In my blog post on my personal plans this morning, I noted that I think that it is essential that we now spend our time finding what I described as 'better songs to sing'. These might alternatively be described as the necessary narratives to counter those promoted by neoliberalism.

I was, as a result, intrigued to see this comment posted for approval on this blog a couple of days ago by Ros Wain. I admit that I deliberately held it back because what Ros is trying to create is exactly what I said we need.

Ros' use of the score in a sports match as an explanation for the monetary system is not original. Some of the leading exponents of modern monetary theory have already used this metaphor, but Ros does use it well, and offers an explanation for what she thinks the term 'goal' might mean.

Like anything that I have offered over the years, I doubt that this is a final draft of what we require, but it is most definitely an interesting contribution and as a consequence, I am sharing it here. I have edited it very lightly. 

I have the (currently depressing) background of being a lifelong (70 years+) Manchester United supporter, so a dearth of goals has been on my mind. I found myself churning over a connected narrative and am contributing it to be torn apart or developed should anyone feel it's worth it.

Should Money Measures be the Goal?

Rachel Reeves sees finding money via the Budget as her goal.

Keir Starmer sees finding money from private investors as his goal.

Money shares certain similarities with goals . . . .
– – – – – – – –
Goals can only be created by a player who is registered with the League and come into existence when the ball crosses the line between the goalposts.

Pounds can only be created by the government with the authorisation of Parliament and come into existence when the government spends pounds into the economy.
– – – – – – – –
Once goals have happened, they are just a number in the record of the league.

Once government spending has happened, money is just a number of pounds on spreadsheets recording who owes how much to whom.
– – – – – – – –
If a goal is scored, it has also been conceded, so the total of the goals in the for column must match the total of the against.

The pounds which have been spent into the system (referred to as government debt) must have gone somewhere and must be balanced by a private sector credit (our savings, pension funds, etc., are the other side of the National Debt).
– – – – – – – –
There is no limit to the number of goals except the resources available (rules, time available, skill of players).

There is no limit to the number of pounds available – except the resources available for it to be spent on (raw materials, manpower, infrastructure).
– – – – – – – –
The number of goals is only part of the story. It is the consequences that are important – results, points, league tables, qualification.

The number of pounds is only part of the story. It is the consequences that are important – it is used to obtain goods and services and therefore dictates what resources get used for, and who benefits.
– – – – – – – –

. . . . but money, like a goal, is only a stepping stone to a bigger prize.

Money should not itself be a goal because it is actually a G.O.A.L.

G.O.A.L – Government Owned Allocation Lever

The government has the power to create money via the Bank of England, which it owns.

Money is intangible (except when in its token form, as notes and coins) and has no intrinsic value until it is swapped to satisfy a need.

But money is powerful because it commands the use of resources to satisfy the needs of those who have it.

If the government just kept creating money, there would be too much chasing limited resources, and prices would rise.

But the government also has the power to remove money – through taxation.

Taxation is a vital element of the system.

The power to create and destroy money enables the government to influence how and for whose benefit the economy works. It is an allocation lever.

Money is a G.O.A.L. – a tool – not a goal.

The government does not have to find money because it creates it.

Until it is created by spending, money does not exist, so how can there be a ‘hole' in public finances?

The hole is in the public services and infrastructure of the country, which previous governments have neglected, and repairing that hole demands resources (manpower and raw materials).

If there is a hole there must be a pile, which is the resources being commanded by the private sector:

• Graduates lured by bonuses into the financial sector rather than into education or health.
• Land, bricks and bricklayers being commanded by corporate developers to build luxury estates rather than commanded by local authorities for social housing.
• Labour commanded so cheaply (zero hours contracts, pay below a living wage) that the public purse has to contribute through Universal Credit.

Those are resources which are consumed for private profit. The government could use its spending and taxation powers to influence the allocation of resources to address this hole.

Rachel Reeves does not need to find money by borrowing (how can you borrow something which is your own creation?)

Keir Starmer does not need to seek money from foreign investors.

They need to lead the way by spending on protecting and nourishing our nation's resources (the health and skills of its citizens, the sustainability of its environment, the scope of its R&D, and the quality of its infrastructure) to make this a productive and well-balanced society.

If that involves using taxation to restrict the power to command resources from those that already have an outsize say, then be brave enough to do it and explain that money measures are not a goal (balanced books are not actually important) but a G.O.A.L., a vital tool, a stepping stone, in a much bigger story which involves all our futures.