Thomas and I were talking together about videos yesterday, and what we might make some on.
I had some ideas, but they are all a bit long, and we think we need some shorter ones to create some balance.
So, imagine you could ask a question that I could answer in five minutes or so. What would that be? Suggestions are welcome. We are genuinely looking for ideas.
I offer no guarantee that we will make anything, mind you, but everything will be considered.
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 just wondered if a statutory feed back could at least quantify the consequences of government actions. There is a reconized system consisting of a risk assessment which is used to compliment a safe procedure.
What would the economic implications be if Reform and the Conservative’s policies on Net Zero were implemented?
Is there really a strong link between pay rises and increased inflation?
Should students across UK be taught real colonial history ?
Not for this channel
How can we regulate, slow (or preferably eliminate) the present tsunami of automated/digital ‘services’ which are rapidly putting real people out of work?
These so-called ‘helplines,’ required online accounts, and online applications for necessary services can be frustrating to deal with when you get caught in a loop. (Go online, experience problems signing in, etc, phone the helpline, the automated service tells you to go online and sign in …rinse, repeat.)
It’s also expensive to buy the equipment required to access these services, and to keep the equipment up to date. And there seems to be no end to the security loopholes hackers can exploit, to steal our data and our money. We don’t have to be stupid or gullible for this to happen; all we need to be is online at the wrong time.
How should we approach this issue?
Without a computer or working broadband I lose my banking, access to my medical care providers, my access to utilities, my ability to contact friends and family, etc etc. If I lose my mobile phone (or it gets stolen or damaged), I lose everything on it. I have no idea what to do, if these things happen …and they easily could.
Good question
Today’s list is very long. Lots of great ideas. To make your day complete, I thought I’d ask ChatGPT for some ideas. Take a deep breath:
On his “Funding the Future” website today, Richard Murphy is asking for ideas he can turn into presentations, which is something he does every day. Taking into account his political views, his belief in MMT, and his background in economics and accounting, what topics would you suggest, that he hasn’t covered previously, and which would be of interest to his audience?
That’s a thoughtful question, and one that invites consideration of both Richard Murphy’s core interests and his audience’s appetite for ideas that are radical, practical, and under-explored in mainstream discourse. Based on his body of work — including Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), tax justice, democratic accountability, climate crisis, and social infrastructure — he has covered a great deal. But there are still fresh angles and extensions he might explore.
Here are seven topic suggestions that seem well-aligned with his framework, yet have not been addressed in depth (if at all) on his platforms to date:
—
1. “The State as Investor of First Resort”: Public Equity Creation in the 21st Century
Rationale: Murphy critiques the limitations of neoliberal public spending. This concept explores a proactive state role not just as a spender or regulator, but as a risk-bearing investor, taking equity stakes in socially essential innovation (e.g. green energy, care tech, AI for public benefit).
MMT fit: Emphasises the state’s financial capacity without relying on tax first.
New angle: Goes beyond public ownership of legacy assets (rail, utilities) to proactive equity creation.
—
2. “Democratic Money: How to Embed Public Oversight in Central Bank Functions”
Rationale: While Murphy critiques central bank independence, this presentation could offer detailed democratic reforms — e.g., public panels for monetary policy, citizen juries for interest rate decisions.
MMT fit: Reframes money creation as a democratic act, not a technocratic one.
New angle: Most MMT advocates stop at criticising central banks; this goes further into institutional design.
—
3. “Shadow Wealth: Mapping the Real Cost of Untaxed Offshore Capital”
Rationale: Murphy pioneered tax haven critique, but hasn’t recently quantified the social opportunity cost of the trillions parked offshore.
MMT-compatible: Reframes lost taxation as a resource misallocation, not just a funding gap.
New angle: Connects inequality, austerity, and capital flight with visual data storytelling.
—
4. “The Accounting of Extinction: Why We Need a Balance Sheet for Nature”
Rationale: Builds on his accounting background to propose a national ecological balance sheet, moving beyond GDP and carbon to include soil, water, biodiversity.
Political fit: Supports the Green New Deal and state responsibility for long-term assets.
New angle: Combines ecological economics with double-entry accounting — rarely done.
—
5. “The People’s QE 2.0: How a National Climate Bank Could Rewire the Economy”
Rationale: Expands on his earlier QE proposals, but now tailored to fund climate resilience, local energy, and rewilding at regional levels.
MMT fit: QE used for real economy transformation, not asset inflation.
New angle: Practical design of such a bank, with community participation and transparency.
—
6. “Prevention Capitalism: A New Framework for NHS Funding”
Rationale: A compelling MMT-based critique of reactive health spending, proposing that early-life and preventive health should be capitalised as future liabilities avoided.
Political fit: Challenges Treasury orthodoxy without invoking more tax.
New angle: Applies accounting logic to public health investment.
—
7. “Democracy by Design: How Local Authorities Can Lead Fiscal Innovation”
Rationale: Proposes tools (participatory budgeting, local currency trials, climate audits) for councils to experiment with bottom-up economic reform, even within constraints.
MMT fit: Local finance as a sandbox for state money innovation.
New angle: Murphy often focuses on national policy; this zooms in on the local.
—
Would you like a short paragraph written for any of these, in the tone of Murphy’s blog, that he could use to open a presentation?
Noted
MMT says taxation destroys money. How does that happen?
Thanks
What if every citizen owned a share of the UK economy? – could universal basic dividends or public wealth funds replace the need for welfare?
Thanks
Hope it’s not too late,
Since poverty is the bigger driver of child neglect and abuse as well as other harms like educational outcomes poor physical and mental health, how can we eradicate child poverty, (see uni Huddersfield for study on links between poverty neglect and abuse)
Another question I’ve always wondered about, austerity, it was supposed to be a period of nasty medicine but has been applied for over a decade, so what will our lives and the country look like if this neoliberal austerity trajectory continues for another decade,
Thank you
Noted
How about:
If banks don’t need deposits to fund loans (as you repeatedly suggest) and don’t use them, why do banks pay interest on deposits?
Apologies if this has already been asked earlier.
If tax on the wealthy in the UK was increased, what would actually happen? Would huge numbers of them leave the UK and move to countries where they would pay less tax or not?
Craig
Noted
Why can’t any country just print money to get through problems etc? Who is the overlord that says you can’t do that? What are the ultimate checks and balances?
Would Universal Basic Income work in the UK? what are the barriers from it being implemented?
Noted
And as an alternative what about the idea of Universal Basic Services instead of?
Noted. Thanks.
Hello Richard, I was thinking that maybe you could do a sort of educational work as well. For example, I personally have a question: As we know, money is nothing but a promise to pay: many very much interrelated IOUs. One of those IOUs takes the form of the banknotes. The UK banknotes bear the wording: “I promise to pay to the bearer on demand the sum of X pounds”. This effectively means that if I bring a £5 note to the Bank of England, I will demand the payment of this said 5 pounds sterling. But with what will the Bank of England be able to pay me (to fulfill its obligation to pay, thus cancelling its own IOU)? Since we all use the fiat money in the form of banknotes and coins, the only possible way for the Bank to fulfill its obligation is to… give me ANOTHER £5 banknote in exchange for my £5 note? This is what I can’t wrap my head around :-). When I give someone my £5 note in exchange for their goods or services, this is what I can comprehend (I exchange someone else’s IOU (the Bank of England’s in this case) for their goods or services, so that this person could further exchange this IOU for what they need whatever this might be). But as for the “ultimate” IOU issuer – the Bank of England, how would they tackle this :-)? In the old days before 1931 they would exchange a note for a corresponding piece of gold. Now this is not the case. So, a paper note for a paper note? Am I correct? I realise that I might take this to the extreme, and nobody these days will come to the Bank of England to demand such an exchange, but what if they would? P.S. After having re-read my question, I realise that the Bank has another way to fulfill its obligation and cancel the IOU in the form of a £5 banknote: to increase my deposit with the Bank for this sum of units of account. This doesn’t make the question’s underlying thought irrelevant, just an observation.
And maybe other similar real-world things along these lines? Not sure if I’m right, but educational aspect of your videos is something many would appreciate (I personally – surely will).
Thank you for all your work!
I am not sure what the question is
Sorry
Try as I might I do not understand gilts and bonds. Could we have a short explanation of them, please?
And why doesn’t the government spend similar amounts of money in all regions of the country instead of concentrating primarily on the south east? Germany, as I understand it, has to do this. Eliminating the North/South divide would be worthwhile.
Thanks
A discussion of a new solution to solve the housing problem?
Australia’s housing crisis is paradoxical. For the 66% of Australians who own a home
there is no crisis at all. Property prices are increasing well beyond inflation.
In Australia there are approx. 11M dwellings serving a population of 27M. In 2023
over 600000 dwellings exchanged hands at an approximate cost of AUD600B, half of
these funded by new mortgages. At the same time there is an urgent need to house
Australia’s over 100000 homeless when there are 100000 empty dwellings. At a time of
record low vacancy rates, renters are struggling to meet spirally rents.
To solve the housing crisis, 240000 homes must be returned or built per annum in the
public housing sector over five years: a total of 1.2M dwellings. However the
potential to build low cost public housing is hobbled by the dire state of
Australia’s residential building sector.
Based on this situation, I wonder whether the following simple plan would work? The
aim is for the government to enter the housing market and buy back dwellings to the
public stock.
The government forms a Housing Department and a new public bank. The Housing
Department is tasked with the following,
(1) It vets individuals for accomodation assistance.
(2) It purchases dwellings in the private market and returns them to the public
stock.
(3) It maintains a staff of tradies to service the new public dwellings.
The task of the new bank is to issue the mortgages.
I am interested in the feasibility of such a scheme which may also work in the UK.
I imagine that in the medium term there will be an increased demand leading to some
extra inflation in the housing sector. In the longer term however the government would begin to dominate in the rental market and exert downward pressure on rental prices. And in the mean time the government can build back Australia’s residential construction industry.
This touches on the topic I was thinking about.
Around four years ago, research neatly synthesised by George Monbiot showed that there may be twice as many sporadically occupied second (3rd, 4th …. etc.) homes in the UK than there are households that are homeless or at imminent risk of becoming so.
My question is: could or should more be done to disincentivise multiple home ownership, or are we reduced to stigmatising such greed?
I am always intrigued by the issue of the misallocation of resources.
What would be the economic consequences of channeling more investment holdings into infrastructure, healthcare and housing?
or for that matter creating money to invest in the same.
As I understand it , its not done for fear of inflation, not that the rewards would not exceed the costs.
Thanks
[…] spent some time last night translating comments in response to my request for video ideas, made yesterday, into the mindmap that I use to record these […]
How can Scotland gain independence?
Impossible in 5 minutes….and I would make that for the National.
A simple/simplistic one:
What exactly happens to the hard-earned that I pay to HMRC if taxes merely remove money from circulation? Are bundles of twenties incinerated in old oil barrels behind the Treasury building? 🙂 Or are the funds channelled somewhere?
Thanks
Richard,
Video topics:
How likely is it that MMT could be used by neoliberalism to maintain their grip on power?
What’s caused this you might ask. Ironically Trump and Sunak the latter due to furlough.
Second video idea one is national accounts and imports and exports. Once a media obsession but now replaced. However with these new trade deals might a new focus on imports/exports etc emerge?
Thanks
If government creates money to pay for social needs how is inflation a danger and how is it avoided? I find this is the main objection to MMT people raise if I mention it and I don’t feel I really understand how to answer them
Thanks
Why did we privatise so many services, and when they were why were there not regulations limiting the profit to be made by these companies. What services should remain privatised and what ones could the government take back. Some shocking examples regarding childrens care homes and really all of the care sector.
Thanks
That might be sooner rather than later.
does the government need to have reserves ie gold if it can just create new money if necessary
if we start to move away from a neoliberal economy is there a need to encourage a new wave of co-op business and mutual organisations, i always believed the demutualisation of a lot of building societes was a huge mistake
Thanks
We are told that Labour must stick to its fiscal rules because otherwise the markets will lose confidence and the cost of debt will spiral, possibly giving us another Truss-style crash. It would be nice to see you address this, including the following.
Who/what are the markets/bond vigilantes? Why is the conventional view that the government must be subservient to them and why in your view is this not true?
Imagine you were the chancellor and introduced a progressive budget and the markets started to react in a similar way to how they did to Truss (albeit maybe not to the same scale; and I know you blame the Bank of England for that crash and not Truss). The right-wing media rage about how you have crashed the economy. The conventional view is that in such a situation you must capitulate to the markets to prevent the situation from spiralling out of control, but you would not yield, so in practice, what does it actually mean to face down the markets? How would you keep your budget while also preventing the same things escalating in a similar way to how they did under Truss?
I think that your answer to this will be to instruct the Bank to buy as many bonds as is necessary to stabilise the market. Is this all you would do, or is there more that you could do on top of this? What would actually happen if you did this? Could the markets do anything in response to your response to harm you or would they be powerless? The neoliberal critique of this is that you will devalue the pound and cause inflation, so how would you respond to these?
I feel that a more detailed discussion of the Truss crash would be helpful, but as you are looking at only five minutes, perhaps splitting that off into another video would be worth doing. You have occasionally mentioned that you blame the Bank, but I do not think you have dedicated an actual blog post or video to that, so I think that would be helpful. I feel this would be particularly helpful to your YouTube audience because I have seen quite a few comments on some of your videos with MMT ideas where people like what you are saying but say something like wouldn’t the same thing that happened to Truss happen again if we followed your ideas?
What actually happened with the Truss crash? To include an explanation of how the Bank announced QT, and then when things started to get bad made them worse by promising to increase interest rates. Then a discussion of how the situation was solved – it wasn’t Truss going back on her budget, it was the Bank effectively reversing what it had done to cause the crash. It wasn’t even so much that they actually bought that many bonds, all that was needed to stabilise the market was to say they would buy as many bonds as necessary.
What should Truss have done once things went bad? Effectively what actually happened, but she should have (A) explained why it was the Bank’s fault, and (B), instead of waiting for the Bank to say they would buy the bonds, she should have instructed them to do so, so she would get the credit, and this would have allowed her to remove the Bank’s independence.
This could be linked to the present day and how Labour learnt the wrong lesson from Truss. They learnt the lesson that we must be subservient to the markets by having fiscal rules and being “responsible” with the nation’s finances, i.e. austerity, because otherwise the markets will punish us. The actual lesson Labour should learn from the Truss crash is about how harmful the Bank is for the economy and how the government should take control of it and instruct it to end QT and lower rates, and how the way to face down the markets is for the bank to buy as many bonds as is necessary.
I have selected a couple!
Greetings and kudos for the effort you put, debunking neoliberalism (or any system) is always welcome.
My critic on social democracy comes from the left although it might not be obvious to all.
The Keynesian policies you promote have been tried on the past and reached a limit. The mainstream consensus was Keynesian, but when it hit the wall the alternative that has been proposed was neoliberalism (then called neoclassical).
I would like to see a series of videos of why Keynesian policies saturated (If this is the correct term) in the 70s and what would be the alternative way forward back then and how this can be applied today in a world that is globalized. To my knowledge Keynesian policies perform better in closed and controlled environments.
My critique from the left is that post-war consensus helped the capital to grow, even If some of the myopic elites don’t see how state intervention and taxation is there to turboboost capital to grow. This grow of the capital, evidently reduced inequality, but the middle class that emerged was rather selfish and could understand better neoliberal arguments and embraced it. Neoliberalism grown on a reduced inequalities environment with the Keynesian consensus to be in power. The crisis of the 70s to me is that the capital could not grow with the previous methods anymore, the getaway was PRC (showing that capital still loves cheap labour before high productivity) and credit expansion that created a wealth effect and not exactly (tangible) capital expansion. I think it is not wise to do 30 year circles from demand-side to supply-side.
The Keynesian system failed because the world did not really understand fiat currency, let alone fiat reserve currencies.
That was it.
The rest is a footnote.
In discussing MMT at a Labour Constituency meeting one question was how external economies would perceive the value of the pound, and whether it would lead to more expensive imports and ‘rationing’. (I’ve heard the last point from a few people). These are genuine queries from members critical of the current regime – can this be dealt with in 5 minutes?
Thanks
Noted
Thanks
In both 2008 (bank crash) and 2020 (COVID) a large amount of quantitative easing was required to allow the economy to recover. I can understand how existing money simply disappeared in 2008. But in 2020 with lockdown, what happened to the money that did not move through the economy? did not pay wages? did not buy goods and services? Did it just disappear? If so, I can’t see how? Or is it still there? If so, I can’t see where it could be hiding?
It’s still there, excepting that reclaimed by QT.
It is in central bank reserve accounts.
One thing I’m not clear on is how do we know how much government spending is too much? I know the standard MMT answer is inflation but that seems too clunky and too late, is there a more sophisticated metric?
Noted
Apologies for being very late to this one Richard, but chaos has reigned chez moi; I had my windows replaced on Monday,
The job was scheduled to take a day and a half, but because I’d gone out of my way to make it as easy as possible for them, the squad spotted an opportunity. They asked me if it was okay if they could stay on for an hour or so, to complete the job that day. Win-win: I got to start putting my flat back in order, half a day ahead; one way or another they’ve got half a day to play with this week.
Which brings me to the subject I’d like to ask about, that of “efficiency”; a much abused term, I’m sure you’ll agree. We hear a lot about efficiency savings, but that is based on the fallacy that efficiencies can always be found. Once a process is optimised, that’s it; it can’t be made more efficient. Looking for efficiency savings, where none exist, is a waste of time and resources; which is in and of itself, inefficient.
Your blog on linear vs non linear thinking [which I enjoyed catching up on] may be in play here.
Noted, thanks.
Sorry, should have posted a link to Monbiot’s old article: https://www.monbiot.com/2021/09/06/ground-rules/
Hi Richard
I think it’s really important that someone with a big voice on social media like you clearly explains the economic cost of stopping immigration.
Reform voters seem to feel that immigration is THE problem. It really isn’t. My grandfather came from Luxembourg; that’s why I have a funny name – Ensch! If you investigate your family history, many of you will find that you’re not pure British either, so why hate those that aren’t?
The population growth rate of the UK is 1.8, so without immigration the population would shrink. Statisticians reckon that by 2100, there’d only be 48 million of us left rather than the 68 million we have today. Many of those people would be elderly, so there wouldn’t be enough money from working people to pay the pensions of the retired people. We need some immigration.
32% of all the doctors in this country were trained abroad. Without them, we wouldn’t even have a functioning NHS now. If you’re queuing for a hospital appointment, you’re more likely to find an immigrant treating you than standing ahead of you in the queue.
The number of illegal immigrants coming here in small boats is less than 0.05% of the total population. It’s a humanitarian crisis. A civilised country would save those people, to avoid them dying in the English Channel. Don’t blame them; they’re escaping war, or famine, or poverty, or climate change – much of which has been caused by us in the first place!
The real problem is growing inequality. Redistributing wealth must be our priority.
Regards…Bob
Thanks