Most mornings, I awake with ideas teeming through my head and with a desire to write them as quickly as possible. There are days when I wish that were not the case, but I usually write them anyway.
This morning is not like that.
The papers are dull. There is little to add to what I've already said on the issues that are getting attention.
The columnists look as though they have struggled to find words to put on the page. When Will Hutton in the Observer thinks that Labour is doing just fine, except for the fact that it does not control the news agenda, but that it could still do so if only it found 'better words and ideology – and [found] them fast', you can tell even the Labour apologists are out of ideas.
And meanwhile, unnoticed, the struggle to survive continues in its differing ways for far too many, apparently not worthy of notice.
I draw attention to it, but think that this is the morning to take time to think. I might be back here later, but at this precise moment, my need is for a slow breakfast, slow observing, some deep breathing of the summer air, and then conversation that explores possibilities, some of which will no doubt come out of discussion after watching the National Theatre's live version of Red on their streaming service last night, which was exceptionally good.
That's enough words for now.
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!
Hi Richard,
Thanks for all your videos and careful explainers.
Thatcher and Reagan really screwed us over with their Neo-liberalism and economic model to match. To move forward and away from the broken system should we “return” to Keyensian economics or is there an MMT model that needs to be adopted? What would be the differences?
How do we shift the mindset away from current thinking which is not only it seems in the UK but across Europe and beyond.
Thanks.
PS
China doesn’t appear constructed by the household budget model!
These are issues I will get to. I gave literally just written a 600 word framing note for myself on these issues over my ‘quiet breakfast’.
I will address these issues.
@Wayne Acourt
You ask, “Is there a MMT model that needs to be adopted?”
It’s a question akin to asking if there’s a model of planetary motion we need to adopt. MMT describes *what is*, rather than something “to adopt”.
The government of the day, whether red, blue, green or ‘sky-blue pink with purple spots’, can adopt any policy it chooses, as long as it always accepts that any policy has consequences, and that those consequences **are an emergent property of the constraints of MMT**.
I don’t think I am speaking out of turn by saying that Richard; through the medium of this blog, and by vlogging and podcasting; explains that MMT allows us to calculate the trajectory of a rocket to Mars allowing for planetary motion and gravitational forces, while neoliberal policies still imagine we just need to aim a straight flight path at the Red Planet one evening when it’s visible in the sky.
The majority of the world’s astronomers and their followers like straight lines. MMT gives us the elliptical orbit – when we actually learn how it works we can see all the possibilities for satellites and asteroid mining and space stations and “growing potatoes on Mars.”
We have to learn how it works, though, which is the other strand here. We accept MMT as reality.
I like it.
And what you are saying is spot on.
The misrepresentation of MMT drives those of us who understand its operation around the twist.
There are two aspects to MMT. There is Descriptive MMT which is the operating system as Anne Cruise explains, then their is Prescriptive MMT which is when the ‘operating system’ interacts with the programs that are the policy choices of a fiat currency issuing government.
Descriptive MMT just is the actuality of the fiat monetary operations whether or not any government applying its prescriptions knows that to be the case or not. As we constantly see, hear and read, the denial of descriptive MMT, which is as simple as stating that the government always spends its monopoly tax credits into the non-government first, is still well extant. Repetition, as boring and tedious as that may seem, is an essential in spreading the understanding.
First they ignore you; then they laugh at you; then they attack you; then you win. MMT is hopefully getting closer to the end of the ‘attack you’ phase than it is to its beginning.
Has anyone ever told you that your writings have a strong religious flavour imbued in them. The sacred texts are often overly long and impenetrable with the central claims being untestable and based on faith. I think this is true of your essays and books which also have a strong sense of looking for an authority figure. You might think of this as looking for an authority concept, one central ethos to rule them all, but the similarities to political leaders with a brand and mission are most noticeable.
Your point is?
Are you saying that I have faith is wrong?
And that is faith in humans, above all rise. Why is that wrong?
@ Tia
A lot (most?) of the posts are dense – but discussing macroeconomics is going to be dense. There’s no other way to slice it.
But Richard’s writing is far from impenetrable, and the central axioms that he writes from are eminently testable.
1. Governments with their own central bank can’t run out of money: tested and found to be true in 2008 and 2020 (most recently)
2. Climate change is destructive: tested constantly and found to be increasingly true.
Reading Richard’s writing requires thinking as well. More often than not, the experience is close to reading academic literature. Digesting information of this density takes practice, but it’s well worth the rewards, in my experience.
Thanks
@Tia Billinger
Do you believe people of faith should be excluded, discriminated against, formally banned or otherwise silenced? Should Richard ban himself from his own blog? Or should we be banning people of faith from civic society in general? Maybe limit the franchise?
Do you have viable plans for replacing the plant, personnel and millions of volunteer hours supplied by people of faith? (It is considerable, across the faith spectrum, housing, adoption, fostering, addiction, foodbanks, food kitchens, refugee support peace initiatives, education and much more) serving the whole of our society).
Much evil has been done in the name of religion, but then that can, and should be said of most institutions and ideologies.
It is fair to say that if all people motivated by faith to do good, downed tools tomorrow, we would notice very quickly.
Of course those without faith do good as well, but I welcome that and I will work with people of all faiths and none, if it will make the world a better place. You, it appears, find this difficult?
You may not like people being motivated by faith, but perhaps you could share with us any practical suggestions you have for purging people of faith ftom public life and discourse in a way that would suit your personal preference?
Or maybe set up your own blog, and keep it free from pollution by such intolerable beliefs?
I have never denied I have faith.
It is not blind faith.
It is not faith in an anthropomorphic deity
It is faith in the greater good and that there is access to it if we try.
It is faith that this is greater than us, but our failing is therefore understandable and forgivable – and we c@n move on.
I am bemused as to what is wrong with that.
Thanks for your comment.
What can be the basis for faith? One of them is the fine-tuned universe which is the hypothesis that, because “life as we know it” could not exist if the constants of nature – such as the electron charge, the gravitational constant and others – had been even slightly different, the universe must be tuned specifically for life. This hypothesis is based on our human understanding that life in the first instance needs consciousness in order to choose good or bad options for survival purposes. Ipso facto therefore a very precise or very narrow operational faculty in constants of nature must have been chosen deliberately by some form of consciousness. This argument is found in the popular science book “The Goldilocks Enigma” by the British phyicist Paul Davies.
If the fine-tuned argument is accepted that it becomes possible to wonder if an evolutionary arrow exists which is developing a life form or life-forms that can be in a complete or a very advanced form of harmony with the universe. For example, there is a French thinker (whose name I forget) who believes human beings are being honed through evolution to geo-engineer the universe! Of course acceptance of this way of thinking provides a mental driver for thinking that human societies must do more to avoid sociocide.
Noted.
So, I have been writing and will be on LBC at 9.05
Everyone needs a slow day now and again. Do something fun and not to do with politics or economics. The weather is perfect for a long walk.
Birdwatching, walking, coffee.
Water Buffalo and cow watching too?????
I’m afraid not
I don’t know how the water buffalo are getting on – there is no water down their way
You asked the other night why ‘we’ were so reflective?
For me the answer is that we know that things are unravelling, and that that in itself is a portent of something ending, and the opportunity for something new emerging. Yet, at the same time the engines that drive this chaos show no signs of stopping and indeed appear to be doubling down and even worse – adjusting.
More importantly we are entering an era I’d call of ‘false positives’.
A false positive in science describes a test falsely detecting a condition that is not present. It is also used to explain the disappearances in Colombia during a right wing period of government where people were rounded up and shot to make it appear that the government was successfully fighting huge amounts of insurgents who threatened the country.
Be that as it may, the Alt Right or whatever you want to call it are redolent of these false positives. They portray themselves as having the answers to our problems, that their ‘testing’ has told them it’s immigration, because we fought the Nazis instead of joining with them, it’s because of those disabled or those with mental health probs, the Muslims, the Jews, BME people, importers and trade agreements, Marxists – abortion – the list could go on.
Identifying these false causes is portrayed as positive because the Alt Right can then put forward ideas about how to address them – they have the answers – of course! This seems positive to an awful lot of unhappy and desperate people who will seize upon this mis-reporting and gives credibility to those using them – people like Farage, Jenrick and Trump.
If asked what was causing water shortages, the Alt Right would probably blame immigration – wouldn’t they?
For it is all false, one big distraction technique to hide the truth, to curb curiosity to stop the revelation of what is really making people poor, unwell and unhappy.
It’s not that it is confusing, it’s just processing the reality of that and coming to terms with it with ones’ self.
History is long; life is much shorter. I suppose we may be locating ourselves in that history and committing to doing our best with our time, because we may not live to see the end of what torments us.
I very much like that.
One of the ideas the alt-right pushes is that this country is full up, that there is no room for any more people.
My partner and I just spent a couple of days deep in the Herefordshire countryside in as peaceful a location as I have ever found.
There’s another lie we are being fed.
Also along with that train of thought is the fact that nearly as much land in this country is given over to golf courses as housing, as I understand it.
We are being constantly lied to by our inept government as well as the alt-right.
Housing may be 1.1% of U.K. land.
Golf courses may be half that. Still a staggering amount.
I admire the way you sounded so lively on Matthew Wright’s programme this morning! You must have enjoyed a good cuppa beforehand.
If you can stomach it, you might want to have a look at the Guardian online’s Analysis posted earlier today. The title is “A UK headline wealth tax? It may be simpler to put up existing taxes”. I do not know much about the three Oxford academics referred to in the article as influencing orthodox Treasury thinking but the overall tenor of the article suggests to me that the LINO types are starting to exhibit some self doubt.
I was bouncing..
Coffee with breakfast was being had when they called at 8.30.
The chap who followed me now wants to make comtact.
And I will look at the Guarduan piece….later. Coffee whilst birdwatching now…
Hello Prof. Murphy,
Your videos are interesting, I like that we should circulate enough funds for us to be doing what we can and managing oversupply by tax. Assuming I have grasped a general principle correctly.
I have been studying disruption, as defined by Tony Seba and as characterised by Wright’s Law. I am trying to picture what happens if we can power our economy from the sun and if we have sufficient minerals present in a circular economy. Seba says that without the need for additional resources, everything changes.
Seba says the pattern of disruption is that if a competing new technology is 10% of the cost of an existing one, then it will take over within about a decade. We are half way through that with EVs in China. So my question is this. If money is a technology, which it seems to me it is, and AI were able to arbitrate the flow of resources in society, which it will certainly be able to do, then it might do so at a much lower cost than money. In that case money, as a defining factor of civilisation since humans first sarted to exploit technology to obtain the security of a store of resources, might fade in importance. In Seba’s terms, money would be disrupted by AI.
This is a way out scenario, but one that fascinates me as part of a broad study I am doing of technology and society with art as the research tool that creates new cultural capacities to handle the new futures triggered by technology disruption. Sorry, I am falling over my own words in haste.
If you accept that post-scarcity is theoretically possible, does this change the centrality of money, do you think? If there is no need to compete for resources, that would seem to change the pieces on the board.
Again, thank you for your channel and your ongoing work. Let me head off to get you that coffee.
John
You are assuming money is something that exists. In a very real sense, it doesn’t. It is not my technology. It is a debt.
Simultaneously, if it does exist exist in multiple states simultaneously. It is a debit, and a credit; an asset, and a liability; a particle, and a flow; a measure, and the medium; it exists, and then it does not. It is, in essence, quantum. I need to write more about this, clearly, but the point is, your idea assumes a singularity, and there is none.
I think John raises an interesting angle. While money itself may not have a cost in the way he suggests – since, as you say, it’s ultimately a set of credit–debt relationships – the infrastructure that manages money certainly does. Banks, payment systems, accountants, lawyers and regulators all represent a vast apparatus with real economic cost.
John’s point, as I read it, is that AI could one day lower these coordination costs, perhaps to the point where allocating resources directly is cheaper than doing so through money. But that raises a further question: how would people “earn” access to AI-delivered resources? At present, money reflects a claim on society’s output. If AI replaced it, there would still need to be a system for recognising contribution and allocating entitlements fairly.
So it isn’t just about efficiency but also trust and legitimacy. Society accepts money (however imperfectly) because it is embedded in law, government and custom. Whether we would accept AI as a legitimate allocator of resources is a much deeper and more political question.
I think you are describing blockchain. But there are massive flaws. Or you may be describing digital currency. As I always say, that answers no known question. The fact is, it is not money, and society needs money. I will make a video on that very soon. This idea of simplification assumes money is simple. That is the last thing it is.
Ruhetag (quiet day) – after several weeks of music – Aldeburgh (Britten Pears/Snape Maltings) Festival, Buxton Festival and lastly the Gilbert & Sullivan Festival (in Buxton), now a time for reflection – I am already relaxed!
My reflections!
“If music be the food of love, play on” from Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night where Orsino believes music can intensify and sustain love, like food sustains the body. Then Purcell composed music for “If music be the food of love, sing on till I am fill’d with joy” to words by Henry Heveningham.
Another Shakespeare quote, spoken by Polonius in Hamlet “Brevity is the soul of wit”.
Heveningham was not only a poet, he was also a Parliamentarian, and thus most likely seldom brief. Polonius was not known for his brevity.
Glorious music at Snape Maltings and in Blythburgh Church, culminating in a concert titled ‘Fantastique’ which included a setting by Britten of W H Auden’s poetry, and Symphony Fantastique (Sibelius) conducted by Oramo with the BBC Symphony Orchestra, I was fortunate to be allowed to sit in on the earlier rehearsal for this final concert I found this fascinating, enabling me to understand some of little tweaks that Oramo made during the rehearsal for the actual performance.
Hamlet, an opera by Ambroise Thomas, was performed during the Buxton Festival. A rarely performed opera, it was excellent and with a slightly happier ending despite vengeance, madness, and doomed love! “Être ou ne pas être”.
Finally Gilbert & Sullivan with their digs at the class system and at ‘Parliamentarians’ so very true even now.
The word music translates from the Greek as ‘the muses’ art’. There was huge talent within all three Festivals whether performers, composers, librettists et al. Many of these concerts and operas included pieces composed by young artists and performed by young artists. I feel fortunate to have this access – to be able to listen, to see and to encounter this musical talent.
Whilst I cannot forget (or forgive) what is going on in the World, I can, for a while, immerse myself in music, breathe fresh air and enjoy wonderful countryside both at home in the Peak District, and in Suffolk.
And finally – another ‘thank you’ to Richard for the photo of Snape Maltings a few days ago.
Thanks