be able to invest tangibly in any aspect of their function, as actually happens in various ways.  

 

.    

           

    

 

 

 

 

 .  

 

What? You cannot compare an individual entity to the monetary system - this is why people don't understand the nature of national debt. The point would be that the owner's savings are an accumulation of debts elsewhere in the economy. In your example the accumulated debts of people with sky packages, the debts of sky, credit used to buy season tickets, credit used to purchase king power duty free goods etc. You can't seperate bit of money from the whole economy. 

[Guest]

Here's the rub: 

All 'money' at macroeconomic level is created through debt. All of it. 

This debt can either be national debt or personal/private debt.

The economy grows when there is more money in the economy.

Our economy is growing slower than any other G7 nation.

We have seen some growth over the last few years but this councided with personal debt increasing to near record levels.

With near record personal debt, interest rates getting closer to increasing and wages falling, as well as the uncertainty of Brexit for business, increasing personal debt further would be extremely risky.

This leaves the only option to increase public spending.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

57 minutes ago, toddybad said:0

What? You cannot compare an individual entity to the monetary system - this is why people don't understand the nature of national debt. The point would be that the owner's savings are an accumulation of debts elsewhere in the economy. In your example the accumulated debts of people with sky packages, the debts of sky, credit used to buy season tickets, credit used to purchase king power duty free goods etc. You can't seperate bit of money from the whole economy. 

....or a result of people working, earning money, spending it on things and paying tax (for the greater economy). There are lots of theories in economics like there are in many areas, at the end of the day it is all down to human interpretation of these theories and I guess the person in charge (and team) are paid to make the decision.

 

IMO its wrong to think all money comes from debt and that debt is ok (I know some theories suggest this), again there are many economists and economic theories that support this globally. Real money comes from assets, as a country that is either gold (which Gordon sold) or some kind of natural resources we can sell or in the case of the UK at present using our skill set to sell our services to the world.

 

I have yet to see good sound evidence of excessive debt making a economy grow. Germany has low debt and a booming economy, Japan has massive debt and a stagnant economy.

6 hours ago, ozleicester said:

 

 

Lets just slip one months printing to the NHS, public housing, and aged care..problem solved.

 

 

Trouble is how do you ensure that the NHS (and others) doesn't spend its extra money on the wrong things? I would argue its pretty well funded now but is very inefficient, there are many layers of middle management and absolutely abhorrent procurement practices which need to be investigated.

 

Before more money is thrown at the public sector it needs to be better organised, we have councils now run be unaccountable  incompetent executives on never deliver on £100000-200000 per year, yet the same council can not spend £10000 on making a flat safe. The management structure is broken and there is evidence of that across all public sector organisations across the country (they are self preserving), the management is never cut its always the front line services when it should be the other way. Do we need office managers in Police Stations and Schools or could this be centralised? there are a lot of savings and I feel a massive review should be made to make sure the money is spent on the right things.

 

12 hours ago, toddybad said:

I can't be the only one concerned the negotiations alone are going to be disastrous. The europhile tories will smell blood and are capable of defeating the government in concert with the other parties. May will be lucky to see out the first month of negotiations and we could end up with a leadership contest. We'll then have the prospect of the dup/tory pact falling apart. We could end up with another general election at any time. Nobody can seriously look at the tories as strong and stable at the most important time in our history as everybody knows the vultures are circling the pm. I've come round to thinking that may needs to be guaranteed 2 years, the parties need to agree to work together for 2 years on brexit that have another election at that point. I say that despite the fact it is preferable for the labour party to get another election asap as brexit has the potential to wipe the floor with this country. No one party should be negotiating it alone based on forming a government with the help of a minor party. This isn't a party issue.

Bloody hell!! A first! I have to say I agree, this is a bigger issue now. This deal has to be good and the best for everyone in this country. Its beyond party politics. Personally I wanted to remain but now we have to accept the democratic vote and move on, but we need to move on in a way that does not cripple us for the future.

[Strokes]

8 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Greece went over the edge due to joining a monetary union thus handing over control over their ability to devalue their currency despite having a vastly worse debt & deficit than officially declared and therefore putting the whole Euro zone at risk unless subsidised while subjected to significant financial restraints.

Ok, so how does Greece get out of this? Ending austerity means leaving the Eurozone and most likely the EU, what's worse austerity or being a member of the European Union?

[Rincewind]

It is not really a new political movement. It has always been there. It has just been lost under the middle to right politics we have had for 40 years. Those under 40 will have noticed. So when it shows up people are sceptical and afraid of it.

[Carl the Llama]

10 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Ok, so how does Greece get out of this? Ending austerity means leaving the Eurozone and most likely the EU, what's worse austerity or being a member of the European Union?

Oh I don't have the answer to Greece's problems, I was just clarifying what caused them.  Personally I don't understand why once it became clear they'd swindled their way into the union the rest of the Eurozone didn't just kick them out until they got their house in order.

[davieG]

22 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

It is not really a new political movement. It has always been there. It has just been lost under the middle to right politics we have had for 40 years. Those under 40 will have noticed. So when it shows up people are sceptical and afraid of it.

It's not really a new political movement rather a disparate and desperate bunch of people who think they all believe in the same needs and wants but I suspect underneath there will be vast differences of opinion.

 

As for the political scene 40 years ago it was more or less two groups of intransigents that brought us down to our knees and left us with the Blair years (ok a bit of a simplification)

 

I fear this current group of desperate people will be easily manipulated into a new group of intransigents by outsiders seeking to cause mayhem and will come head on with the equivalent right wing politicos and nothing much will be achieved, there will still be those with so much money they don't know what to do with it and an ongoing .underclass 

[Guest MattP]

34 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Oh I don't have the answer to Greece's problems, I was just clarifying what caused them.  Personally I don't understand why once it became clear they'd swindled their way into the union the rest of the Eurozone didn't just kick them out until they got their house in order.

Same reason a loan shark is happy to stay in contact with a client who can't ever afford to pay him back.

 

The Germans will probably gain an island or two by the time it's finished as payment for the debt.

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, MattP said:

Same reason a loan shark is happy to stay in contact with a client who can't ever afford to pay him back.

 

The Germans will probably gain an island or two by the time it's finished as payment for the debt.

I can now see how your brexit vote was based on sound consideration of fact rather than a twisted set of beliefs created from snippets of daily mail articles.