This morning, I’m reading about the economic plans coming out of the British government. Already, a number of observers have described so-called “Trussonomics”—i.e. the economic program offered up by the new Prime Minister, Liz Truss, and her chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng—as a an “
One thing you might want to consider: Truss is going to pay the producers full price by paying the difference between their determination of what full price should be and what consumers can afford. This is in effect a price subsidy in an industry which is monopolized, cartelized and capable of pricing power. Think early 1970s artificial oil shortage. So whereas this government borrowing to say build out a solar energy system would make good use of capital and increase public wealth, subsidized oil prices is more like helicopter money dumped onto the Kings country estate.
Capping the cost of energy to consumers while paying energy companies their full price is just a smallish energy only form of my 50% Discount/Rebate policy at retail sale where equal accounting entries macro-economically remedies the major problems that have grown up around the human civilization long current monetary paradigm. Like MMT it's a nascent awakening to the method of effectively implementing the new monetary paradigm into the economy. But you have to do it with virtually everything...or it just becomes another theory that doesn't close the paradigmatic door and lets Finance off the hook so they can game it and morph it into a new neo-classicalism exactly like Keynesianism became the present neo-classicalism. No, we are many, Finance is few and a mass movement that communicates the wild benefits of the new paradigm and its policies could herd the entirety of the political apparatus toward general monetary security and ecological survival.
Which is it, half-assed reform-timidity or paradigm change-the mental boldness that recognizes that complete conceptual opposition to the current paradigm is an historical signature of...paradigm change???
The problem with applying the Lens of MMT would be that any meaningful implementation arising from it would require Truss to sever the conduits through which the British fiscal and taxation system sluices the national wealth to the commercial banks and onwards to the very wealthy, which is simply not a tolerable or viable proposition in a political system that is effectively a financier-led oligarchy. The role of the chancellor of the exchequer is not to define fiscal policy - it is to generate statements of justification for the fiscal policies defined by the recipients of the national wealth.
Truss's allotted role is to authoritatively sanction and ensure successful leverage of the legislative, fiscal and political landscape enabled by Brexit to assure the maximisation of the extraction of national wealth that was the root purpose of Brexit.
The current consumer-side energy and economic crisis makes it necessary for her to demonstrate a degree of apparent oligarchical largesse by temporarily doing something, (but as little as is possible), to alleviate consumer hardship, with a view to preventing future electoral defeat or worse.
But we can rest assured (a) that from a financier/banker perspective appropriate public funding transfers will be implemented to ensure that the Trussonomics measures do not prejudice either the flow of wealth or profitability, (b) that the goal of maximising the transfer of public wealth to a minuscule subset of the private sector will not be impeded, (c) that any hardship arising out of the measures will be safely directed onto the British public and (d) that the working classes will ultimately bear the full imaginary costs of the measures plus the costs of assuring/enabling banking/financier profitability associated with the measures.
Truss and Kwarteng's actions do not represent any sea change in Conservative fiscal policy - the oligarchy would not stand for that.
- we consider monetary policy to important to be in the hands of politicians, should we also take away fiscal policy decisions from politicians? Having an independent body responsible for fiscal policy would surely lead to better medium and long term outcomes. Could the bank of England be responsible for both monetary and fiscal policies, thus enabling them to have a fully joined up response?
One thing you might want to consider: Truss is going to pay the producers full price by paying the difference between their determination of what full price should be and what consumers can afford. This is in effect a price subsidy in an industry which is monopolized, cartelized and capable of pricing power. Think early 1970s artificial oil shortage. So whereas this government borrowing to say build out a solar energy system would make good use of capital and increase public wealth, subsidized oil prices is more like helicopter money dumped onto the Kings country estate.
Capping the cost of energy to consumers while paying energy companies their full price is just a smallish energy only form of my 50% Discount/Rebate policy at retail sale where equal accounting entries macro-economically remedies the major problems that have grown up around the human civilization long current monetary paradigm. Like MMT it's a nascent awakening to the method of effectively implementing the new monetary paradigm into the economy. But you have to do it with virtually everything...or it just becomes another theory that doesn't close the paradigmatic door and lets Finance off the hook so they can game it and morph it into a new neo-classicalism exactly like Keynesianism became the present neo-classicalism. No, we are many, Finance is few and a mass movement that communicates the wild benefits of the new paradigm and its policies could herd the entirety of the political apparatus toward general monetary security and ecological survival.
Which is it, half-assed reform-timidity or paradigm change-the mental boldness that recognizes that complete conceptual opposition to the current paradigm is an historical signature of...paradigm change???
Thank you. Exciting possibility for England!
Message from here in the UK:
!!! PLEASE SEND HELP !!!
The problem with applying the Lens of MMT would be that any meaningful implementation arising from it would require Truss to sever the conduits through which the British fiscal and taxation system sluices the national wealth to the commercial banks and onwards to the very wealthy, which is simply not a tolerable or viable proposition in a political system that is effectively a financier-led oligarchy. The role of the chancellor of the exchequer is not to define fiscal policy - it is to generate statements of justification for the fiscal policies defined by the recipients of the national wealth.
Truss's allotted role is to authoritatively sanction and ensure successful leverage of the legislative, fiscal and political landscape enabled by Brexit to assure the maximisation of the extraction of national wealth that was the root purpose of Brexit.
The current consumer-side energy and economic crisis makes it necessary for her to demonstrate a degree of apparent oligarchical largesse by temporarily doing something, (but as little as is possible), to alleviate consumer hardship, with a view to preventing future electoral defeat or worse.
But we can rest assured (a) that from a financier/banker perspective appropriate public funding transfers will be implemented to ensure that the Trussonomics measures do not prejudice either the flow of wealth or profitability, (b) that the goal of maximising the transfer of public wealth to a minuscule subset of the private sector will not be impeded, (c) that any hardship arising out of the measures will be safely directed onto the British public and (d) that the working classes will ultimately bear the full imaginary costs of the measures plus the costs of assuring/enabling banking/financier profitability associated with the measures.
Truss and Kwarteng's actions do not represent any sea change in Conservative fiscal policy - the oligarchy would not stand for that.
Richard murphy is a nut job, you should distance yourself from him
Question for Stephanie:
- we consider monetary policy to important to be in the hands of politicians, should we also take away fiscal policy decisions from politicians? Having an independent body responsible for fiscal policy would surely lead to better medium and long term outcomes. Could the bank of England be responsible for both monetary and fiscal policies, thus enabling them to have a fully joined up response?