Ignorance about money is set to become an even more important feature of UK politics, it would seem. As the FT has reported:
A former Tory minister and top bank executive have contributed to a Reform UK affiliated think-tank report that claims the UK is heading for a debt crisis.
Former Conservative cabinet minister Sir John Redwood and Mark Dowding, chief investment officer at RBC BlueBay Asset Management, are two of the contributors to a report by the Centre for a Better Britain, according to people familiar with the matter.
And, as they note:
The first report since the launch of the CFABB in September,outlines what the UK government should do if markets lose confidence in its ability to service the national debt.
This is now a Farage theme. His talk is of IMF bailouts and a forthcoming loss of confidence in the pound, all based on a claim he is making about the supposed rapid deterioration in the UK's ability to service its international debt obligations.
As a matter of fact, everything that this think tank and Farage will be saying is wrong. The UK's international debt obligations are denominated in sterling. Sterling is, and can ultimately only be, created by the Bank of England. Therefore, there is precisely no chance whatsoever that the UK will not be able to meet its international debt obligations: the UK can always pay what it owes because it alone has the means to create the money to make settlement of them, and those signing up to buy that debt did so precisely because they knew that. That is the security they bought, and the security upon which the value of their savings depends, but which knowledge appears to have passed Farage by.
Is, then, anything about to change? Is it possible, for example, that the Bank of England might refuse to pay what is legally due by the government? No, of course it isn't: it legally has to pay what is due.
Is there instead going to be a crash in the value of the pound, meaning we are all going to be walking around with wheelbarrows of worthless notes because the pound has ceased to be of value, banking has collapsed, and hyperinflation has broken out? It is impossible to say that this could not happen. It is equally possible to say that the probability is smaller than that of my going to Mars by Christmas.
So what is happening? That's much easier to explain. Farage is playing on people's ignorance of the nature of money, of how it is created, of the role of the national debt in that process, and of the means by which debt interests obligations are settled, to create an environment in which panic can be induced to further his polotical claims. As acts of irresponsibility go, that takes some beating, but when was responsibility part of Farage's stock-in-trade?
And what we should note is that all of this is possible because people really do not know how money is created, what the UK national debt really is, or why it is not a threat in any way. In other words, this is happening precisely because the narratives that I have been talking about here for so long are not understood (and are denied by other politicians), meaning that Farage can seize the opportunity to abuse the resulting ignorance to undermine the economic credibility of the UK.
What does this mean? I suggest that this requires me to talk even more about modern money theory, because knowledge of it is now the way to beat fascism. And that matters.
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!
Far too much ignorance in the wider world of MMT. we are working uphill in that regard. I think you give farage far too much credit, he’s just an opportunist, see’s RR is ratttled & sets out to stoke fear. He doesnt understand how money works either. Far too many people equate sovereign money with a tangible, such as gold, when the reality is different. I think we’ll never have a govt that truly understands money. If the public truly catch on we’ll have revolution on our hands!
Is Farage stoking fear around the value of Sterling so he can enrich himself selling crypto as Trump has done?
He has interests in gold.
https://parliamentnews.co.uk/reform-uk-leader-nigel-farage-joins-gold-bullion-company-as-brand-ambassador
and crypto
https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/nigel-farage-calls-for-uk-crypto-push-as-reform-campaign-kicks-off-7e5fdfb4
He’ll grift anywhere to make a fast buck.
As a Great British patriot I’d personally rank him somewhere beneath William Joyce.
I ask myself ‘do Farage and the others standing with him really believe all the doom scenario?’
My conclusion is they don’t really care whether it is true or not as long they use it as a weapon.
Which implies they can’t be countered by reasoning with them.
We can do that with the uncommitted but unlikely to succeed with the ideologues.
Richard’s work in explaining how things really work is vitally important.
But I feel it will need some other factor to counter Reform et al. It won’t be trying to run a lite version of their program. Quite what that other factor is I have still to work out.
Garage, Redwood, the UK financial elite, “economists” and the UK media are constantly pushing the trope public sector is a drag on the UK economy because it’s not productive enough. wasteful, the UK peasants are not paying enough tax and the UK state must be very much smaller.
The average member of the UK population is not aware of how money is really created nor the purpose of tax, is not to see how the elites can be required to pay more.
They believe this garbage because the correct view because the main stream is scared and blocks it.
Nowhere do the neos’ say the “workers” should be paid more, education /health/sustainability/reduced “growth” are important. It’s all the “UK depends on freeing the elites from any shackles”.
Ensittification rules.
John Redwood being remotely involved in anything is a red flag.
John Redwood has masqueraded as a politician of a pretend democratic country for years, cynically using his political position to benefit the investment (actually divestment) banking sector, supporting privatisation and enriching a few people in his social and professional circle.
He has been one of the most destructive political figures I can think of, his cloak of a doctorate from Oxford akin to a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Yes Richard, you have your work cut out.
I know
And this morning I am very, very tired.
Take a break from things that are not utterly imperative.
I don’t like to hear that.
If that is the case, organise for a brief close down. You always work ahead for the public facing stuff. If you have to write, write to yourself. Or just post photo’s for a few days. Or The Team can just cover for you or something. Anything to make you feel that you have had a rest. Tell us when you are back.
I do know how you feel when you say ‘And I am tired now by the rest of life’. You spend a lot of time thinking about the future. But in the ‘now’ you are tired. Pay attention to it. Pay attention to the now. It will pass. Let it pass well.
Thanks
A few days unscheduled birdwatching to restore and reset your mind might be the best medicine Richard. We all appreciate your work so please look after yourself and don’t burn out.
Binoculars will be out today.
Very sorry to hear that but not surprised. The quality and volume of your output is truly outstanding. Hopefully you can keep going a while longer Richard. I for one will miss any reduction in what you do. Both you and your work are irreplaceable.
There will be a video every day while I take a break
And maybe more….
But Fa***e KNOWS where money comes from, his party has a Quantitative Easing Bill all about it, somewhere at the back of a long line of legislation in the Commons (although he wasn’t in the country to sign it).
He has even speechified (incoherently) about the BoE creating money.
He will, of course, get away with this hypocrisy in the MSM.
As for John Redwood….
But Fa***e KNOWS where money comes from, his party has a Quantitative Easing Bill all about it,
It’s perfectly possible for him and other neoliberal politicians to believe two contradictory things at once, so in their minds BoE creates money (which they will usually associate with hyperinflation) but government has to get all its money from somewhere else.
Three contradictory things if you include the notion that the IMF can create pounds to bail out the UK – the only pounds the IMF has are ones the UK has given it. The UK is the fourth-largest shareholder in both the World Bank and the IMF and is a significant contributor to IMF funds
Please rest. Less posts = less comments. Another note to readers that moderation will happen in due course. Consider having one day a week off from posting. Your output is hugely appreciated, but it should not be a treadmill. That said, this post would make a v good ‘short’ on YouTube!
🙂
My problem is I love writing. It is existential for me. So I then publish. And I am tired now by the rest of life.
Keep writing, even if you become frustrated by some people not wanting the public to know the truth.
‘A prophet is seldom welcomed amongst his own people’ is a biblical quote I remember.
Thanks
I do sometimes feel that way
I have two suggestions. When I am depressed or frustrated I scream silently, I open my mouth as wide as possible and my whole body tenses up, I hold the as long as possible and the relax. Some times I tear up.
The other, longer method, is to read one of my favourite 10,000 novels.
It needs to be said that MMT has an Achilles Heel which boils down to a failure to consistently point out that extortion of other human beings always needs to be identified to run alongside our use of money. Two obvious examples of this are firstly some countries both left and right wing depress demand for goods and services especially public ones in order to depress their currencies for global price point advantage. Secondly, if inadequate wages are topped up by public goods and services (for example, affordable social housing is a public good and benefits are a service) then by necessity taxation will rise and if this is inequitably administered then there will be at some point resentment of this by increasing number of voters who will then ignorantly thrash around for politicians who promise to sort things out. Often such politicians are actually sponsored by the extortionists but most voters fail to see this!
I sense you are saying sthg I need to grasp. I fail to do so as I don’t have your background understanding. Your sentences are long and compress concepts within them. It would be most helpful to me if you would write more slowly so that I get it. plz take this as an encouragement to drive home your points to the less initiated who wish to be on board.
One of the main things I’m trying to point out is that by its construction money created by government has to be in the form of a variable loop to maintain stability as well as optimise demand. So it gets created followed by most of it needing to be destroyed by taxation. I don’t say all because the government needs to play a role in optimising demand by ensuring enough liquidity (spending money) in the economy. If a large portion of the money created is used to subsidise the profits then by definition taxation will be much larger than it strictly needs to be. If the rich are able to manipulate voters into installing right wing governments then taxation will be inequitably applied causing resentment amongst many voters.
I am not sure I follow this logic. It may be right, but there are a lot of unexplained leaps to get there if that is the case. Sorry.
“The “economics” favoured and promoted by so very many politicians, think tanks and the main stream media is a set of lies agreed upon.”
(From Napoleon)
P.S. “Almost everything will work comfortably again if you unplug it for a while, including you.”
(From Anne Lamont)
I think of it in terms of knighthoods.
The King doesn’t need to ask anyone to hand in knighthoods before giving the next lot out. He is THE source of ALL knighthoods. No one ever asks him ‘where are you going to get the knighthoods from?’ It is obvious even to stupid people that this is a nonsense question. It may be that the King issues too many knighthoods over time and they are considered a lesser prize, but that has nothing to do with his ability to issue them in the first place.
Then imagine that for every knighthood that the King issued, he committed to writing an email of congratulation to the holder twice a year. Again no-one in their right mind would be asking him ‘where are you going to get the emails from?’. Because even stupid people know that as long as your computer and server are working, you can write as many emails as you wish. The only thing you can run out of is people to send them to.
But reform are asking us to believe that not only can the King run out of knighthoods, but can run out of emails too.
Its insanity gone mad.
That is very neat.
I might borrow that.
@tombutcher great analogy
An excellent analogy – thank you !
Brilliant!
That is a great parable!! So simple, so powerful. The imagery sticks.
We all need to (talk even more about MMT). But to who?
It was pretty simple for NeoLiberalism to spread its theology – it was what greed had been waiting for, and greed created think-tanks and lobbyists which spread it as the new orthodoxy, as ‘common sense’, throughout the ‘ideological state apparatus from higher education to the mass media.
But MMT isn’t an ideology, it’s an accurate description which demonstrates that things don’t have to be as they are. So what are the organisations whose interests and objectives it most serves? And which have the most clout?
Maybe a conference would be a good idea. Maybe a planning group should be set up. I’d be prepared to do whatever I can, but I am both elderly and handicapped by ME, and I can’t expect Richard to kill himself on my behalf.
A commentator here called Cliff came up with this list of people who he thought might sponsor me earlier today, many of whom I have worked with in the past, but with whom I have no links now, not least because tjey will not work with me because I support MMT and they will have nothing to do with it. Some of them I even co-founded. As far as I know, not one of them believes in MMT because, if they did (as the CEO of one of them once told me), they would have to admit that tax does not fund government services. None of them think they could then sell their stories to the media on “tax pays for nurses, etc, etc, etc,” and so keep being funded, so lacking in confidence are they on the reality of the economy they claim they want to reform, but won’t for that reason. They’d rather tell a story that makes no sense, or fund a such a narrative, and keep their funding and jobs. That’s the scale of the problem we are up against. Forget the right as an issue: the left is the firest problem. I have deletd those I think might have any inkling of understanding or symathy.
If you want a task, write to them all and ask them to justify their positions on MMT – and keep doing it until they do.
Tax Justice Network (TJN)
• Focus: Tax reform, inequality, financial justice
Friends Provident Foundation
• Focus: Fairer/Greener economy; grants available
New Economics Foundation (NEF)
• Focus: Alternative economics; public education
Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR)
• Focus: Public policy, social/economic justice
Joffe Trust
• Focus: Accountability, governance, democracy
Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust / Foundation (JRRT / JRCT)
• Focus: Democratic reform, power structures
Open Society Foundations (UK-facing programmes)
• Focus: Democracy, civic empowerment
Economic Change Unit
• Focus: Changing economic narrative; collaboration with progressive policy groups
Finance Innovation Lab
• Focus: Transforming financial system for public good
Centre for Local Economic Strategies (CLES)
• Focus: Community wealth-building
Positive Money
• Focus: Monetary reform; public education
Reinventing Bretton Woods Committee (selectively)
• Focus: Monetary/financial governance (less grassroots but aligned theme)
Global Justice Now
• Focus: Economic justice, systemic reform
I would add:
Tax Justice UK
Fair Tax Mark
TaxWatch
Good luck
If there is demand – and let me know – I would be willing to think about producing some guidance on this issue for othejrs to follow. All the big NGOs calling for wealth taxes also need to be included. BUT I am away this weekend. And I am told, already, that means quantum biology / economics is my focus.
Many thanks.
I’ll have a go.
As a society we instruct our government to ‘create money’ ie spend into the economy. This spending creates money that is for the benefit of society as a whole, but what successive governments have done, and are still currently doing, is to allow disproportionate, indeed obscene amounts, to be captured by a minority. This minority tries to establish themselves as ‘special’ and ‘deserving’ when, if their contributions to society are examined, they are no such thing.
None of us have any money of our own but what we each do have is permission to acquire, use and keep a portion of society’s money and it is this permission that has been obscured and has allowed the wealthy to exert their influence on the economy.
If the public at large realised that government creates money for society, for all of us, then the fact that government then, completely unjustifiably, allows a few to keep vastly more of it than others should, by rights, bring the pitchforks out.
I don’t think you get MMT yourself.
What makes you think rich and powerful people who control commerce are not simply going to pass on the cost, as they do with every other cost?
Taxing the rich won’t work. They will simply pass the cost on to others as they have the power and influence to do so. The legal tax incidence isn’t the economic tax incidence. Everybody passes on the cost to the extent that they have influence to do so.
The net result of any and all tax rises is increased unemployment, since those people getting the boot due to suppressed demand are the ones ultimately who are unable to pass on the cost.
That is maintained systemically by keeping policy so tight that there are always fewer jobs than people that want them. With the Job Guarantee this ends and we can reduce inequality.
Perhaps it time to move on with the obsession with taxes. It’s not as if there is a shortage of money.
If you think MMT exists without tax and that there is plenty of money without tax it is you who has not understood a word of MMT.
And you also fail to udnertsand when incidence matters.
Plase don’t waste my time again.
My point is taxing the rich won’t cause doctors to suddenly appear fully formed from the ether. Taxing the rich means they will have less money and that money is deleted, but that’s pretty much it. You need to raise taxes on middle or low income people if you want better services.
For heaven’s sake; have you read nothing I have written? It’s kind of tedious to be told I am not saying something I have been talking about for years.
I’m not very clever, nor economically well educated, but one thing I have become persuaded of over the last 7 decades – it is that low pay and high prices are not currently caused by onerous taxation of the dividends, bonuses and capital gains of the wealthy.
They are due, in our neoliberal dystopia, to profit-gouging, short-termism and moral incompetence.
If I am wrong, then why is pay nowadays so low, and prices so high, in companies where profits, dividends, bonuses, share buybacks, executive remuneration packages, and capital gains are so HIGH?
You are right
Troll?
It seems so.
Richard, you have often pointed out what a powerful lever taxation can (and should) be on an economy and its essential role in relation to inflation.
Recently, you drew attention to the change in tax levels during the neoliberalist experiment from roughly 35+% to 20-ish%.
My question is, do these lower tax rates mean that there is less potential control over inflation than when tax rates are higher?
That appears to be the case in the upper range where high incomes and asset wealth are undertaxed, and house price (jets, yachts, artworks) inflation is marked. But could it more generally be the case?
Sorry Neil, but I do not recognise that data which does not reflect reality, so I can’t answer.
“What does this mean? I suggest that this requires me to talk even more about modern money theory, because knowledge of it is now the way to beat fascism. And that matters.”
And it is required all of us who read and support this blog to talk about it, and spread the word. I have signed up to Your Party, and have made it clear in preliminary discussions at local level, that understanding MMT, and acknowledging its power when deciding policy, is vital for its credibility, and vital if it wants to keep my commitment.
Can I encourage others to do something similar if they have input into any party policy, whether it be Green, Lib Dem or Your Party. Richard cannot do this without support.
Thanks, and appreciated.
‘MMT vs Fascism’ would not be an immediately appealing slogan . Much better – as Aditya Chakrabortty says in the Guardian , to do as Mamdani did – focus on people’s day to day struggles to make ends meet. And this links to the case that people’s own debts – rather the ‘national debt’ is what really matters. And then also pushing back on the ridiculous notion that public services are not part of the economy – not part of GDP – but are a drain on the economy .
Arguing unapologetically that spending to employ all the doctors currently unemployed , treating more people and improving the health of the nation is a damn good thing.
Then don’t back down – as Labour does – when the BBC says ‘but there is no money’. That’s when we can get into ‘anything we can actually do we can afford’ – and into the wider issues as to where the money come from.
Accepted
Slogans are needed
But they’re also not enough
The thinking is needed too…
I find the think tanks who do not get beyond slogans very boring. Few do…
Suggestions for snappy titles and formats:
Loads of Money ( check out the Harry Enfield/Paul Whitehouse ‘80s track, still amusing)
Money-Money-Money (deliberate format change to avoid possible ABBA copyright)
We need to talk about…(just one thing),
The short podcasts of the late Dr Michael Mosley have a catchy slick format that he certainly perfected to provide accessibility, education, and a belief that thgs cld change, presented in an entertaining wrapper.
The Knighthoods’ analogy is a good, powerful example: it presents the familiar; takes us from the known to the unknown; and gives the reader the currency to own the concept( sorry, didn’t mean to pun).
Thanks
I sometimes wonder if it might actually be a good thing that Reform et al does not understand the monetary system, as they could potentially weaponise MMT to create inequality on steroids while funding a remarkable internal security machine. But on balance, I think that the implementation of policies built on a sound understanding of MMT would ultimately open up a debate and people could see a much wider scope of what is possible.
I really wonder why no country has properly attempted some more radical policies founded on an understanding MMT. For some reason people seem far more comfortable experimenting with fascism rather than throwing out neo-liberal economics.
“I sometimes wonder if it might actually be a good thing that Reform et al does not understand the monetary system, as they could potentially weaponise MMT to create inequality on steroids”
20thC fascism did, of course, adopt new economic thinking, partly to entice people sick of conservative austerity but also probably because it couldn’t work within those conservative constraints.
“Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics. There is scarcely anything to object to in it and there is much to applaud.” – Mussolini
and to a US journalist
“You want to know what fascism is like? It is like your New Deal!”
Moselys memorandum contained many progressive ideas, it’s rejection by Labour in favour of sticking to following Conservative economic ideas, caused him to resign and start his own party.
The Nazis essentially copied Mussolini’s economic ideas for their own racist and antisemitic agenda
That doesn’t mean they were rigid adherents, as one example Mussolini strove to put Italy back on the gold standard which proved pretty disastrous and is not Keynesian and generally they adapted progressive economic ideas to suit their purposes.
One can debate why the modern batch of authoritarians has decided not to break with neoliberalism, just tried to modify a bit in most cases, such that it’s been referred to in literature as “National Neoliberalism”, maybe they think it would be too difficult to wean people off neoliberalism or maybe they’re too ‘died in the wool’ conservatives to think of it.
Take a break, Richard. Interesting stats from the Kobeissi Letter just now:-
“BREAKING: US household debt surged +$197 BILLION in Q3 2025, to a record $18.59 trillion.
This puts total household debt up +$642 billion over the last 12 months.
The surge was driven by mortgage debt, which rose +$137 billion, to a record $13.07 trillion.
Credit card debt climbed +$24 billion, to $1.23 trillion, an all-time high.
Student loans jumped +$15 billion, to $1.65 trillion, also a record.
Auto loans remained flat at $1.66 trillion but rose +$11 billion YoY.
Americans are piling on debt at a rapid pace.”
Although the number are different, it is unclear to me where we are at with all of this here in the UK. I do increasingly meet over-indebted people, who can’t create their own money.
That’s an extra $1,888 per peson – and not all are in debt.
That’s entirely correct, of course, but I still worry about personal/family debt. I happen to be the treasurer of a local charity that gives financial grants to young people <25 to help with vocational, educational and sporting activities (we have just bought a violin for a lad and a drum kit (!) for his brother, for instance) – it's a lovely thing to be involved with.
Partly through this connection, but mainly through my job, I do meet and work with people who, for whatever reason (often events beyond their control) have ended up with higher outgoings than their income can really support. These are not the stereotypical "single mothers in social housing" trope that those on the right trot out. Often, these are people who have "middle-class lifestyles" (try and define that though) and have been cynically sold the dream of expensive cars, houses, holidays, clothes, etc. by the advertising sector. They are all, once you scratch the surface, deeply stressed and miserable people – at least the ones who have retained the ability to think for themselves – and feel trapped. Others have been ill, lost a job, or seen a relationship fail (so-called "Grey Divorces" for those in their 60s and 70s are often very difficult just financially speaking).
I believe in plain speaking and, often, sheer greed and hopeless envy has been the driving force. Some can break away from this treadmill, but it is hard for them. I find that the happy people I meet have 'enough' or 'sufficient' – these people all remember that in the long run we are all dead and enjoy giving away stuff they no longer need – three clients are in the process of gifting at total of £1.3m to younger family members and local 'good causes' right now – good for them.
Others, sadly, hoard everything they can like a dragon on a pile of gold and jewels in a fairy tale – an utterly negative and useless thing to do. Hey, ho!
I meet such people, and agree with you.
Advertising is a curse.
Please, please, please can we get “how money works” onto the national curriculums?
Just ask at your local high school is you can deliver some talks to Yrs 10 and 11.
The PSHE lead may well welcome a break from preparing those lessons!
My tuppence worth:
Shall we stop questioning what these right-wing eejits do or don’t know.
They know damned well what they’re doing.
They know damned well how to manipulate a populace.
The opposition needs to adapt and adopt direct tactics. Call them out for being uncaring.
Call them out for wishing to to create an undemocratic state.
Call them out as fascists.
Agreed
Thank you for your reassurance that sterling is safe and supply of money will continue.
We have a baby due in our family of six-footers and I am a little concerned that, upon its birth, there might be a shortage of inches and our grandchild might only be allocated 5’8″ Should my daughter in law go private?
🙂
I don’t have any grandchildren so could lend you plenty of inches, but that would increase the national height deficit.
Im sure they’ll be fine – as long as they have broad shoulders. We all have to grow within our means. The government has no inches of its own.
I think my first comment was too long:
The thing that clicked it for me was the bit about the bond auctions:
The private banks that sell bonds to the secondary markets (“the bond markets”), can only do so *because the government runs a deficit*.
The bond markets only have something to sell *because the government creates a deficit*.
And if the government stopped ‘borrowing’, i.e. issuing bonds, the bond markets would disappear overnight.
The bond markets depend on the governement, not the other way around.
And as you have said many times Richard, ‘debt’ is completely the wrong word to describe what the government is doing.
“Public debt is simply a record of how many bonds the government has issued over time. It’s not that it’s borrowed the money, it actually created the money.”
Spot on
And if the government can create the money, that then goes into private bank accounts, what matters is whose private bank account it goes to.
If it goes to the already rich, it will be used to inflate asset prices.
It needs to go where it will be used to create real human wellbeing in the economy.
That is the case in a bail out.
In day to day terms, the government can pick.
The trouble is, it also too often thsoe paymemts also go to the wealthy.
You tired. I’m not surprised as your output is phenomenal. I understand your drive to write being existential but, having followed your blog for over a year now, I can’t help but notice that your topic range is quite extensive. Probably too extensive, but that’s just my opinion as only you know how much you can handle. I suppose what I’m saying is maybe narrow the focus? Maybe concentrate on what you think is vital ant this juncture and shift some of your boundless energy more towards getting those vital messages spread wider? Again, just my personal view, but I think ‘The Politics of Care’ has legs and will resonate with everyone who gets to hear it. How could it not! And, as I’m sure you realise, my preference is as always, hammering home MMT/money creation/function of tax/true function of bonds etc. Either way, one’s own health has to come first otherwise nothing can be achieved. Look after yourself!
So, what would you cut out?
And why?
I’m an hour ahead here in Frankfurt and am also a bit tired. I’ll respond tomorrow
With a little help from ChatGPT. Summary below…
In consideration that now more than ever Richard Murphy’s commentary on Neoliberalism, Political Economy, MMT and Democracy is vital, which of the themes you have identified he covers should he drop in order to effect real change?
Looking across his writing and videos, nine broad themes emerge: tax justice, macroeconomics and political economy, the Green New Deal, corporate accountability, tax havens, UK politics and democracy, inequality and welfare, campaigning, and methodological reflections. All are valuable, but not all are equally urgent or high-impact at this point in time.
To sharpen his influence, it might be worth concentrating on four interconnected cores:
1. Political economy and neoliberalism – exposing how economic narratives serve power and reshape democracy.
2. Money and MMT-informed fiscal realism – explaining how states actually fund themselves and countering the “household budget” myth that drives austerity.
3. Democracy and the politics of care – linking economic reform to civic renewal and wellbeing.
4. Tax and fiscal policy – used as applied examples of political economy and MMT in practice.
Other areas—corporate accounting, tax havens, and routine meta-commentary—could safely recede into the background or appear only when directly illustrative of the above. Themes such as inequality, welfare, and the Green New Deal remain essential but might be woven into these core narratives rather than treated as separate silos.
By narrowing focus, he could replace volume with depth: perhaps fewer daily posts but richer weekly essays, and videos that clearly connect economics to democracy and everyday life. This would preserve the analytical breadth of his work while giving it sharper public resonance and greater personal sustainability.
In short, the world urgently needs his voice clarifying how neoliberalism, money, and democracy intersect. Streamlining around that purpose could make his arguments not smaller—but stronger, more strategic, and ultimately more transformative.
Simon
I am taking thqt one away to think about.
Thank you
Richard
Not the country walks. Get out more. Stay healthy and safe
Fascism wins with big money on its side and in the streets.
Richard Murphy needs help and everyone here should contribute to help him .
Richard in turn needs to subcontract some of his activities. He needs to become an editor not the only journalist.
I promise you, I hate editing, and it takes vastly longer than writing.
I can’t believe that writing your opinions or even speaking them to camera is what’s tiring.
I was listening to a conversation Heather Cox Richardson was having with a lawyer friend of hers and she was saying that she feels that she has to write every day. The well of her learning must be very deep, and she always seems to be able to link the news of the day to some past echo, and cast a new light on the topic.
My guess is that she feels impelled to speak her truth – what the world does with it is beyond her control. By then, she’s on to the next issue.
Just focus on telling your truth – what the world does with it is up to us.
Thanks.
She is one who feels as I do.
So does Rbert Reich.
And actually, Paul Krugman seems too as well – even if much is just noise.
When your head is full of ideas – and mine always is, even when tired – they have to go somewhere.
Here’s my tuppence ha’penny. As someone who got ill through doing too much, I am trying to learn to do less and to prioritise, to do the things that will make the most difference (to me and my nearest and dearest). I haven’t an important mission but you have, and you have the capability and intellectual rigour to deliver it. In my opinion your role in communicating the message about moving away from Neo-liberalism economic theory to one that creates greater equality and social justice is the number one priority for the country and those who care about it. So if I were to choose a priority for you I’d choose the work you are doing to communicate what governments should be doing about that. I find your articles on other topics, fascism, Gaza, etc. interesting but I read about these topics elsewhere. As a non-economist, for me, Funding the Future brings together all the knowledge I want and need to understand and communicate how a moral, ethical and just economic system of national funding and taxation can be created and should work which I can’t find elsewhere in one place. I’m not saying that I don’t value the other topics you write about. The fact that agree with your views on these serves to confirm my faith in your values. However, the reason I gravitate to your writings above any others is because you bang on about how unjust and wrong the current economic system is and I can’t find any other sources that consolidate all the various threads, that educate and provide the the necessary thinking on this topic. Beating that particular drum really matters.
Thank you.
Appreciated.
I took a deep breath at Centre for a Better Britain. Better for whom? Could this be another right wing ‘attack dog’ passing off as a think tank? According to the Financial Times, the organisation is planning “Trump-style” changes to British government. The Times has described the scale of its ambitions as having “echoes of Project 2025”, the political initiative behind the second Trump presidency. Oh.
The Campaign for Better Britain chairperson is Cambridge academic, James Orr. Orr is an associate professor of Philosophy of Religion in the Faculty of Divinity. His is at the forefront of shaping up a UK-based religious conservatism. It is reported that Orr has a very close personal friendship with JD Vance and is nicknamed Vance’s “philosopher king” and his “British sherpa”.
Not based in Tufton Street. But around the corner in the same London office building as the Reform party. What’s more, it is listed as a private limited company rather than a charity, per the think tank norm, to avoid constraints on political partiality.
Having had the privilege of living in Japan, I find the way UK politicians, never mind Farage and his ilk, talk about national debt and deficit spending genuinely baffling.
When you compare the UK’s debt-to-GDP ratio of around 95% with Japan’s roughly 240%, the contrast is stark. Yet in Japan there is no hysteria or endless moralising about “living within our means.” Despite being governed by conservatives for most of its post-war history, Japan’s political class shows a healthy scepticism toward fiscal hawks. They understand that government debt issued in your own currency is not inherently dangerous; it is a tool.
That pragmatic attitude has allowed Japan to sustain strong public investment, maintain low unemployment, and avoid the destructive austerity cycles that have defined British politics. Their focus tends to be on what the government spends on and who benefits, rather than obsessing over the size of the debt itself.
In the UK, by contrast, debt is treated like a moral failing rather than a policy instrument. The result is a political culture paralysed by fear: fear of deficits, fear of ambition, fear of doing anything that might challenge neoliberal orthodoxy. And that is where I completely agree with you Richard. This is not just bad economics; it is dangerous politics.
When people are conditioned to believe their government “cannot afford” to invest in them, it breeds resentment and hopelessness, creating fertile ground for authoritarian populism. Economic literacy becomes a form of democratic defence. Understanding that countries like the UK and Japan can use fiscal policy creatively and responsibly is key to breaking that fear cycle.
If we want to resist the slide into reactionary politics, we have to stop treating money as magic and start treating it as a tool for collective good. Japan shows that fiscal realism and political stability can coexist. I only hope that an independent Scotland can learn that lesson too, though our own political class still has some growing to do before it truly understands it.
I managed to miss this out somehow: https://youtu.be/9TDSGSg6rr4?si=PylSWgXG8Aqyg9Od
Scroll down the show notes and watch from 39:55 “We have a private debt, not public debt problem”
Brilliant explanation by Steve Keen. Worth watching because it is so clear, and can be used as source material for people like us to help out people like you Richard.
there’s ‘dbt’
& then there’s
gov’t dbt
[…] I have been reflecting on a comment Simon Slade made here a day or two ago. We had quite a long discussion about that over tea out this afternoon […]