Over the last day or so, a host of trolls have appeared in the comments on this channel, all questioning my views on modern monetary theory, national debt, and related issues, even though I have patiently laid out all my arguments. None of them actually engage with the arguments. They just post wholly unsupported opinions, while sometimes making entirely unsupported claims about their authority to do so.
I am bored by this, so I give due notice. These people can continue to post their comments, but I will delete them without hesitation. I enjoy providing a comments facility here, but I do not have time to waste on people like this.
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 deleting the trolls is a good idea. How do you handle this on YouTube? Is there a way to delete the trolls on YouTube or do you just have to live with it?
I live with it. It would take too much time to control. The same is true on all platforms but here.
I have read your article on austerity with interest. I would like to agree with you, but I am confused about how we could get from here to there. Employing (and training) more teachers, carers, probation officers, nurses, etc, not of courses forgetting cellists, sounds like a great idea and I understand that it would make financial sense in the long run, by reducing crisis and increasing well being, but I am confused about the initial process of payment. Would that be by ‘printing money’? Or by increased borrowing? And is it your view that we could ride any storms that might arise through bond market reactions?
See my other posts yesterday that I think answer your questions
As if you havn’t got enough to deal with. Nothing more upsetting than deliberate time-wasters. Regulars on this blog can spot them from a mile away.
They must be worried if they are unable to engage properly, thus resorting to trolling. There’s an old saying that nobody ever kicks a dead dog, if you get the meaning of that saying.
I now realise I made a lot of people very angry yesterday…there is a blog post to come.
It makes me angry that some people want to try to shut you down. The only comfort is that it shows they are rattled and are taking you seriously. While there are individuals who love to be contrary I suspect that some powerful vested interests are feeding them.
Fair enough! You are not obligated to put up with nonsense, complete lack of awareness must be called out Richard!
Build an expert system to ID the trolls couple it to an AI that initiated a DoS attack on the trolls. That’d learn em. (There are a couple of other things I could propose – but this is a family orientated blog).
I do not believe an expert system would get it right, Mike
Too much judgment is required.
I’m confused as to how you do the following simultaneously when inflation shows up:
1. Increase the tax take to destroy more money than before
2. Avoid austerity by ensuring that government spending always rises by more than the increase in the tax take.
These seem arithmetically incompatible to a common-sense minded person.
If other commenters could explain then it would save time for yourself Richard.
The apparent contradiction comes from assuming that avoiding austerity means government spending must always rise faster than tax. It does not.
Austerity means deliberately cutting the provision of public services and investment because of supposed financial constraints. I oppose that. But that does not mean government spending must increase faster than taxation in every circumstance.
Suppose inflation arises because there is too much overall demand for the resources available. Government might then increase taxes, particularly on those with the greatest capacity to spend, to reduce private demand. At the same time, it could maintain, or even increase, spending on the NHS, education, social care, investment and other priorities.
The result could be that taxation increased by more than government spending. That would not necessarily be austerity. Public services could still be improving.
There is another crucial point. Inflation does not always require higher taxes. If it results from an energy price shock, food shortages, monopoly pricing or supply disruption, reducing demand through taxation may be the wrong response altogether.
So there is no arithmetic rule saying spending must always rise faster than tax.
The objective is to balance demand for real resources with their availability, whilst maintaining the public services and investment that people need.
That is fiscal policy. Austerity is something quite different.
This is the right choice in my opinion.
Discussing with people that don’t want to argue is completely superfluous.
Giving them a stage doesn’t improve anything in them, it makes it even worse as one can see with the rise of the extreme right.
Surely they’re then big fans of Monty Python:
“Help, help, I’m being repressed!”
The “funny” thing is, that it’s themselves who are repressive by not allowing any other opinion.
Let them be miserable if they so chose.
And remind yourself every once in a while that there are people supporting and willing to constructively argue with you. 🙂