Am I being dumb? - Rachel borrowed £14.3M and paid £13M on loan repayments in February? Really? That's borrowing from Peter to pay Paul isn't it? Who are these lenders and why do they lend to such a numerically illiterate and fiscally irresponsible country? Why not cut out the middle man (which is Rachel) and just pass the money from their left to their right hand? How is this in any way "running the country"? My husband just shrugs his shoulders and says that's how the system works - what a really stupid system. What happens when these idiot lenders decide not to lend or Rachel has an emergency which means she misses a repayment?
You’re not being dumb at all – the numbers do feel like “borrowing from Peter to pay Paul”. The key difference is that governments roll over old debt and issue new gilts all the time, so the £13bn is interest plus refinancing costs on a stock of almost £2.9 trillion, while the £14.3bn is the extra borrowing just for this year’s gap.
Well it looks like the government/Rache from accounts has taken her fiscal leads from the failed Birmingham Council and is leading us all to the same final outcome of bankruptcy…
That Birmingham comparison is sadly apt – you can get away with weak underlying finances for a while, until the moment you can’t. The UK still has the advantage of its own currency and a deep gilt market, but the direction of travel is similar: ever more borrowed just to stand still, rising debt interest, and very little to show in terms of stronger private‑sector growth underneath. That’s why I keep stressing that this isn’t “investment borrowing”, it’s day‑to‑day overspending that steadily narrows the room for manoeuvre when the next shock hits.
You’re right to sense that the headline numbers don’t match people’s lived experience. That’s really the core of the piece: we’re taking on a lot more debt, but it’s not translating into stronger growth, better services or higher living standards for most people – which is why so many feel “the money never comes our way”.
What we use for money is govt IOUs (BoE says so, March 2014 Bulletin, PDF). When you return an IOU to its issuer, it's nulled. Buying gilts then is really an asset swap, non-interest bearing Govt IOU (money) for interest bearing Govt IOU (bond). The money disappears when Govt gets it so it can't spend it. There's no borrowing going on here, just people showing faith in Govt by (they think) depositing money with it. When Govt pays out, it does so by creating new money.
Thank you Jamie. You have grasped the increase in our government borrowing.
It is as clear as day that the over have no idea how to affect our economy to increase growth.
For well over the 25 years of sustained deficit the growth of our economy has NOT happened in sufficient terms to avoid the need for government borrowing.
That sustained ignorance to our nations need to earn more not pay more, is the reason we are where we are today. And will be in the next 25 years.
As the rich if this world, the ones who buy those gilts get richer with the interest we pay them then, they get more money to lend us!
Do thus becomes an ever increasing property for them and us. As our debt rises they earn more. They earn more they lend more by buying gilts. It’s not a mathematical calculation more an observation.
The general rule is that inflation is bad. And we must strangle a growing economy to stifle inflation, to keep inflation down. But all this does is stifle our economy!
Inflation is not bad. As long as incomes keep up with it. Inflation is a fact of life. It’s the natural rise in costs. In things they become scarce after being plentiful. Or raw materials that we run out of that we then import like oil and gas. Once we had it snd now we don’t do to speak.
And whoever said you can’t buck the market were right! You can’t keep costs down forever. Or pretend a price is a price forever.
But when the need is their to resupply the total money in circulation to cover the inflationary effects to give an equal supply to counteract that rise we fail ourselves! By NOT supplying it Jamie.
I’m not convinced that a MMT (modern monetary theory) is the answer. Just print what we need. As we all know the more we print the more we and the rest of the world devalue it’s worth, its value and its ability to swap for effort.
So unfortunately I think it’s a bit if a red herring. MMT.
But why don’t we just work with what’s already out there!!?? This is the part of our economy and your piece highlights.
Our money that we pay back goes somewhere.,it doesn’t disappear. It gets collected out of reach unless borrowed back.
Well Sod that!
Thus us where the government get it wrong. It’s our money. Not for keeping hold of. But for return.
So much if our money is exchanged for what we want, food energy you name it.
But our government must make better rules to make whoever gets it, SPEND it back. Not tax it for a small bit of profit. Or think a small bit of wealth will do, no!!
We need it all back so we can get the result of money for our economy to grow! Yes it must grow its supply of money to restock, resupply to re-SPEND. But growth is not limitless. It will grow to its optimum and then that, should be sufficient to not need to borrow it back. And will pay our way without a deficit. In other words we have replaced debt with the actual money being held by those who buy gilts. It’s a simple balanced equation Jamie.
And not forgetting. When we or they SPEND we get equal goods or asset in fair exchange. And when tax taken no exchange occurs directly and it’s fir s small piece of holdings. There is the power of SPENDING. It resupplies to the full.
Thus us all in the government remit. To at last track and trace money. Make it move back by those who have good of it by making them SPEND it rather then hold it to ransom and make us borrow our own money back!
Brian, thanks for such a thoughtful comment – you’re absolutely right to focus on the long stretch of persistent deficits and the way that rewards gilt‑holders while leaving the real economy stuck in low‑growth mode. I agree that the core problem is not “inflation per se” but a failure to generate broad‑based income growth and to recycle money productively back through the economy rather than treating high asset holdings as an end in themselves. Where I’d add a nuance is that, in a small open economy like the UK, there is a limit to how far we can rely on higher money growth without running into currency and confidence problems, which is why I keep stressing the need for genuine investment that lifts productivity, rather than just ever‑larger flows of interest to the already wealthy.
That’s correct Jamie. I think we’re on the same page.
The word GROWTH worries me. As does INVESTMENT. And I’ll try and explain why.
Growth is a bit of an enigma. It’s a happening rather than anything meaningful. If it were meaningful we could precisely calculate it. We could project it based on specifics. And we could understand what generates it and what amounts are required to obtain it. But we can’t be sure on anything.
To Rachel Reeves it’s specific. It’s a growth of tax revenue of tax take. That’s why she has increased taxation to obviously bring more in.
But to an economist growth is GDP, whatever that is! To a banker Growth is deposits. And to a businessman it’s profit. To the economy it’s money. The money pot needs to grow. Either by adding more or using more of the percentage that’s already out there but, not used. For example, a ratio say of 60/40. 60 not being spent in a month and 40 that is being spent in a month. Growth from that could mean a 50/50 split. Whereby spending ratio increases to 50 making unspent money decrease to 50. Thus the money supply has increased from spending while no added funds have taken place. In other words growth is using more of our money that hitherto has not been used.
So you see Jamie, using a word to sum up need is not as accurate as we think or need. And those who use it don’t understand its variations.
Same too with investment.
Investment to a business is more money to spend. But at a higher cost. Investment by a bank or fund is also more money, profit! The more debt sold the more profit earned. And investment may be effort not actually money. For example, Working harder for less. Or working longer hours. And so on. So investment is another all encompassing word that misrepresents its use. Investment sounds professional. Precise but it’s far from it. As at what cost? And in allowing investment it misses the point that, money should be freely available by normal flow to supply that demand. The mere fact that it’s now ‘investment’ means the system has not freely supplied that income stream to be replaced by money at cost and full repayment of future revenue instead of a fee stream if money supply. In that use it proves money is NOT in supply sufficient for its need. And that’s because the investor has not freely spent their money but withers it causing the flow to stop! Making the borrower have to take on an investment! It’s crazy. It needs to be flowing freely. Investment is the unhappy result of a failed system that stops cash flowing, stops money moving freely. It’s not the answer it’s not an answer. It’s the symptom of a poor and failed system of money flow and resupply.
I don’t like those terms. They are vague and misleading and lazy in their use.
So too is ‘WE THE TAXPAYER’. It’s lazy and vague and misrepresented.
The assumption being, tax is paid by some and not others! Well that assumption itself is a sign of confusion. It’s a sign of a misunderstood statement and its assumption. In short it’s naive.
Just by saying it means they don’t really know or understand tax at all! Let me explain.
All people pay the same taxes. And they are VAT and DUTY. As we SPEND they are triggered. If we SPEND 100% of income we pay as much tax as we can possibly pay. All people pay this. Not done ALL. Whether you are Workers, non workers, children, adults, employed or unemployed even the unemployable! Disabled non disabled. Pensioners or non pensioners. It’s the same tax of the same percentage. There is no them and us!!
The real difference is SPENDERS and NON SPENDERS. That’s the them and us! Not we the tax payer, we the SPENDER should be the mantra.
Spenders pay 100% to tax and all 100% to revenue and all 100% to the resupply of money back to the collective pot.
Non spenders don’t pay their fair share. They pay less pro rata if tax and contribute less as a result to the/our economy and its resupply of money. So they don’t result the pot. They are the problem! They are the tax avoiders. And in some cases pay NO TAX at all! And contribute nothing to the resupply of our collective revenue base and stream to the economy. This is another problem. No tax is triggered by unspent money. So there is no incentive to SPEND. And therefore no incentive to contribute to us as a collective population and contribute nothing to our governments tax take.
So if 100% of income is unspent then nothing in tax is triggered. Whether they work or not. So the ‘we the taxpayer’ opinion is flawed!
Furthermore, tax and Nic are NOT paid by workers. They are paid by businesses from the profits and revenue received from the SPENDING of us all. Not from working per se.
Despite the fact it has income in the heading it’s only calculated on income paid. And despite the worker being liable for it tax is not triggered by work. It’s triggered by the SPENDING of the business on the employee. So it’s the employer who pays tax not the worker! This is yet another misrepresentation.
The business pays wages and taxes. Not the worker. Not the employee.The employer. The trigger is their SPENDING on wages for taxes to trigger.
And businesses are conduits for money flow. They receive SPENDING and pass on that SPENDING to trigger income tax and Nic.
And who pays for the revenue and tax collected by business? We ALL do! So there is no them or us. It’s all of us.
So, again we the taxpayer is everyone’s! There is no them and us. It’s everyone. Not unequal. But equally!
So Jamie, my point. … At last!… is wording is fatally wrong. Growth. Investment and we the taxpayer are all misconstrued and misunderstood. Not by some. By all.
Taxation is presented to us as an illusion. Unknown amounts of vat and duty are taken, so we don’t see what we pay.
known amounts are taken before receipt. So they are an illusion to think they are gained. They are not. So a complete re-understanding is required to see show and know that our taxes are triggered by SPENDING. Which we all do.
Except those who have too much income from need. As they don’t have to SPEND. And there is the problem.
We are led to believe that, non workers take. No, recipients of money who keep it are the culprit to a system that needs money flowing.
Anything or anyone that stops the flow or doesn’t contribute to returning money freely by spending it back, are causing the flow to stop, delay or keep it and take more by doing so.
The fingering blame shouldn’t be to the poor. They spend all their incomes. No it must be at those who don’t spend.
It’s a government that has the ability to make money move when they don’t choose to move it themselves. Only a government can penalise those not spending, not by taxing that money or taxing their wealth but by taking the whole income back if not spent.
My view is we need all money flowing all the time automatically and perpetually.
Make all money digital. Track and trace all money in house. Reinstate exchange controls. Don’t allow money to leave. Goods yes. But not money. Put a spend by date on that digital money. Make all money move or have it taken by government for their own and our collective spending needs.
In one instant action make money flow to its optimum, rely solely on vat. No other tax is needed.
If all our money is spent. It could raise trillions. As there is apparently £19 trillion pounds out there. In cash coin and digital money. If all that were spent once in one whole year. We could expect £3.8 trillion in tax take from vat alone.
That’s four times our tax take now from all taxation. Now that’s growth Jamie.
We won’t need to borrow. We won’t need to run a deficit. Wages would rise so too state pensions. We won’t need credit or gilts. Banks would facilitate the movement of money not stop its flow or keep it.
Import exporters must hold uk accounts on same rule. Spend it or lose it. They’ll make an equal position if goods in goods out. And all money stays.
That’s my answer Jamie. No need for the city slickers All we need is people with well earned incomes who willingly spend it all the time. Getting fair exchange for effort. We don’t need private sectors or public sectors. Any sector fuels the other by spending directly on each other. Symbiotic.
Investment Jamie is a sign of a drip feed. A withholding of money to gain more money. And control, not just interest but future profits. That’s not required if the system fuels itself.
It’s a lot more simple than we all think, it’s just cash flow.
I’m all for people earning more. Reward themselves. But they must spend the money back in fair exchange if we want the system to perpetuate.
On the contrary Tony, I want a well funded well paid society. Not an under funded and hyper inflation economy.
Printing money just to devalue it is not what’s needed.
But we should want more or all of our existing money to rotate around from those holding it to those who don’t. In a fairish exchange for our work effort it needs. Tax gives nothing in return. Spending gets you goods assets etc. in fair exchange.
But without money returning then our system becomes devoid of it. As we are now.
I’m not a communist or indeed a fascist. I just want to be properly and better paid by there being a ready supply of citizens holding money to spend having received it from others spending. It’s all about spending and cash flow Tony.
Money has to have a way to return or the system fails. Our preferred method is receiving from spending and spending ourselves. It’s a sure fire winner to keep the resupply of money that, we all need.
Germany in the twenties didn’t want to spend. They wanted to not spend. So they just kept printing to give the resupply. But all it did was to make the money worthless.
The governments answer to insufficient tax take from money not moving via spending was to keep printing it to fill the deficit. Much better to enforce spending to keep us all in funds and give governments more than enough to pay their way too.
Am I being dumb? - Rachel borrowed £14.3M and paid £13M on loan repayments in February? Really? That's borrowing from Peter to pay Paul isn't it? Who are these lenders and why do they lend to such a numerically illiterate and fiscally irresponsible country? Why not cut out the middle man (which is Rachel) and just pass the money from their left to their right hand? How is this in any way "running the country"? My husband just shrugs his shoulders and says that's how the system works - what a really stupid system. What happens when these idiot lenders decide not to lend or Rachel has an emergency which means she misses a repayment?
You’re not being dumb at all – the numbers do feel like “borrowing from Peter to pay Paul”. The key difference is that governments roll over old debt and issue new gilts all the time, so the £13bn is interest plus refinancing costs on a stock of almost £2.9 trillion, while the £14.3bn is the extra borrowing just for this year’s gap.
Well it looks like the government/Rache from accounts has taken her fiscal leads from the failed Birmingham Council and is leading us all to the same final outcome of bankruptcy…
That Birmingham comparison is sadly apt – you can get away with weak underlying finances for a while, until the moment you can’t. The UK still has the advantage of its own currency and a deep gilt market, but the direction of travel is similar: ever more borrowed just to stand still, rising debt interest, and very little to show in terms of stronger private‑sector growth underneath. That’s why I keep stressing that this isn’t “investment borrowing”, it’s day‑to‑day overspending that steadily narrows the room for manoeuvre when the next shock hits.
Well the money is not come our way Britain.
You’re right to sense that the headline numbers don’t match people’s lived experience. That’s really the core of the piece: we’re taking on a lot more debt, but it’s not translating into stronger growth, better services or higher living standards for most people – which is why so many feel “the money never comes our way”.
What we use for money is govt IOUs (BoE says so, March 2014 Bulletin, PDF). When you return an IOU to its issuer, it's nulled. Buying gilts then is really an asset swap, non-interest bearing Govt IOU (money) for interest bearing Govt IOU (bond). The money disappears when Govt gets it so it can't spend it. There's no borrowing going on here, just people showing faith in Govt by (they think) depositing money with it. When Govt pays out, it does so by creating new money.
Thank you Jamie. You have grasped the increase in our government borrowing.
It is as clear as day that the over have no idea how to affect our economy to increase growth.
For well over the 25 years of sustained deficit the growth of our economy has NOT happened in sufficient terms to avoid the need for government borrowing.
That sustained ignorance to our nations need to earn more not pay more, is the reason we are where we are today. And will be in the next 25 years.
As the rich if this world, the ones who buy those gilts get richer with the interest we pay them then, they get more money to lend us!
Do thus becomes an ever increasing property for them and us. As our debt rises they earn more. They earn more they lend more by buying gilts. It’s not a mathematical calculation more an observation.
The general rule is that inflation is bad. And we must strangle a growing economy to stifle inflation, to keep inflation down. But all this does is stifle our economy!
Inflation is not bad. As long as incomes keep up with it. Inflation is a fact of life. It’s the natural rise in costs. In things they become scarce after being plentiful. Or raw materials that we run out of that we then import like oil and gas. Once we had it snd now we don’t do to speak.
And whoever said you can’t buck the market were right! You can’t keep costs down forever. Or pretend a price is a price forever.
But when the need is their to resupply the total money in circulation to cover the inflationary effects to give an equal supply to counteract that rise we fail ourselves! By NOT supplying it Jamie.
I’m not convinced that a MMT (modern monetary theory) is the answer. Just print what we need. As we all know the more we print the more we and the rest of the world devalue it’s worth, its value and its ability to swap for effort.
So unfortunately I think it’s a bit if a red herring. MMT.
But why don’t we just work with what’s already out there!!?? This is the part of our economy and your piece highlights.
Our money that we pay back goes somewhere.,it doesn’t disappear. It gets collected out of reach unless borrowed back.
Well Sod that!
Thus us where the government get it wrong. It’s our money. Not for keeping hold of. But for return.
So much if our money is exchanged for what we want, food energy you name it.
But our government must make better rules to make whoever gets it, SPEND it back. Not tax it for a small bit of profit. Or think a small bit of wealth will do, no!!
We need it all back so we can get the result of money for our economy to grow! Yes it must grow its supply of money to restock, resupply to re-SPEND. But growth is not limitless. It will grow to its optimum and then that, should be sufficient to not need to borrow it back. And will pay our way without a deficit. In other words we have replaced debt with the actual money being held by those who buy gilts. It’s a simple balanced equation Jamie.
And not forgetting. When we or they SPEND we get equal goods or asset in fair exchange. And when tax taken no exchange occurs directly and it’s fir s small piece of holdings. There is the power of SPENDING. It resupplies to the full.
Thus us all in the government remit. To at last track and trace money. Make it move back by those who have good of it by making them SPEND it rather then hold it to ransom and make us borrow our own money back!
Brian, thanks for such a thoughtful comment – you’re absolutely right to focus on the long stretch of persistent deficits and the way that rewards gilt‑holders while leaving the real economy stuck in low‑growth mode. I agree that the core problem is not “inflation per se” but a failure to generate broad‑based income growth and to recycle money productively back through the economy rather than treating high asset holdings as an end in themselves. Where I’d add a nuance is that, in a small open economy like the UK, there is a limit to how far we can rely on higher money growth without running into currency and confidence problems, which is why I keep stressing the need for genuine investment that lifts productivity, rather than just ever‑larger flows of interest to the already wealthy.
That’s correct Jamie. I think we’re on the same page.
The word GROWTH worries me. As does INVESTMENT. And I’ll try and explain why.
Growth is a bit of an enigma. It’s a happening rather than anything meaningful. If it were meaningful we could precisely calculate it. We could project it based on specifics. And we could understand what generates it and what amounts are required to obtain it. But we can’t be sure on anything.
To Rachel Reeves it’s specific. It’s a growth of tax revenue of tax take. That’s why she has increased taxation to obviously bring more in.
But to an economist growth is GDP, whatever that is! To a banker Growth is deposits. And to a businessman it’s profit. To the economy it’s money. The money pot needs to grow. Either by adding more or using more of the percentage that’s already out there but, not used. For example, a ratio say of 60/40. 60 not being spent in a month and 40 that is being spent in a month. Growth from that could mean a 50/50 split. Whereby spending ratio increases to 50 making unspent money decrease to 50. Thus the money supply has increased from spending while no added funds have taken place. In other words growth is using more of our money that hitherto has not been used.
So you see Jamie, using a word to sum up need is not as accurate as we think or need. And those who use it don’t understand its variations.
Same too with investment.
Investment to a business is more money to spend. But at a higher cost. Investment by a bank or fund is also more money, profit! The more debt sold the more profit earned. And investment may be effort not actually money. For example, Working harder for less. Or working longer hours. And so on. So investment is another all encompassing word that misrepresents its use. Investment sounds professional. Precise but it’s far from it. As at what cost? And in allowing investment it misses the point that, money should be freely available by normal flow to supply that demand. The mere fact that it’s now ‘investment’ means the system has not freely supplied that income stream to be replaced by money at cost and full repayment of future revenue instead of a fee stream if money supply. In that use it proves money is NOT in supply sufficient for its need. And that’s because the investor has not freely spent their money but withers it causing the flow to stop! Making the borrower have to take on an investment! It’s crazy. It needs to be flowing freely. Investment is the unhappy result of a failed system that stops cash flowing, stops money moving freely. It’s not the answer it’s not an answer. It’s the symptom of a poor and failed system of money flow and resupply.
I don’t like those terms. They are vague and misleading and lazy in their use.
So too is ‘WE THE TAXPAYER’. It’s lazy and vague and misrepresented.
The assumption being, tax is paid by some and not others! Well that assumption itself is a sign of confusion. It’s a sign of a misunderstood statement and its assumption. In short it’s naive.
Just by saying it means they don’t really know or understand tax at all! Let me explain.
All people pay the same taxes. And they are VAT and DUTY. As we SPEND they are triggered. If we SPEND 100% of income we pay as much tax as we can possibly pay. All people pay this. Not done ALL. Whether you are Workers, non workers, children, adults, employed or unemployed even the unemployable! Disabled non disabled. Pensioners or non pensioners. It’s the same tax of the same percentage. There is no them and us!!
The real difference is SPENDERS and NON SPENDERS. That’s the them and us! Not we the tax payer, we the SPENDER should be the mantra.
Spenders pay 100% to tax and all 100% to revenue and all 100% to the resupply of money back to the collective pot.
Non spenders don’t pay their fair share. They pay less pro rata if tax and contribute less as a result to the/our economy and its resupply of money. So they don’t result the pot. They are the problem! They are the tax avoiders. And in some cases pay NO TAX at all! And contribute nothing to the resupply of our collective revenue base and stream to the economy. This is another problem. No tax is triggered by unspent money. So there is no incentive to SPEND. And therefore no incentive to contribute to us as a collective population and contribute nothing to our governments tax take.
So if 100% of income is unspent then nothing in tax is triggered. Whether they work or not. So the ‘we the taxpayer’ opinion is flawed!
Furthermore, tax and Nic are NOT paid by workers. They are paid by businesses from the profits and revenue received from the SPENDING of us all. Not from working per se.
Despite the fact it has income in the heading it’s only calculated on income paid. And despite the worker being liable for it tax is not triggered by work. It’s triggered by the SPENDING of the business on the employee. So it’s the employer who pays tax not the worker! This is yet another misrepresentation.
The business pays wages and taxes. Not the worker. Not the employee.The employer. The trigger is their SPENDING on wages for taxes to trigger.
And businesses are conduits for money flow. They receive SPENDING and pass on that SPENDING to trigger income tax and Nic.
And who pays for the revenue and tax collected by business? We ALL do! So there is no them or us. It’s all of us.
So, again we the taxpayer is everyone’s! There is no them and us. It’s everyone. Not unequal. But equally!
So Jamie, my point. … At last!… is wording is fatally wrong. Growth. Investment and we the taxpayer are all misconstrued and misunderstood. Not by some. By all.
Taxation is presented to us as an illusion. Unknown amounts of vat and duty are taken, so we don’t see what we pay.
known amounts are taken before receipt. So they are an illusion to think they are gained. They are not. So a complete re-understanding is required to see show and know that our taxes are triggered by SPENDING. Which we all do.
Except those who have too much income from need. As they don’t have to SPEND. And there is the problem.
We are led to believe that, non workers take. No, recipients of money who keep it are the culprit to a system that needs money flowing.
Anything or anyone that stops the flow or doesn’t contribute to returning money freely by spending it back, are causing the flow to stop, delay or keep it and take more by doing so.
The fingering blame shouldn’t be to the poor. They spend all their incomes. No it must be at those who don’t spend.
It’s a government that has the ability to make money move when they don’t choose to move it themselves. Only a government can penalise those not spending, not by taxing that money or taxing their wealth but by taking the whole income back if not spent.
My view is we need all money flowing all the time automatically and perpetually.
Make all money digital. Track and trace all money in house. Reinstate exchange controls. Don’t allow money to leave. Goods yes. But not money. Put a spend by date on that digital money. Make all money move or have it taken by government for their own and our collective spending needs.
In one instant action make money flow to its optimum, rely solely on vat. No other tax is needed.
If all our money is spent. It could raise trillions. As there is apparently £19 trillion pounds out there. In cash coin and digital money. If all that were spent once in one whole year. We could expect £3.8 trillion in tax take from vat alone.
That’s four times our tax take now from all taxation. Now that’s growth Jamie.
We won’t need to borrow. We won’t need to run a deficit. Wages would rise so too state pensions. We won’t need credit or gilts. Banks would facilitate the movement of money not stop its flow or keep it.
Import exporters must hold uk accounts on same rule. Spend it or lose it. They’ll make an equal position if goods in goods out. And all money stays.
That’s my answer Jamie. No need for the city slickers All we need is people with well earned incomes who willingly spend it all the time. Getting fair exchange for effort. We don’t need private sectors or public sectors. Any sector fuels the other by spending directly on each other. Symbiotic.
Investment Jamie is a sign of a drip feed. A withholding of money to gain more money. And control, not just interest but future profits. That’s not required if the system fuels itself.
It’s a lot more simple than we all think, it’s just cash flow.
I’m all for people earning more. Reward themselves. But they must spend the money back in fair exchange if we want the system to perpetuate.
What’s your thoughts Jamie?
Weimar Germany is what you want!
On the contrary Tony, I want a well funded well paid society. Not an under funded and hyper inflation economy.
Printing money just to devalue it is not what’s needed.
But we should want more or all of our existing money to rotate around from those holding it to those who don’t. In a fairish exchange for our work effort it needs. Tax gives nothing in return. Spending gets you goods assets etc. in fair exchange.
But without money returning then our system becomes devoid of it. As we are now.
I’m not a communist or indeed a fascist. I just want to be properly and better paid by there being a ready supply of citizens holding money to spend having received it from others spending. It’s all about spending and cash flow Tony.
Money has to have a way to return or the system fails. Our preferred method is receiving from spending and spending ourselves. It’s a sure fire winner to keep the resupply of money that, we all need.
Germany in the twenties didn’t want to spend. They wanted to not spend. So they just kept printing to give the resupply. But all it did was to make the money worthless.
The governments answer to insufficient tax take from money not moving via spending was to keep printing it to fill the deficit. Much better to enforce spending to keep us all in funds and give governments more than enough to pay their way too.