With apologies for re-hashing Twitter threads here this morning, but I am on low energy, and another course of antibiotics has just been prescribed. This one comes from Saturday, but is just as relevant today:
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:
Surely, if the Labour Party does not support even a modest amount of wealth redistribution then it has completely lost its raison d’etre?
Hand on heart I really couldn’t tell you what the political philosophy of Keir Starmer’s Labour Party actually is? If it is as it appears, to be a thin gruel of Tory-lite I can’t see that message being enthusiastically received by any shade of political opinion in this country!
I completely agree Mark. I find the current Labour Party totally bewildering. What do they represent? What is their vision for this country? Do they support working people or do they, like the Tories, care only about the rich? There is absolutely no clarity.
Maybe the labour party should take notice of Prem Sikka. He is, after all, a labour party lord.
https://leftfootforward.org/2022/07/prem-sikka-here-are-5-immediate-steps-the-government-could-take-to-tackle-the-cost-of-living-crisis/
Prem and I talk quite often…..
Is Universal Basic Income the best way to deliver this?
No
Because it would take years to deliver and we need answers now
The UK velocity of money has fallen from 2.3 in 1993 to 0.7 in 2018. In the same period, the UK money supply as measured by M3, has gone from £500 billion to £2.85 trillion. Maybe this is what happens when most of the additional money goes to the rich or gets locked away in housing instead of supporting a healthy economy?
https://thistimeitisdifferent.com/uk-money-velocity-2018#:~:text=Money%20velocity%20in%20the%20United%20Kingdom%20is%20currently,is%20accelerating%20and%20Money%20Supply%20growth%20is%20decelerating.
2.3 of what?
And 0.7 of what?
Sorry, this does not work for me
And the link discussed V, which you do not
It is something I have looked at before – money in the UK is changing hands much less often than used to be the case (and I believe the 2.3 is changing hands 2.3 times per year). That suggests that a lot of it is now frozen in somebody’s bank account. For example sitting in a Cash ISA for many years.
If, as the Stats suggest, the top 1% control a totally disproportionate amount of our money (cash not wider wealth) then I think it is totally to be expected that the velocity of circulation would fall. Thus we also need a lot more money in that circulation as otherwise the total value of all transactions would fall substantially.
Your redistribution plan addresses this very issue as taxing the accumulations of wealth and transferring the money to the poorer would mean it starts circulating again. So velocity would go back up and the extra tax could, if appropriate, start reducing the money supply.
I agree Tim
You’re response doesn’t work for me either. From the article –
‘Money velocity in the United Kingdom is currently less than 1 which means that money being printed (even notionally) isn’t even circulating once’.
I asked a reasonable question about the velocity of money. I doubt that’s different to money velocity. A snotty reply isn’t a reasonable answer, it’s just a childish one.
But you didn’t mention it
And yet you have found your own answer
If you are using a theory (a wrong one, bit let’s leave that aside) and don’t follow it through why should I be especially tolerant of the claims made?
Re-hash away Richard – it’s all good!!
And totally agreed – including that bit about making a full recovery.
Hi Richard, hope you are feeling better soon. Saw this you tube post on twitter and wondered if you’d seen it. It is about “tumin”, an alterative currency in Veracruz, Mexico. It seems to keep wealth in the community. What do you think of it? Here is the link. I hope it works.
https://twitter.com/BuboAsper/status/1556649837189292032?cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email
I always oppose dual currencies because they undermine macroeconomic control of the economy and the main currency that should be in use to pay tax
I agree.
But when you have a dysfunctional government it does assist in keeping it in some sort of order.
I think the simple reason that Labour is avoiding too much “socialism” these days is because it is trying to appeal to the voters who will vote it in next time i.e. older people. Unfortunately most of the voters who are likely to agree with socialism are the younger ones who don’t always actually vote. It appears from the evidence that if those under 45 turned out to vote in the same proportion as those over 45 at the last election we would have had a Labour govt in power now. The crucial thing for this country is to encourage younger people to actually vote (and I know it’s more difficult to get on to the electoral register when you’re moving address a lot).
But the majority of voters say they want socialism nowadays, in the form of renationalisation of water, energy, and other utilities.
https://weownit.org.uk/public-solutions/support-public-ownership
But my point is that not enough of these pro-socialists actually get out and vote on the crucial election day.
Hope you feel better soon Richard.
OK, so struggling to understand so bear with me if possible
What does growth actually mean especially in the face of climate change ? Are we not just heading for more of the same unsustainabity however the means?
And a basic question but how do profits create inflation?.
Thanks
Growth in the face of climate change only makes sense if it is doing more for each other, not consuming more
We can care, educate and help each other more. We can consume less
Profits need not generate inflation. They can if excessive and they fuel the consumption of those who can push up prices – the wealthy, in other words. This is happening at present