What is to be learned? The main claims my challenger made are the usual ones:
- The government has no money of its own;
- The government cannot make money;
- The government wastes money;
- No one wants to pay tax.
More particularly:
- There has been no austerity;
- In that case whatever austerity is it has not worked as debt has risen.
Faced with the claim that there has been no austerity you realise you are up against what might best be described as a small world, and decidedly selfish, view of economics. Compound that with a belief that value as created by teachers, health workers, etc., does not ‘make money', which as a result appears to be solely equated with profits and wages paid in the private sector, plus a cast iron certainty that government only subtracts value, and you end up with little prospect for sensible debate. And that's what we got.
What really frustrates me is the arrogance of this type of radio presentation. If you ask someone on for an opinion at least listen to them before disagreeing. I have to say LBC does that now it has got rid of its worst presenters to Talk Radio. You can probably tell that early on I thought of pulling out of this call. That may have been just as useful as carrying on.
I tried to make clear government actually creates all money.
And of course the public sector creates value.
And that this value is not only of worth, but appreciated (as even the presenter conceded before he ranted about aid budgets).
And I tried to stress how business is dependent on good government.
Did it work? I am not at all sure.
Maybe I should have just taken a coffee break instead.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The lead presenter is a brick wall. He says he does not understand and invites people to explain but then when it is explained he refuses to listen. Because he does understand – his own prejudices.
I thought I was bad shouting at you about tax rises yesterday. But obviously the show is about him telling people what HE thinks – he is part of the alt right human reprogramming brigade.
BTW – is he related to Steve Bannon? He looks just like him.
Radio to me was all about listening to music. Talk shows and phone ins were just precursors to what we know now as the internet and the worst aspects human behaviour that Jaron Lanier talks of. I routinely used to turn them off. You gave it a good go Richard.
I think it was largely a waste of breath as far as the jock is concerned, he’s just ignorant and opinionated. Whether anybody listening to this guy is liable to open to thinking differently from the way he has been taught to think is questionable, and unlikely. As he made clear on a number of occasions the programme is his platform to express his opinions. Who pays him to do that I wonder ?
You might have been able to have an interesting discussion with the studio guest, but she was also programmed with the standard arguments. A very uncomfortable listen. I made it most of the way to the end, and if I had any, I’d be a having a coffee now.
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/10/16/tax-rises-bring-them-on-as-we-will-all-be-better-off/#comment-816400
Aka ‘The Backfire Effect’ – https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect
He should heed Mark Twain’s advice : “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
Well it worked for me Richard but then I see the need for what you argued for. He doesn’t and never will. Achieving the Daily telegraph “Alternative Men of the Year” award must require a certain view point, even to be considered for such an honor.
What became clear as the interview progressed was how people like Mike Graham are well schooled in the arguments for government to have a very small role in how society is funded and managed. His arguments were set in reinforced concrete.
By that token any progressive arguments are simply dismissed as pointless because government always wastes money, our money! If he, and others who hold his particular views, can’t accept the possibility that government creates all money then nothing progressives say will be listened to.
I do feel his aggressive style, is designed to bully and switch around his questions, with the sole intention of putting the interviewee on the back foot, making it an impossible platform for discussion to take place. It comes over more like a game of tennis than a balanced place for reasoned debate, I feel little can be gained because you’re engaging on their terms.
If I learned anything from the interview it was just how big the gap is between a society that fair, balanced, equal and functioning, for the population as a whole, and the selfish self serving, but currently still dominant view point that people like Mike Graham seek to serve. His casual, disrespectful dismissal of your work experience coupled with your expert researched knowledge based opinions reminded me of Gove’s famous words during the referendum of “we’re sick and tired of experts.” The truth seems to be, if you hold alternative views to theirs you are wrong….Full Stop.
Thanks for taking part, you certainly helped me to see where the divisions lie and just how deep they are.
Thank you for sharing that.
You came across as very sensible and thoughtful whilst the male presenter came across as an opionated twit, you know one of those people the phrase, “An empty vessel makes most noise” was written for (it may just be his persona for radio). The woman presenter sounded well worth having a discussion with, maybe if you get asked back you could just suggest having the interview with her.
She was obviously also suffering him
Well done for trying. I think you showed amazing patience in the circumstances.
(tries to think of a printable description of who/what you were up against, and fails; end)
Richard, in the circumstances you did very well. Your points came across clearly. I enjoyed your contribution.The trouble is you were discussing the subject matter with two illiterates. Par for the course I am afraid.
Thank you for that, it brightened my coffee break 🙂
I particularly enjoyed watching the main host getting more and more riled up.
I’m still wondering what the best way to break the “there is no money but your money” mantra is? People don’t like being confronted with the fact that government creates/licenses all money do they…
@ Johan G
The easiest challenge is “tell me how money as a medium of exchange is created” then proceed to patiently explain the problems with their understanding. Usually I find they change the subject but you need to point out that’s what they just did and they did so because in fact that don’t have a clear understanding.
Sounds like a good plan. That’s kind of where I had to start with myself when the concept of government creating money was first suggested to me, but it made sense.
I have recently had a very rewarding discussion with a friend of mine on the topic of money creation and fortunately, as both a physicist and progressive, he got it pretty quickly (and was open to the ideas).
Then he mentioned he’d tried the same thing with one of his colleagues and it went down like a lead balloon…
Never mind eh, one more educated soul is better than none 🙂
Johan G,
Not all ‘scientists’ are curious.
It is not only economics which fits the description ‘dismal science’ these days. Perhaps ’twas ever thus apart from the occasional luminary.
I expect Newton was faced with derision and blank expressions.
I think you got your points over very well. The man interviewing you was a complete right wing idiot using Trump style bullying tactics and interrupting all the time. He had no answer to your comments on the cuts to councils such as Blackpool and the increased distress of disabled people and those with mental health problems for example. Your point that public sector workers are creating value in society and not money he refused to acknowledge or the point that government is the sole creator or sanction for money/credit creation was completely lost on him. Despite his bluster I am sure that some listeners would have gained from this spat.
The best cure for this kind of pathology is time spent in a society where every window has to have bars and where the law, if there is any, is only a suggestion, where every credential is for sale and nothing can be assumed to be genuine.
Things like seeing a trained surgeon unable to save a child’s life on the operating table because a drug purchased privately, (and brought to the hospital because it had none) turned out to be fake and many other such experiences can show the selfish and heartless that fake atropine won’t restart their hearts or those of their children either.
I think Noam Chomsky said it best about debates:
“debates can be pointless, especially when no concession of a position can be done by either side”
We need to understand the underlying psychological motivation of such dogmatically inflexible individuals like Mike Graham. Underneath they’re still scared children clutching not at straws but dogma for survival and fear of death motivations:-
https://www.psychalive.org/societal-defenses-death-anxiety/
Very interesting link Schofield.
Thanks.
Now I watch the You Tube video again I notice the Grim Reaper waiting patiently, (not too patiently I hope) behind our host.
Seriously though, an interesting link, new to me.
Some comments (random? – no) from YouTube:
This DJ needs to educate himself. He asks some good questions but doesn’t pay attention to the answers. The guest understands his stuff. Tax is taking money out of the economy and redistributing it. The government can give less to the banks and more to the people, the people will spend it and create more employment
Austerity clearly hasn’t had an effect on DJ potato head.
Oh my God the host is an insufferable pompous ass! He consistently and rudely interrupts the caller and then cries “let me speak”.
This presenter knows nothing. Worse still he does not know he knows nothing. The only reason a know nothing like this gets a radio show is because it serves the interests of the ruling corporate elite to spread these bogus ideas about economics
The presenters need to go back to school! Guest does at least know what he’s talking about. being hammered by a third rate idiot is appalling radio
So if Richard is right and the government creates all the money, then can they kindly leave mine alone and bugger off?
You were among a host of other academics who recently declared publicly that they would refuse to pander to BBC production executives who created false equivalence in their programming on the climate change issue. Almost all response was positive to this ethical stand and it resulted in SOME movement by the BBC. We’ve yet to see any sustained improvement but they promised some …
I remind you of this because I can’t understand why on earth you would go on talk radio and expect any sort of civilised treatment; it’s a format designed solely to be a platform for the (normally) ignorant and opinionated studio host to loudly proclaim their prejudices, which they hope are shared by their audience. That’s all.
If you reached that stage with the BBC and climate change issues why didn’t you recognise this other one? Of course most reasonable people can rationalise some sort of possible benefit for doing such as you did but let’s be honest, it’s a real stretch, isn’t it? And this post shows you know it was not worthwhile.
So stop yourself from doing it again, then.
I might
I was told the debate was on an issue that did not come up
Sometimes we’re sold a pup
Yep. I’m afraid to say that ‘being sold a pup’ is now the standard operating mode of most mainstream current affairs, documentary and commentary press production whether in print or television or radio to dupe people onto their shows/articles/programmes.
It doesn’t need to be this way and in fact we were promised a different press scene when the expansion to 24 hour news coverage and satellite channels were being ‘sold’ as ideas to the public. In their submissions to parliament, congress et al to allow them to expand their transmissions, content producers constantly reiterated the mantra ‘We’ll have time to do topics in depth now’ whereas what we have in fact got is a 7 minute repetition of the most incestuous ‘Look what X said/typed/emailed’ stories instead of analysis, context and deep insight.
However independent media are now starting to pick this particular baton up. Richard, you might get far more enjoyment and reciprocity by spending more effort with good quality independent media outfits. They don’t have the audience, reach or history of the mainstream, yet, but it’s coming.
Richard. Remember you are never talking to the presenter. You are talking over his/ her head to the listeners. You came over very well, despite the interruptions from the ignoramous.
I often do that on Radio 2 as well
Richard, are you sure weren’t being recorded for BBC Radio 4’s “phone-in” programme ‘Down The Line’? For anyone who doesn’t know the prog, check out the Guardian’s item at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/may/12/bbc.radio before listening to the numerous excerpts on Youtube etc.
Not only the Right in the UK but also the Left in the form of John McDonnell is willing to lie in order to remain subscribed to brain-dead Neoliberal monetary macroeconomic dogma:-
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=40562
Depressing
I am wholly with Bill on this
And John simply lied: no way to beat about the bush on that
I was really impressed by your presentation Richard. I thought you came across very clearly in spite of the negative approach of the presenter. I hope you will have further opportunities on the BBC both on radio and television despite their obvious neo liberal bias.
Thanks
Schtick n (Yiddish) a contrived and often used bit of business that a performer uses to steal attention. Synonyms: schtick, shtick, shtik Type of: business, byplay, stage business.
He’s pretty good. Trying to push your buttons, the snide asides are the important part of the exchange..” Parody show” etc. You are one of those experts. He knows his audience, and it’s his audience. They turn on to listen to him. For them you’re just another Christian thrown into the arena.
His ‘second banana’ is there to release tension, and also keep the ‘feed’ going if he starts running slow. She’s really just as uninterested in the content of what you say as well, that’s not what the show is about. It is all about him.
It’s Panto not Pinter
With the caveat that I don’t really know much about history:
I think that when taxes were originally collected by barons, possibly in the form of livestock and crops, it could probably be said that the work of labourers funded the government and king and any services they provided.
These livestock were probably sold for gold becoming part of our historical gold reserves, meaning when our society moved to the concept of money, it was supported by the promise to pay gold, originally gained from taxes collected.
However, when we moved off the gold standard. That first extra £1 created was a confidence trick that was no longer paid for by taxes. It wasn’t earned or collected but the government still got to spend it. It thus became the income of someone else in return for value, that the government got for free.
It has since printed a lot more money to the point where taxes are no longer relevant to fund government expenditure. However the rights of government to tax is now being used to prevent inflation, distribute wealth and encourage or discourage certain behaviour. It’s no longer needed to enrich the government coffers or fund services.
It would therefore appear that the presenters economic model is out of date because it no longer reflects the modern economic reality. But maybe once upon a time it did.
You could refine your model
But you are getting there
Ray, the gold standard is a red herring, a sovereign currency is all about trust and can only be created by the issuing state. But in order to tax the state first has to put the money into circulation. Most popular early method was paying soldiers and insisting that taxes had to be paid in the currency.
A state spends to tax, that the new money is created by either the state or the private sector borrowing and is created by banks under licence is a choice. There really is no need for banks/bond markets to enable state spending.
“I think that when taxes were originally collected by barons, possibly in the form of livestock and crops, it could probably be said that the work of labourers funded the government and king and any services they provided.”
You are right, Ray. The surplus arises from labour using land. This is an enduring truth.
But not the rest…
“I said that my assessment was that the UK had idle capacity and so needed a significantly larger deficit anyway. But if it turned out I was wrong, then they would have to increase taxes to squeeze some purchasing power out of the non-government sector to create the space for any extra public spending”. quote from Bill Mitchell
Please think about that for a while and consider the political consequences for the Labour Party in light of the electorates “trust” in Government..Inflation is akin to a tax on peoples income and the message is to then tax more..
No, tax is a recovery of government spent money
Think some more
Inflation is akin to tax in the sense it reduces the individuals purchasing power..and then purchasing power is further reduced by tax rises to reduce inflation..
my point is this will go down like a lead balloon with the electorate
I am bored by your lazy cliche driven repetition of bad economics
Please do not call again
TomMcCann says:
“You have a problem with that assessment from Bill Mitchell, Tom ?”
I think if you focus on that conditional situation, which is not where we are, or likely to be, you miss the more important caveat that the JMcD preference will be catastrophic in terms of voter confidence when a Labour government finds it’s painted itself into a corner with unnecessary policy restrictions, which will tie the hands of government in such away that it cannot resolve the problem of a recession.
wow thats exactly the type of person you meet in the pub… to busy not listening to actually listen… anyway “we’ve had enough of experts” ..hilarious!
The womans disdain for her co presenter was obvious.
More importantly it just shows how important it is for “opinions” to not be allowed to become the facts… As Cambridge analytica CEO Mark Turnball recently said in an under cover channel 4 expose “facts mean nothing its all about feelings”
“facts mean nothing its all about feelings”. Which, in slightly different terms, was how Hitler viewed the role and value of propaganda in enabling himself to gain power.
And the modern political right, both here (yes Brexiter liars, I’m talking about you) and the US are just the same, as the unscrupulous Turnball shows. Come to think of it, a large percentage of our national press isn’t really very different.
The lie is fed, repeated and repeated again and again in the MSM before long everybody is a self taught experts based on the original lie. I call them red top parrots … It’s not a conspiracy of the media it’s just circumstance and laziness. . The problem is it has far reaching unforeseen consequence (Brexit Trump).. Does the original perpetrator of the lie have a sinister motive maybe (probably) but I’m fairly sure that companies such as SCL and Analytica (or whatever they are called now) do! Whose entire business model is to bring about political change using military grade propaganda techniques so your Hitler analogy is spot on imo
Darrren says:
“The lie is fed, repeated and repeated again and again in the MSM before long everybody is a self taught experts based on the original lie. I call them red top parrots…..”
Quite so and the laziness you refer to is the crux of the problem, though it is very much encouraged by media ‘barons, and editors who will simply spike the ‘stories’ or discussions that don’t fit their lazy world view.
But I disagree about the conspiracy …. it isn’t organised by committee but it is orchestrated. The fact that many of the parrots think they are up to speed with the story…. the issues…. is the most devious aspect of the conspiracy. They don’t realise the extent to which they have been willingly co-opted. Carefully edited media content constantly reassures them that they are right in their opinions. These are the people who are often critical of the echo chamber of the ‘blogosphere’, without realising that they are locked firmly into an echo chamber of their own.
More worrying to me than the dubious practices of the likes of Cambridge Analytica, is the backlash from the mainstream press and politicians that seeks to use this sort of abuse to shut down alternative discussion forums (fora ?) using CA et alia as the pretext. The whole Russiagate ‘scandal’ of Russian influence in US and other western elections is something I refuse to take seriously. For the US to cry foul at external meddling in another nation’s political process is beyond parody. The media circus knee jerk response is to blame the medium for the message, and to swallow the narrative without question.
Given that was a predictable media response what better way for the militant wing of the establishment to raise a storm of demand to shut down subversive websites. It’s happening. I expect it was planned that way as a fringe benefit of undermining the then newly elected Donald Trump by association.
Richard
Well done.
If I may suggest you might of challenged the assumptions that the presenter had, that the quantity of money was fixed liked gold coins vs 97% being created electronically in digital registers.
Following what the use of the money created went into useful activities e.g. the NHS allowed people to be fixed and back working sooner thus saving money and enabling them to pay more tax and create more value. Corrective maintenance and preventative maintenance to use engineering terminology as a concrete example.
The more practice the better with these media interviews keep going.
Good points made Richard you did well. His fall back ploys/patter/opinions became more obvious as the interview went on particularly the last words that he gave. Thank you.
I tweeted this yesterday within minutes of listening:
“Has anyone heard of a dj called Mike Graham on TalkRadio? Just listened to him interviewing a very patient Richard Murphy. Graham is the dumbest radio jock I have heard since Tucker Carlson of Fox News. Actually makes Carlson sound quite intelligible. A must listen……”
I listened/watched until the end and noted that this jock was as obnoxious to his fellow presenter as he was to you. She was “getting it”.
I shall never listen to TalkRadio – ever.