You are right but its probably far too sensible and forward-looking for the proposition to have any chance of success, despite its being not just the best way forward but almost certainly a critical necessity if we are to have any hope of actually surviving the multiple climate/resource/ecological crises bearing down on us.
Also, it would play old Harry with the satisfaction of greed, which is the basis of the UK economic ecosystem.
It may come to that if sanity does not prevail. However, why not just place a larg-ese tax on commodity speculations and solve the consumer's problem with inflation by implementing a 50
% discount/rebate policy at retail sale. And if the banks, commodity exchanges and all business models other than finance don't abide by the new rules then they don't get the tax benefits that the new monetary paradigm enables and ultimately they risk losing their rebate privileges as well. In other words seek the cooperation of enterprise with the incredible profitability benefits that virtually all business models can reap from the new monetary paradigm because self interest is a very strong motivator, but if anyone cheats just utilize the sovereign power of a gracious government, that everyone is willing to stand with because its policies just doubled their purchasing power with the 50% discount policy, and off with their heads.
We should nationalize all our Natural Resources except land. Land should have some restrictions for private entities/individuals/families/corps. I'm uncomfortable with the scale of these holdings.
Here's the top 4. #10 only owns 900,000+ acres.
www.farmlandriches.com › largest-private-land-ownersTop 10 Largest Private Land Owners In The US In 2022
John Malone – 2,200,000 Acres. Billionaire John Malone has the title of the largest private land owner in the United States. His fortune was made in the media space, where he still today owns many media assets we all consume today.
Emmerson Family – 2,078,032 Acres. Archie Aldis “Red” Emmerson and his family collectively own over 2 Million acres of land. Particularly, they invest in timberland.
Ted Turner – 2,000,000 Acres. Ted Turner is most well known for his involvement in television production. He was the founder of the Cable News Network, the very first 24-hour cable news channel.
Reed Family – 1,726,295 Acres. What happens when a failed logger marries into a family with
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.
You're correct that any benefit to the general populace is going to be temporary. All the more reason then to start a mass movement that communicates the incredible benefits of the policies of a new monetary paradigm. We labor with finance capitalism, so why not isolate finance from the self interests of the general populace and the rest of the legitimate economic/actually productive business models by doubling the individual's purchasing power and hence potentially creating twice as much demand for every business's goods and services???
- 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?
The benefit of that would depend very much on the policy views of those in authority in the BoE - if it were staffed with those aligned to orthodox oligarchic fiscal theory, which is probably the most likely context, then the probability is that, at best, it would make no difference and that it would do no more than perpetuate current inequity. There is a significant possibility that it would accelerate the flow of wealth to the wealthy to the great detriment of the nation and the citizenry.
You are right but its probably far too sensible and forward-looking for the proposition to have any chance of success, despite its being not just the best way forward but almost certainly a critical necessity if we are to have any hope of actually surviving the multiple climate/resource/ecological crises bearing down on us.
Also, it would play old Harry with the satisfaction of greed, which is the basis of the UK economic ecosystem.
I think it's the basis of our global economic system.
It may come to that if sanity does not prevail. However, why not just place a larg-ese tax on commodity speculations and solve the consumer's problem with inflation by implementing a 50
% discount/rebate policy at retail sale. And if the banks, commodity exchanges and all business models other than finance don't abide by the new rules then they don't get the tax benefits that the new monetary paradigm enables and ultimately they risk losing their rebate privileges as well. In other words seek the cooperation of enterprise with the incredible profitability benefits that virtually all business models can reap from the new monetary paradigm because self interest is a very strong motivator, but if anyone cheats just utilize the sovereign power of a gracious government, that everyone is willing to stand with because its policies just doubled their purchasing power with the 50% discount policy, and off with their heads.
We should nationalize all our Natural Resources except land. Land should have some restrictions for private entities/individuals/families/corps. I'm uncomfortable with the scale of these holdings.
Here's the top 4. #10 only owns 900,000+ acres.
www.farmlandriches.com › largest-private-land-ownersTop 10 Largest Private Land Owners In The US In 2022
John Malone – 2,200,000 Acres. Billionaire John Malone has the title of the largest private land owner in the United States. His fortune was made in the media space, where he still today owns many media assets we all consume today.
Emmerson Family – 2,078,032 Acres. Archie Aldis “Red” Emmerson and his family collectively own over 2 Million acres of land. Particularly, they invest in timberland.
Ted Turner – 2,000,000 Acres. Ted Turner is most well known for his involvement in television production. He was the founder of the Cable News Network, the very first 24-hour cable news channel.
Reed Family – 1,726,295 Acres. What happens when a failed logger marries into a family with
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.
Absolutely, same playbook, different cover. Subsidies = Socialism my pov
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 !!!
Wish we could, but our scoundrels are doing the same thing & keeping us busy.
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.
You're correct that any benefit to the general populace is going to be temporary. All the more reason then to start a mass movement that communicates the incredible benefits of the policies of a new monetary paradigm. We labor with finance capitalism, so why not isolate finance from the self interests of the general populace and the rest of the legitimate economic/actually productive business models by doubling the individual's purchasing power and hence potentially creating twice as much demand for every business's goods and services???
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?
The benefit of that would depend very much on the policy views of those in authority in the BoE - if it were staffed with those aligned to orthodox oligarchic fiscal theory, which is probably the most likely context, then the probability is that, at best, it would make no difference and that it would do no more than perpetuate current inequity. There is a significant possibility that it would accelerate the flow of wealth to the wealthy to the great detriment of the nation and the citizenry.
Wouldn't the folks in this independent body be picked by the same inept folks running the show now? Would you want the Fed or BoE in charge?
I wouldn't, look at what they're doing now and have done in the past.