I think it's time to admit to something. I am finding quite a lot of things about blogging and posting videos quite hard at present.
It so happens that both of my approaches to social media are attracting record views at present. Many people appear to be very interested in what I have to say, whether in writing or on YouTube, and I am grateful. Please don't get me wrong.
Please don't also get me wrong about why I am grateful. I write and make videos to try, in whatever way I can, to explain why I think we can make things better for most people in the world when most of politics has left most people behind, with politicians on the far-right being guilty of this most of all. Without that purpose, I would go off and write detective fiction. The world is not giving me that luxury. We are living through a coup. How to manage the consequences of that is what is demanding my attention right now.
In that case, some of the comments made here, but more especially on YouTube, appear to me to reveal the complete lack of ability to understand the political realities of life associated with the followers of what I describe as the 'isms' (capitalism, socialism, liberalism, etc.). These are the tribes who think that their own chosen ideology is the answer to every known problem when no ideology that has ever existed has ever done that.
I would include some of the followers of modern monetary theory in that category of subscribing to an 'ism' that they blindly and even ignorantly follow. Call it modern mentalism, and that is obviously the case.
I have, for example, noted comments on YouTube that are particularly critical of my latest video on how we might pay for defence. Their accusation is that because I suggest that we need to increase tax on the wealthy if we are to significantly increase defence expenditure, it would appear that I have forgotten everything that I have ever written about modern monetary theory and the purpose of taxation. In response, I feel like being very blunt. I think it is appropriate to say that those who are criticising me clearly have not the slightest understanding of what I have ever been saying or what modern monetary theory suggests as I understand it, or as I think, for example, Stephanie Kelton understands it.
Let me be very clear about what MMT says. Its suggestions are that:
- All money is created by central governments.
- Money is spent into existence by a central government. Ultimately, there is no other source of money.
- Although private banks are allowed, under license, to create money, they can only do so because of that license from the central government that is a money creating authority, and can only create the money that is deemed to be legal tender by the authority in question.
- Money is, then, a central government construct.
The problem is that there have always been those who claim themselves to be modern monetary theorists who stop at this point. For reasons that are totally baffling, because modern monetary theory has never said this, they think that there is, as a consequence, some form of free lunch that means a government can spend as much as it wishes without any consequence arising.
Let me be blunt. If you think that, you are absolutely fundamentally wrong. Consequences always arise as a result of a government spending, and to presume that they do not is, and let me be blunt again, absurd. Doing so is as equally ridiculous as the apparent presumption that these people make that those consequences do not require the exercise of judgement to determine the appropriate resulting required courses of action.
Why anybody should think that MMT means that fiscal decision-making is no longer required completely baffles me. If anyone who is a proponent of MMT suggests that is the case, they do not understand it, and on occasions I do wonder whether some of its founders do fall into that category and are guilty of creating this complete misunderstanding. Again, I stress, Stephanie Kelton is not in that group.
The reality is that fiscal management, which considers the consequence of money creation by a government to fund its expenditure, necessarily requires consideration of:
- Reclaiming the money in question to prevent inflation arising, usually through the medium of taxation, but also possibly through the issuance of bonds, which also take money out of circulation.
- Tackling inequality, if that is the consequence of the accumulation of monetary balances or other forms of wealth in the hands of a few as a result of the creation of a monetary economy.
- The necessary levels of taxation required to restrict private-sector economic activity within an economy so that the resources that the government wishes to buy are available to it at a price that does not induce inflation.
- Managing the consequences of that restriction on private sector activity so that industrial, social, economic and political goals are achieved, all of which is a delicate balancing out.
These issues embrace all the reasons for tax that I have always outlined. Nothing that I have said with regard to the funding of defence expenditure contradicts any of these ideas.
That said, I admit that I cannot, when presenting a video that I hope will reach a significant audience, do so in the way that some would seem to desire, i.e., by detailing every microscopic step in my economic logic, with full references being supplied on every occasion, which some seem to think necessary to justify every possible conclusion that I reach. When creating a video I could, of course, if I so wished, make it decidedly technical. I am more than capable of doing so, and one of my current expectations is that I might launch another video channel to do precisely that as soon as I come to terms with what retirement from employment really means. But if I am to persuade an audience of the folly of neoliberal thinking, I do not have that luxury. People would never follow such an argument. To presume they would is as absurd as some of the other thinking that my critics display.
My objective in making that video about how we fund defence expenditure was to explain that if we are to have a significant increase in expenditure, as appears to be likely (and just to contextualise this, I did reference Keynes and his treatise on 'How to Pay for the War', which referred to such a substantial increase) then whether or not we are at full employment (and the powers that be would be suggest that we are relatively close to it right now) then the actual question of significance at present is how do we actually free up resources within the private sector to make them available for use by the public sector to deliver that necessarily increased level of defence activity? As MMT makes clear, there is only one way to do this, and that is by imposing a tax to make sure the private sector consumption is reduced to create the capacity for public sector consumption. There is no other alternative. and as MMT also makes clear, this is one of its major contributions to thinking: it makes clear that tax does not actually fund expenditure, but it does instead create the capacity for a government to undertake the actions it desires. This is the significance of the MMT mindset, which my critics appear to completely misunderstand. MMT explains that when there are actual physical constraints in place because of being at all near full employment, which constraints appear to deny the possibility of increasing government expenditure, then tax has a role by reducing consumption at the same time as government spending takes place because otherwise there is quite literally nothing for it to spend upon.
Is this about angels on pinheads? Quite clearly, it is not. This is about establishing the necessary thought processes that are required to ensure that the government can fulfil plans. I suggest that there is nothing in neoliberal thinking that permits this approach, or even suggests what tools the government might have to achieve the goal that I have outlined. MMT provides it. Nonetheless, MMT critics of what I have suggested claim I have got this wrong. I have three suggestions to make.
First, my critics should learn what MMT is trying to do.
Second, they should understand that MMT is nothing without taxation. Quite literally, it can make no sense unless tax is included in its equation.
Third, MMT is not just about money. I know it is hopelessly named, and this is another consequence of Bill Mitchell's serious error in giving it the name that it suffers from, but it is actually about macroeconomics management, and what I've outlined in this post is precisely about that point.
Unless you get these three things, you don't get MMT.
But let me suggest one other thing. If you really think I need to spell detail of this sort out every time I speak on a video, I suggest you don't watch the videos because I live in the real world of political economy, where I know that what I'm trying to address in this video and others is the massive imbalance of power enjoyed by the wealthy, whose argument is that they should be exempt from any responsibility for funding the state by forgoing their consumption (which is the fundamental point the video in question) , and this is totally wrong. Of course, they must forgo their consumption because those with lesser means cannot give up their consumption to grant that capacity to the state because they have nothing they can give out without suffering serious consequences.
My critics seem to have no understanding that there is a relationship between money, taxation, and the real world. I quite literally suggest they get real. Unless MMT is about the relationship between those three things, it is nothing at all, and the version that many like to put forward in social media is, as a consequence, not just a horrible distraction for those of us who actually understand MMT, but does it a considerable disservice. Their version is fundamentally misguided and wrong, and that is why I am frustrated by those who like to criticise me when they seem to have absolutely no understanding of what I am saying because, as I repeat, nothing I put in that video was inconsistent with MMT because it was all about the use of money and taxation to relocate real resources in the world and that is actually what economics is about.
Now, to my final point. There is a fascist coup going on in the world. Arguing about the purity of my arguments seems to be a little irrelevant right now, although in practice they remain consistent. Might we stop playing ‘isms' and face the threat that might all too easily end all discussion altogether sometime soon? Isn't that the real issue of the moment? I suggest it is.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I think the comments that have elicited this post are one of the big problems in this day and age. There are a great many people who are very vocal commentators online and unfortunately seem to have very small attention spans in my eyes. They read a small article or even just a headline and let it inform their opinion on a subject, no research or further reading necessary. Unfortunately no real understanding of the subject in question. That’s why Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter was so sinister, he has used it to great effect in his aims of spreading disinformation and inciting division and doesn’t even attempt to to prove any of what he puts forward.
You have posted all of the information to your YouTube required to understand the relationship between the government creating and spending money but it requires, for me at least, to go back to your earliest videos, each video prompted further questions and yet more videos requiring to be watched. This has culminated in buying micro and macro economic textbooks from a charity bookshop, along with Stephanie Kelton’s The Deficit Myth and several of Keynes papers.
The point I’m trying to make is please don’t give up on what you have been doing. For every vocal person showing their misunderstanding of the subject there are hopefully many more like myself who are provoked into learning much more and greatly increasing our understanding.
Thanks.
I will nit be giving up.
I agree with everything you say here Richard except the connection you draw between the kind of nit-picking and misunderstanding you describe and ‘isms’. Personally, I embrace the description ‘socialist’, not because I subscribe to any particular body of theory, but because I think it reflects the fundamentally social nature of humanity (our ‘species-being’, as Marx would say).
Of course any term might be misunderstood, and I do come across those old cold-war-warriors that automatically equate ‘socialist’ with ‘soviet’ – but there is always, with any ‘ism’, with MMT, with sex and gender, antisemitism and zionism, political conflict over the meaning of the words we use – that, it seems to be, is just another part of our ‘social’ nature.
My problem is, the term socialism alienates me because I do not think an ideology based on materialism can achieve the goals you specify. I am not sure what does.
What you have to be careful abut there, though, is the confusion of philosophical materialism (the belief that there is no supernatural agency shaping the world) and commercial materialism (seeking meaning in material possessions). For me, an implication of philosophical materialism is precisely the opposite of commercial materialism: that real meaning lies in our human relationships with others and the natural world, with family, community, beauty, justice, reason, etc… Indeed, I find most organised religion, with its emphasis on competitively grand buildings, treasuries, relics, opulent dress, etc, ‘materialist’ in precisely the wrong way !
There is one “ism” I will always subscribe to Richard – Humanism. I believe that society should be ordered in a way that benefits those who are part of it, and that it should take account of the consequences of its choices to the world we inhabit. I suppose it’s less of a political belief than it is a desire for humans to treat each other with kindness and empathy, and to extend that to the natural world around them.
It’s a sad indictment of the world that this is so far from the philosophy adopted by neoliberal politicians that we find ourselves in the mess we are now, where enormous amounts of wealth are in the control of a vanishingly small minority while others struggle to meet the daily necessities of life, and where the consequences for the planet are so far from the thinking of those we have elected to represent us.
As for those criticising your articles, ignore them. Thanks to you I have a new found interest in the economics of how our society currently functions, and how it could in the future. Please consinue the good work
Thanks
And noted
Please do not be deflected!
“People miss the message when they are too busy looking for possible or projected mistakes.” (From Pinterest)
Good post (as usual). I find it odd how people tend to not consider nuance.
I agree ref “fascist coup” – which would be amusing, were it not so serious. Amusing? That idiot Hayek predicting that fascism would arise out of socialism. That said, in some ways it did but not in the way that Hayek envisaged. The 1970s saw lots of strikes as workers, quite rightly wanted pay rises to compensate for growing inflation (itself due to an externaility – oil & gas price rises). This gave Thatcher the opening she wanted – and that in turn facilitated the rise of fascism – which did not jump out fully formed but developed slowly as these things often do.
The fascists (in which camp the Toris and Deform sit) are discomforted by the war in Ukraine. The fascist/KGB coup in the USA has knocked that country out. Not so the UK or the EU. Starmer might turn into a war-time PM (always popular with the Brits) with support for Ukraine turning into boots on the ground. Be interesting to see how things develop. (and it would be better had the war in Ukraine never happend).
The same process can have different names, and the name we use can change how we think about it. I try never to talk about Government Spending, but instead talk about Government Investment. The same process is less like going to the supermarket and buying groceries and more like going to the Stock Exchange and buying shares in the supermarket. The shares have value, because they entitle you to a stream of dividends. Government Investment has value because it provides a stream of tax revenue. The key question is what makes a good or bad Government Investment? That requires careful thought and analysis.
Another question is whether to spend a smaller amount now, to avoid spending a larger amount in the future. When deciding whether to get their car serviced, an orthodox economist would only look at their bank account, not at the needs of the car.
The case for extra defence spending is strong – spend money now to avoid a worse situation in the future. But what will happen to the extra money that is spent on defence? Will it eventually come back to the Government as tax? Or will it be gone? Not easy.
MMT – macroeconomic management theory. I like it!
MMT purists ought to grow up…. as you rightly observe, we live in the real world with real pressing problems right now. Your piece on defence is NOT the place for a detailed run through MMT.
Your attention to tax in that video does two things; first it allows the “how do we pay for it brigade?” to embrace your arguments without having to accept MM and second, even from an MMT perspective, tax must still be considered.
If we were living in a world where MMT was understood and adopted by policymakers then we would have a balance between money creation (government spending) and money destruction (tax and also, I would suggest, gilt sales, too… but some MMTers won’t like that) that was keeping inflation at desired levels. Well, in theory that would be the case. So, any decision to create additional money (eg. more defence spending) needs – all other things being equal – a corresponding destruction of money… ie. more taxation. So, it is entirely reasonable to say what taxes could be raised.
Finally and (to me, at least) interestingly, given the low multiplier on defence spending (particularly, the imported hardware) it might not need as much balancing tax/draining as expenditure on (say) health…. but now we really are in the long grass!
Thanks
I have read a lot about Keynes and seen a number of quotes but have never read the “General Theory ‘ or much written by him. Over the last few days I read ‘How to Pay for the War’ by the man himself. It struck me he could explain things in terms a non specialist could understand.
You videos have a similar quality and it is a quality not shared by many of our main politicians.
As Kuhn said paradigms can change quickly but they are usually the result of a lots of previous activity. The collapse of the Communist regimes in eastern Europe is an example.
In the therapy world Eric Berne who invented Transactional Analysis, said people will change if bored, in a crisis and when they can see a new path.way We are in a crisis and looking for a new way. That’s why I second the last paragraph of Liam’s post above.
Thanks
“General theory” is a tough read. I have a copy but have not managed to read it all. As is often the case, the first articulation of a new idea is very difficult to understand; for most folk, subsequent retellings are a much better way to understand the ideas.
As a student I thought I would read Einstein’s original paper on Special Relativity. The first thing was that it was in German – obvious, I know but it did take me aback! Second, I could scarcely make head nor tail of it despite having a decent understanding of the subject (albeit from a modern taught perspective). I quickly ditched my plan to repeat for General Relativity!! My take away from this experience was that the teachers/explainers of key ideas are almost as important as the thinkers themselves.
I read the General Theory as a student. I admit, never in full again.
It should be obvious – OK it is to me at any rate that your writing needs to be read not like a scientific paper with every step clearly explained but more like a novel where there is an awful lot going on that simply doesnt have to be spelled out – after all nobody goes to the little accountants room (OK plumbing was a bit different in those days but you get what I mean) in a Jane Austen novel
If you do find the time though I am sure the definitive novel on accountancy would be a fascinating read.
I can’t see it coming from me….
From what I’ve been reading so far, I would suggest that the objection against the “pay for” narrative from those MMT commentators come under two points:
-The “Tax and Spend” / “pay for” narrative always implies that taxation comes before spending. A consequence of this is that, in people’s minds, if you can’t or don’t tax, then you can’t spend. I think Stephanie Kelton pointed out in one of her blogs the need to always find a way to “pay for” additional spending has lead to inaction from politicians who would not authorize the additional spending if it wasn’t “paid for” already, even if they would otherwise know the truth about how government spending actually works. She then points out that what we need now from politicians is action: we need them to spend on better public services and infrastructure NOW, not after we’ve accumulated sufficient money in the government’s bank accounts or, as we know from MMT, removed money from circulation via taxation. Using the “pay for” narrative, in that regard, would be seen as reinforcing the call from inaction, whethere we know from MMT that governments can act, and can act NOW to resolve the country’s most pressing issues.
– Following on from the above, I also wonder whether those MMT commentators are perhaps overestimating the beneficial effects of certain government spending, for example by suggesting that the multiplier effect from certain spending will be sufficient to “pay for” the spending that has happened, or that certain spending would result in significant amounts of what I’ve called before on this blog “budget spillover effects”, i.e. the idea that spending in one area (e.g. better housing, better paid jobs) leads to a “spillover” saving in another department (e.g. reduced healthcare spending because people are much healthier, reduced spending on benefits and the admin required to administer it, extra revenue from hospitality sector etc.).
My sense from reading some of the other MMT commentators is that, while they don’t outright deny the role of taxation, their view it as more of a “course correction” tool to do after spending has happened. Or to describe it in different way, their narrative is more along the lines of “FIRST Do the spending, THEN see how the multiplier and budget spillover effects affect the economy, and FINALLY adjust taxation if inflation is too great or if too much money is ending in rich people’s hands.”. I also get the sense that they may be sufficiently confident about being able to predict what would happen in the second step, that they would then conclude that the final step is not necessary because the second step does all the heavy lifting in preventing inflation.
If you are still open to video suggestions, I would think one that discusses the topic of whether it is best to increase taxes before spending, or wait until after the multiplier effect and “budget spillovers” kick in before deciding whether increased taxation is required.
In the meantime, another suggestion would be that for your next video where you talk about “how do we pay for it”, replace it with “how do we prevent this additional government spending from inflating the economy”, or something along those lines, and see whether that impacts your overall views and number of nitpicky MMT commentators on that video compared to others.
If I wanted zero views I would follow your advice
Sorry, but if MMT is so sensitive it’s not worth bothering about
It is not that sensitive, so it is its supposed supporters I will continue to ignore.
Get real. There is a world out there.
I will admit that I don’t know enough about how the YouTube algoritm works to know whether an “experiment” like the one I suggested, even if only done for one video, so if I’ve overstepped a line with my last suggestion, I apologize for that.
What I wrote above was me putting into words how I understand other MMT commentators’s objections to your “pay for” blogs and videos. I’ve been reading your blog for several years now, so I very much understand the need to tailor conversations to the context you have in front of you and pick your battles, and I have grown accustomed to “shifting gears” between contexts when reading your blog posts. I hope that has come across in my previous posts, though I will admit that I post very rarely here anyway for you to get a good read on me.
I would still hope you take my other suggestion on board about the video (or even just a blog post) on “when to (increase/decrease) tax to pay for spending” on board, if not to address MMT commentators then at the very least to address one of the last few sticking points that I (and hopefully others) have when “shifting gears”, as it were.
Let me spell out the situation.
Well over two thirds of all YouTube videos get less than 100 views.
That one has 56,000 now.
It has 3,173 likes, a 5.6% like rate. More than 97% of likes were positive. Both are very high ratios by YouTube standards.
As a result the fight against neoliberalism got to a lot more people. You may not like me being paid. The channel has cost well over £30,000 to run in the last year. How do you want me to do it?
And if I followed your advice I may well be in the sub 100 views category. How would that help anyone, but pedants who have no desire to address the real world?
Please don’t waste my time again.
Maybe these are just efforts to grind you down?
You are right in your thinking now – this is not a time for nonsense, nor do we in reality have the luxury to debate things endlessly but more importantly it is a time for new thinking as it is urgently needed. I think that you are tight to suggest that the nitpickers must be those who have it easy.
Unfortunately at times like this, there is an all too automatic reversion to one’s beliefs rather than to pragmatism and the willingness to try something new – or even just do it properly. This is what a culture of TINA or ‘no new ideas’ does to a society.
On good old BBC2, there is a really interesting documentary by Katya Adler ‘The Balkans: Europe’s Forgotten Frontier’ – you can see it on iPlayer – it is really quite worrying, Putin features a lot. It is worth a look.
Speaking for myself I think that I get MMT and how it has to operate in the real world.
Agree with the ‘isms’ point Richard .
I never say I’m ‘socialist’ or even ‘left’ or ‘MMT’ or ‘Keynesian’ or ‘Marxist’ or ‘social democratic’.
The ‘ideology ‘ would be – as you often say- that we all deserve a decent life , and the question – how can come about – influenced by all these different trains of thought.
You are playing such a valuable role at this crucial time Richard.
It’s all about well-being for all
It’s not hard
There are always small factions of any political blob that will constantly nitpick. I am reminded of the Militant Tendency in the 70s, and their dictum that unless you followed their exact prescription you were a class traitor. In the case of the Socialist Dog Walkers group I belong to, there are a couple of similar dog-matists. However your ideological focus on welfare and equity is to my mind ‘socialisty’ in the spirit of 1945, and has to be the centre of a resistance to neoliberal moral vacuity.
Thanks
I like ‘isty’
Reclaiming the money in question to prevent inflation arising, usually through the medium of taxation, but also possibly through the issuance of bonds, which also take money out of circulation.
I’m trying to get a better understanding of the cause and effects of bonds. I’m assuming bonds are issued and other bonds expire continually and in significant amounts. When you talk of bonds taking money out of circulation, do you mean an increase in the amount of bonds issued in contrast with the amount of bonds expiring? Or have I completely got this wrong.
Search why we need bonds and my name to find my arguments
On the narrow question you ask, generally speaking we talk about net issuance of bonds – bonds issued over and above the need to finance maturing bonds. Refinancing maturing debt does not drain money – only bonds sales in addition to this act to drain money and control inflation.
Bond issuance v taxation? Well, this is an interesting question.
First, the level of bond issuance will (along with fixing the level of short rates) will determine the level of long term rates… which in turn controls the cost of credit in the real economy. This is important.
Second, whether you are taxed or you buy a bond there is “less money in your pocket” but you will (likely) behave differently. Tax taken is permanent wealth reduction, bonds can be sold. So it is unclear how much bond sales (other than through interest rate control) will affect inflation.
@Neal Samuels
In the USA, I would say that 80% of “local” new & replacement infrastructure is financed via local tax-free municipal bonds.
In may instances you may purchase a local tax-free municipal bond for as little as $5,000.00 UDS.
We have no equivalent.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/19/leftwing-activists-less-likely-work-political-rivals-other-uk-groups-study
If all the effort that went into the dispute between the Judean Peoples Revolutionary Front and the Peoples Revolutionary Front of Judea went into making the world a better place things might be much different
Agreed
‘isty’ is rather good, I agree.
I should like to suggest that what is lacking to describe MMT and its related arguments, are a few simple images. Mostly what I see ref MMT are words, and many of them. ‘A picture is worth a thousand words’, and all that.
Diagrammatic images, please. Will greatly assist communications around this topic.
We clearly need to take the arguments into communities everywhere. To counter the self-serving myths put about by the rich and powerful, propagandised by the media and politicians who are owned by them.
I tried in the Taxing Wealth Report – about chapter 15.
AndrewJ
Have you seen J D Alt’s “Diagrams & Dollars: Modern Money Illustrated” ?
A timely corrective, I agree. I understand your irritation.
I’ve been thinking about shorthand omnibus phrases to get that across. I also agree with AndrewJ about “taking the argument into communities everywhere”.
****
Omnibus question – if Trump is less committed to defending Europe, we are going to have to find some more money to do it ourselves. Can we do that?
Omnibus answer – Yes, the government can always find the money for the things that need doing, remember how we bailed out the banks in 2008-9, or dealt with Covid in 2020/21? But finding the money isn’t the main problem. The two big problems are,
1. Finding the people and the defence kit that we need to make or buy. Have we got enough of the right trained people ready to join the Armed Forces? Have we got the capacity to make the defence kit or is it available to buy? If not, we need to do something about that, train people, pay enough to retain them and build capacity to manufacture the kit.
2. If the government throws too MUCH money at the problem, but then finds that we’ve run out of things to buy with that money, because they are in short supply, then the money piles up in our economy, and too much money chasing too few goods, means that the price of things in short supply goes up (supply and demand) then we get “inflation” (which hurts poorest people most because they have the least money) – too much money, but too FEW things or people to spend it on, and prices going up. So the government may have to pull money OUT of circulation, which they can do by raising taxes, or selling government bonds. The cycle is – gov’t creates money (by spending) but it can also destroy it ( by making us pay taxes).
Omnibus question – oh no, not more *%^#@!* taxes!
Omnibus answer – I’m afraid so, but the good news is that there is a huge amount of money out there which at the moment is both untaxed, and in the hands of the well off, and what’s even better, it’s quite easy to collect with just a few tweaks to the system. At the moment we have a tax system that is very good at taxing poorer people, and we want to change that round, so taxes work better. Here’s a list of suggestions for doing that.
https://taxingwealth.uk/
which shows us where to find >£90billion of untaxed surplus money in the hands of the very well of.
What we need at the moment is for the government to SPEND money on the people and places that are SHORT of money, but to TAX money from those who have far more than they need, so that there isn’t too much money sloshing around making prices go up too fast.
Why not write to your MP or ring your favourite phone-in show to make sure they know about how this works and get them to read the Taxing Wealth Report 2024.
****
Now – are there any macro-economic howlers in the above? If so, please tell me.
Also I’ve tried to avoid political buzzwords – like inequality or injustice, to avoid accusations of wokery.
Each one of us has to translate your posts into the language and context of our own demographic.
There’s economic language, political language and ordinary language. Each is of value, in the right context.
Jargon saves space for experts, at the expense of understanding for non-experts.
Simpliciity enhances understanding by non-experts, at the expense of accuracy as seen by experts..
Remaining silent avoids any misunderstanding or inaccuracy, but at the expense of communication.
KUTGW!
There was a wise man call R. Murphy
Whose critics found his Murphing disturbing
When they complained that his taxing
Would stop their relaxing
He responded with sane MMT!
🙂
As I’m an hour ahead here in Germany your YouTube videos coincide with my porridge and coffee so I get to see the early comments. It struck me both yesterday and this morning that, if I were you, I would be tearing my hair out. I suppose it’s the just way things go on social media. People want to appear clever and consequently just throw out what they consider to be smart comments in order to impress. Who I’m not sure but I’m guessing it’s the same as the selfie mindset – look at me, look at me! It also appears to me that there are lot of trolls on there. However, I’m convinced that you are getting through to thousands and, even if they don’t get MMT first time around, the more you explain it, the clearer it becomes. So don’t give up!
I won’t give up.
But I do, to be polite, get pissed off sometimes. It’s hard not to. But nothing is without the odd down side.
I recently read two reviews of the film A Complete Unknown.
.1.
Despite its “kinetic performances and irresistible music” from star Timothée Chalamet and cast, James Mangold’s Dylan biopic is disappointingly unambitious
by Caryn James
***
https://www.bbc.co.uk/culture/article/20241210-a-complete-unknown-review
.2.
Timothée Chalamet’s Bob Dylan is an electric revelation
James Mangold’s biopic follows the rise of the era-defining star with Chalamet brilliantly embodying his shapeshifting allure
by Peter Bradshaw
*****
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/dec/10/a-complete-unknown-review-timothee-chalamets-bob-dylan-is-an-electric-revelation
I read Caryn James’ review first. I thought her commentary rather sour. Having previously taken James Mangold as a worthy film maker I was left thinking: Who is this James person? I then read the Bradshaw review – someone here with substantial generosity of spirit.
I thought of Teddy Roosevelt …
It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.
Thanks
I understand and agree with what you are saying but I still don’t like the phrasing of using taxes “to pay for” spending, which you use in your video when you say “So let me give some examples of where the money might come from to pay for the defence that we need”
I understand that you can’t give an explanation for money creation via government spending each time you talk about these things, and that if you could come with a way of using only a few words as a shorthand to explain this each time you talk about these things then you would have done so.
But I do think we need something better than talking about collecting taxes “to pay for” spending, which would have to be only a few words. There is no easy way to replace “pay”, other than synonyms which have the same issue. I would therefore get rid of “to”, which as a preposition indicates direction of travel: it tells us that tax comes before spend, and the money collected in taxes is what is then being spent on defence, which rules out spending by government money creation.
I would switch it out for something like “so that we can”: “So let me give some examples of where the money might come from so that we can pay for the defence that we need”. I would say this makes a big difference and so wouldn’t consider it to be nitpicking, and it’s only a net increase of three words. “To pay for” means that tax revenue is spent on defence; “so that we can pay for” allows for the spending to come from money creation by government spending. By breaking the direct link from the taxes to the spending it also allows us to get rid of “pay”, which can give us some added clarity: “So let me give some examples of where the money might come from so that we can increase spending on the defence that we need”.
It wouldn’t upset the flow for casual viewers, but for those who know your work well it would be understood to be a shorthand for saying these taxes could be increased so that we can increase spending on defence by money creation via government spending without the adverse effects that such spending without the additional tax would lead to.
If you compare it with the original formulation I don’t think it loses anything for the casual viewer but is consistent with MMT in a way that the original isn’t:
“So let me give some examples of where the money might come from to pay for the defence that we need”
“So let me give some examples of where the money might come from so that we can increase spending on the defence that we need”
It’s not perfect but it’s the best I can come up with.
A few days ago you wrote: “Words matter to me. They are my literal stock in trade. I write them and speak them to make a living. I endeavour, when using words, to ensure that my meaning is clear. I don’t always succeed. As a result, I try harder. Seeking clarity whilst also being entertaining (or else people would not wish to return and read what I have to say again) is vital to me. Practising getting my words, sentences, paragraphs, and message right is not an obsession of mine, but it is something not much less than that. If it seems nerdy to say so, I don’t care. I cannot see what is wrong with trying to do something as well as I can.”
I hope that my suggestion can be seen in that spirit.
You are tedious.
A founder of MMT was happy with what I have done.
I suggest you go and learn about MMT.
I found this post helpful in tying together money/taxation/actual resources. Tricky to get one’s mind around. I also find pictorial worked examples helpful. Just a thought.
But they take a lot of time.
I read this in Mark Lilla’s “ignorance and bliss- on wanting not to know””
“Anything we achieve in the search for self-understanding must be gotten through work; it entails sweat and strain and moments of despair.And it never ends…themost we can hope to achieve , compared with the false promise of epiphanic conversion, is modest : an ability to live within the limits of what we are and all that society can provide, freedomfrom guilt, sexualenjoyment, moral responsibilty , and a capacity to develop ourselves without agression or self cruelty.that is all . Freud thought it was sufficient.”
Read the book . It will help you .
Although having said that you seem pretty sane to me.
Keep it up.
Good.
“Although private banks are allowed, under license, to create money, they can only do so because of that license from the central government that is a money creating authority, and can only create the money that is deemed to be legal tender by the authority in question.”
They create ‘The People’s’ #newmoney without the explicit democratic permission from ‘The People’.
They profit enormously from the interest collected on the loans extended to ‘The People’ without our democratic permission. It is the people’s interest not the private banks.
They pay minimal tax on their private profits, again without the explicit democratic permission which is hugely inflationary. Bankers can pay top rental prices in London and buy 2nd and 3rd homes. Giving rise to the appearance that London and the SE generate most of the ‘wealth’ in the UK.
Yes tax them.
Bonds invented 1694 could only afforded by the previously wealthy, the old money.
[…] Cross-posted from Richard Murphy’s blog […]