The UK government is the monopoly issuer of pounds sterling in any form. Only government created pounds can settle tax liabilities or buy government bonds (that you call debt).
The pound is a sovereign, fiat, floating exchange rate, non-convertible currency. It is not 'based on' anything. The government creates money every time it spends. They create money when they pay your salary.
Vast amounts of money are created and destroyed every day of every week of every year.
QE is merely swapping treasury bonds for reserves. It is an asset swap, a reshuffling of the non-government's financial asset portfolio. Nothing more, nothing less. The effect is to drive down long term interest rates and is likely to contribute to deflation due to the loss of interest income to the private sector.
What makes you think it is 'dangerous' and why are you even mentioning it?
The tax system in the neoliberal era has been designed to be non-redistributive. The rich pay far less than they used to under a far far more successful political/economic regime.
If the rich are getting richer than Croesus while we have significant unemployment, underemployment and working poor then they are clearly not paying enough.
If the government needs to supplement the wages of a significant proportion of the population that means the rich business owners aren't paying their employees sufficiently.
It's hard to see that the rich are being hard done by when you look at just those two facts alone.
Minimum wage set by the government? In addition, surely you would understand that if wages went up whole scale so would prices?
Rich people getting richer is only a problem if you are against wealth. Personally I'm not provided it's lawfully made. Relative poverty is s nonsense, the only measure should be absolute poverty.
As for unemployment that has been lowering for some time. In fact in many parts of the country employers are desperate for staff, hence the need for immigrants from Europe.
Under Osborne the rich are paying more than ever before. The cut in the top rate of tax brought in more revenue, not less.
As for governments printing money, if the supply of money isn't controlled then the result is hyper inflation. I'm well aware that a firm link to something intrinsic, like gold, is a thing of the past yet there are limits to what a government can freely do within the international system.
Which brings us back to taxes (and borrowing) which are the means by which a government can raise money.
Dude, you've said you want rational discourse here. But this doesn't come close. You're just throwing out words and phrases.
The UK government is the sole, monopoly issuer of pounds sterling.
But you appear to think that rich people are. That would be counterfeiting.
So square this circle.
Last edited by UGagain on Wed Jul 13, 2016 8:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
UGagain wrote: Eagle was widely derided for not putting forward any policies at her campaign launch, but really I think everybody knows the kind of things she stands for, and she was wise not to mention any of them. Indeed, given the makeup of the electorate, the whole thrust of her campaign should be to try to stop people remembering what she represents, and ideally who she is.
Probably the Grauniad's best columnist these days.
Out of interest, do you regard Eagle as being on the left of the Labour Party, or is she a blairite? Genuine question, opinion seems split amongst people I talk to.
I think she's a repellant non-entity with no policies or principles who is on her way to an ignominious deselection.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
[quote="Sandydragon" Minimum wage set by the government? In addition, surely you would understand that if wages went up whole scale so would prices?
Rich people getting richer is only a problem if you are against wealth. Personally I'm not provided it's lawfully made. Relative poverty is s nonsense, the only measure should be absolute poverty.
As for unemployment that has been lowering for some time. In fact in many parts of the country employers are desperate for staff, hence the need for immigrants from Europe.
Under Osborne the rich are paying more than ever before. The cut in the top rate of tax brought in more revenue, not less.
As for governments printing money, if the supply of money isn't controlled then the result is hyper inflation. I'm well aware that a firm link to something intrinsic, like gold, is a thing of the past yet there are limits to what a government can freely do within the international system.
Which brings us back to taxes (and borrowing) which are the means by which a government can raise money.[/quote]
No. If people have more money they SPEND more money thus creating a greater demand for goods and services.
UGagain wrote: Eagle was widely derided for not putting forward any policies at her campaign launch, but really I think everybody knows the kind of things she stands for, and she was wise not to mention any of them. Indeed, given the makeup of the electorate, the whole thrust of her campaign should be to try to stop people remembering what she represents, and ideally who she is.
Probably the Grauniad's best columnist these days.
Out of interest, do you regard Eagle as being on the left of the Labour Party, or is she a blairite? Genuine question, opinion seems split amongst people I talk to.
I think she's a repellant non-entity with no policies or principles who is on her way to an ignominious deselection.
morepork wrote:The "rich" don't just have more money, they control a lot of essential infrastructure. They control food, energy, and housing. It's not just about tax.
Yes, they own property. M not sure how that distracts from the fact that the rich pay a large amount of money to the treasury.
Is ownership of property VAT exempt in any circumstance?
VAT on property is a massively complex subject. As a very broad rule, domestic property is exempt, commercial property is subject to an option to tax by the owner for the time being, if he opts to tax he can charge VAT on rent but can also recover VAT spent on provision of services for example.
SDLT is now charged on transactions, it is very different from StampDuty in nature, although this probably isn't apparent at domestic buying or selling level. It is basically a transfer tax payable to HMRC. There is no VAT on buying or selling property with limited exceptions.
As for governments printing money, if the supply of money isn't controlled then the result is hyper inflation. I'm well aware that a firm link to something intrinsic, like gold, is a thing of the past yet there are limits to what a government can freely do within the international system.
This is the right in a nutshell.
They throw out these talking points that are meaningless.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
The UK government is the monopoly issuer of pounds sterling in any form. Only government created pounds can settle tax liabilities or buy government bonds (that you call debt).
The pound is a sovereign, fiat, floating exchange rate, non-convertible currency. It is not 'based on' anything. The government creates money every time it spends. They create money when they pay your salary.
Vast amounts of money are created and destroyed every day of every week of every year.
QE is merely swapping treasury bonds for reserves. It is an asset swap, a reshuffling of the non-government's financial asset portfolio. Nothing more, nothing less. The effect is to drive down long term interest rates and is likely to contribute to deflation due to the loss of interest income to the private sector.
What makes you think it is 'dangerous' and why are you even mentioning it?
The tax system in the neoliberal era has been designed to be non-redistributive. The rich pay far less than they used to under a far far more successful political/economic regime.
If the rich are getting richer than Croesus while we have significant unemployment, underemployment and working poor then they are clearly not paying enough.
If the government needs to supplement the wages of a significant proportion of the population that means the rich business owners aren't paying their employees sufficiently.
It's hard to see that the rich are being hard done by when you look at just those two facts alone.
Minimum wage set by the government? In addition, surely you would understand that if wages went up whole scale so would prices? Only happens if demand outpaces supply. And increase in minimum wage would not cause that.
Rich people getting richer is only a problem if you are against wealth. Personally I'm not provided it's lawfully made. Relative poverty is s nonsense, the only measure should be absolute poverty. I would say that wealth should be earned by working, not by owning money. Rich people often do not earn their wealth in this manner, it is normally the money itself that earns its
As for unemployment that has been lowering for some time. In fact in many parts of the country employers are desperate for staff, hence the need for immigrants from Europe.
Under Osborne the rich are paying more than ever before. The cut in the top rate of tax brought in more revenue, not less. Source?
As for governments printing money, if the supply of money isn't controlled then the result is hyper inflation. I'm well aware that a firm link to something intrinsic, like gold, is a thing of the past yet there are limits to what a government can freely do within the international system. Simplistic waffle
Which brings us back to taxes (and borrowing) which are the means by which a government can raise money.They can also simply print it
"Rich people getting richer is only a problem if you are against wealth. Personally I'm not provided it's lawfully made. Relative poverty is s nonsense, the only measure should be absolute poverty."
Concentration of wealth to a smaller number of people is pretty much the same as the goverment wanting to run a surplus. Money from one part of the economy ends up sitting pretty much unused for long periods of time. Or even worse we could see what's happening in NZ whereby people are buying 2nd properties, and because house price inflation is so high they don't even feel the need to rent the houses out. Either way the money sits dead within the economy.
Think of it this way, do you think 1 person will spend £1,000,000 as quickly as 1,000 people will spend £1,000?
Zhivago wrote:
I would say that wealth should be earned by working, not by owning money. Rich people often do not earn their wealth in this manner, it is normally the money itself that earns its
How does one raise funds for investment if money can't earn money? Is not the point of investing is to achieve a return on the investment? And you mayn't like some aspects of the primary and secondary markets when it comes to ownership, and transfer of ownership in capital but they prove useful for such things as pension funds for ordinary working people, bringing in investment, creating democracy of ownership... and not just for feathering the nest of the rich.
I'd understand an argument that wanted to see a lot more wealth made available to business investment, even to tax revenues, and certainly not to see the top 1% acquire still more wealth, I mayn't agree on all points looking to achieve such but I would at least understand it. However to go from that to money shouldn't earn money is baffling, it'd seem just much easier to look at taxing wealth if you wanted to seek a redistribution, but what's the model that should be sought if one considers all returns on investment usury transactions and that usury transactions should be banned?
Anyway, back on topic. The NEC says Corbyn can stand - on the report of the rules that seemed inevitable and I'm mystified that someone apparently thought otherwise.
The anti - Corbyn votes currently look to be split.
The election rules look bizarrely complicated as to who can vote, but the headline is that £25 is now the cost of entryism.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Anyway, back on topic. The NEC says Corbyn can stand - on the report of the rules that seemed inevitable and I'm mystified that someone apparently thought otherwise.
The anti - Corbyn votes currently look to be split.
The election rules look bizarrely complicated as to who can vote, but the headline is that £25 is now the cost of entryism.
There was some scope to read the rules in a number of ways, but it'd have been more than a little wrong had he not been allowed to stand. The £25 fee to join as a voter makes sense too, the £3 nonsense was a nonsense.
Zhivago wrote:
I would say that wealth should be earned by working, not by owning money. Rich people often do not earn their wealth in this manner, it is normally the money itself that earns its
How does one raise funds for investment if money can't earn money? Is not the point of investing is to achieve a return on the investment? And you mayn't like some aspects of the primary and secondary markets when it comes to ownership, and transfer of ownership in capital but they prove useful for such things as pension funds for ordinary working people, bringing in investment, creating democracy of ownership... and not just for feathering the nest of the rich.
I'd understand an argument that wanted to see a lot more wealth made available to business investment, even to tax revenues, and certainly not to see the top 1% acquire still more wealth, I mayn't agree on all points looking to achieve such but I would at least understand it. However to go from that to money shouldn't earn money is baffling, it'd seem just much easier to look at taxing wealth if you wanted to seek a redistribution, but what's the model that should be sought if one considers all returns on investment usury transactions and that usury transactions should be banned?
Nearly all business investment is funded by bank loans these days.
There is a huge difference between rent seeking and investment.
As a keen student of Keynes and his work, you'd know that he spoke of euthanasia of the rentier.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Anyway, back on topic. The NEC says Corbyn can stand - on the report of the rules that seemed inevitable and I'm mystified that someone apparently thought otherwise.
The anti - Corbyn votes currently look to be split.
The election rules look bizarrely complicated as to who can vote, but the headline is that £25 is now the cost of entryism.
I wonder if they will regret the potential split of the anti Corbyn vote? It would have made sense for them to come to an agreement but it will certain,y make the next few months interesting.
UGagain wrote:
If the rich are getting richer than Croesus while we have significant unemployment, underemployment and working poor then they are clearly not paying enough.
If the government needs to supplement the wages of a significant proportion of the population that means the rich business owners aren't paying their employees sufficiently.
It's hard to see that the rich are being hard done by when you look at just those two facts alone.
Minimum wage set by the government? In addition, surely you would understand that if wages went up whole scale so would prices? Only happens if demand outpaces supply. And increase in minimum wage would not cause that.
Rich people getting richer is only a problem if you are against wealth. Personally I'm not provided it's lawfully made. Relative poverty is s nonsense, the only measure should be absolute poverty. I would say that wealth should be earned by working, not by owning money. Rich people often do not earn their wealth in this manner, it is normally the money itself that earns its
As for unemployment that has been lowering for some time. In fact in many parts of the country employers are desperate for staff, hence the need for immigrants from Europe.
Under Osborne the rich are paying more than ever before. The cut in the top rate of tax brought in more revenue, not less. Source?
As for governments printing money, if the supply of money isn't controlled then the result is hyper inflation. I'm well aware that a firm link to something intrinsic, like gold, is a thing of the past yet there are limits to what a government can freely do within the international system. Simplistic waffle
Which brings us back to taxes (and borrowing) which are the means by which a government can raise money.They can also simply print it
Yes, they can simply print it. Do that too often and hyper inflation can be the result.
Zhivago wrote:
I would say that wealth should be earned by working, not by owning money. Rich people often do not earn their wealth in this manner, it is normally the money itself that earns its
How does one raise funds for investment if money can't earn money? Is not the point of investing is to achieve a return on the investment? And you mayn't like some aspects of the primary and secondary markets when it comes to ownership, and transfer of ownership in capital but they prove useful for such things as pension funds for ordinary working people, bringing in investment, creating democracy of ownership... and not just for feathering the nest of the rich.
I'd understand an argument that wanted to see a lot more wealth made available to business investment, even to tax revenues, and certainly not to see the top 1% acquire still more wealth, I mayn't agree on all points looking to achieve such but I would at least understand it. However to go from that to money shouldn't earn money is baffling, it'd seem just much easier to look at taxing wealth if you wanted to seek a redistribution, but what's the model that should be sought if one considers all returns on investment usury transactions and that usury transactions should be banned?
In my ideal world, investments would be taken via loans at a minimum interest rate (to cover administration costs only). These loans would be provided by a mutual credit bank or credit union, democratically run by society as a whole. Something like that.
Sandydragon wrote:
Minimum wage set by the government? In addition, surely you would understand that if wages went up whole scale so would prices? Only happens if demand outpaces supply. And increase in minimum wage would not cause that.
Rich people getting richer is only a problem if you are against wealth. Personally I'm not provided it's lawfully made. Relative poverty is s nonsense, the only measure should be absolute poverty. I would say that wealth should be earned by working, not by owning money. Rich people often do not earn their wealth in this manner, it is normally the money itself that earns its
As for unemployment that has been lowering for some time. In fact in many parts of the country employers are desperate for staff, hence the need for immigrants from Europe.
Under Osborne the rich are paying more than ever before. The cut in the top rate of tax brought in more revenue, not less. Source?
As for governments printing money, if the supply of money isn't controlled then the result is hyper inflation. I'm well aware that a firm link to something intrinsic, like gold, is a thing of the past yet there are limits to what a government can freely do within the international system. Simplistic waffle
Which brings us back to taxes (and borrowing) which are the means by which a government can raise money.They can also simply print it
Yes, they can simply print it. Do that too often and hyper inflation can be the result.
Not in a deflationary economic environment. But obviously you must not print too much too quickly, but that's just a matter of governance.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Anyway, back on topic. The NEC says Corbyn can stand - on the report of the rules that seemed inevitable and I'm mystified that someone apparently thought otherwise.
The anti - Corbyn votes currently look to be split.
The election rules look bizarrely complicated as to who can vote, but the headline is that £25 is now the cost of entryism.
Sandydragon wrote:
Minimum wage set by the government? In addition, surely you would understand that if wages went up whole scale so would prices? Only happens if demand outpaces supply. And increase in minimum wage would not cause that.
Rich people getting richer is only a problem if you are against wealth. Personally I'm not provided it's lawfully made. Relative poverty is s nonsense, the only measure should be absolute poverty. I would say that wealth should be earned by working, not by owning money. Rich people often do not earn their wealth in this manner, it is normally the money itself that earns its
As for unemployment that has been lowering for some time. In fact in many parts of the country employers are desperate for staff, hence the need for immigrants from Europe.
Under Osborne the rich are paying more than ever before. The cut in the top rate of tax brought in more revenue, not less. Source?
As for governments printing money, if the supply of money isn't controlled then the result is hyper inflation. I'm well aware that a firm link to something intrinsic, like gold, is a thing of the past yet there are limits to what a government can freely do within the international system. Simplistic waffle
Which brings us back to taxes (and borrowing) which are the means by which a government can raise money.They can also simply print it
Yes, they can simply print it. Do that too often and hyper inflation can be the result.
They do 'simply print' it (though the terminology is obsolete and emotive) every day of every week of every year.
If you are so worried about money creation, why aren't you screaming to shut down banks?
Hyperinflation is always preceded by a supply shock i.e. shortages of goods. You've just fallen for an irrational fable propagated by neoliberals.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
Zhivago wrote:
I would say that wealth should be earned by working, not by owning money. Rich people often do not earn their wealth in this manner, it is normally the money itself that earns its
How does one raise funds for investment if money can't earn money? Is not the point of investing is to achieve a return on the investment? And you mayn't like some aspects of the primary and secondary markets when it comes to ownership, and transfer of ownership in capital but they prove useful for such things as pension funds for ordinary working people, bringing in investment, creating democracy of ownership... and not just for feathering the nest of the rich.
I'd understand an argument that wanted to see a lot more wealth made available to business investment, even to tax revenues, and certainly not to see the top 1% acquire still more wealth, I mayn't agree on all points looking to achieve such but I would at least understand it. However to go from that to money shouldn't earn money is baffling, it'd seem just much easier to look at taxing wealth if you wanted to seek a redistribution, but what's the model that should be sought if one considers all returns on investment usury transactions and that usury transactions should be banned?
Nearly all business investment is funded by bank loans these days.
There is a huge difference between rent seeking and investment.
As a keen student of Keynes and his work, you'd know that he spoke of euthanasia of the rentier.
Well yes we do use banks to make investments, though the secrets hardly out on that one. And whilst you may assign some morale value to some types of investment over others, and perhaps reasonably so at times, all investment seeks a return else it's just charity, and the systems we have in place which allow for the rent seeking provide liquidity to the investment side.
And yes I've read the odd bit of Keynes, and yes he had issues around the rentier, and inflation, and demand and full employment and so on. But it should be acknowledged that part of what's driving such thinking is not wanting the proles to rise up and seek to install a socialist state. Keynes wants the proles kept busy, kept happy, of course with a chance to progress and towards some notion of social fairness, but also so they don't mess up his nice lifestyle nor that of his equals - which by the by isn't a million miles away from Aristotle.
Digby wrote:
How does one raise funds for investment if money can't earn money? Is not the point of investing is to achieve a return on the investment? And you mayn't like some aspects of the primary and secondary markets when it comes to ownership, and transfer of ownership in capital but they prove useful for such things as pension funds for ordinary working people, bringing in investment, creating democracy of ownership... and not just for feathering the nest of the rich.
I'd understand an argument that wanted to see a lot more wealth made available to business investment, even to tax revenues, and certainly not to see the top 1% acquire still more wealth, I mayn't agree on all points looking to achieve such but I would at least understand it. However to go from that to money shouldn't earn money is baffling, it'd seem just much easier to look at taxing wealth if you wanted to seek a redistribution, but what's the model that should be sought if one considers all returns on investment usury transactions and that usury transactions should be banned?
Nearly all business investment is funded by bank loans these days.
There is a huge difference between rent seeking and investment.
As a keen student of Keynes and his work, you'd know that he spoke of euthanasia of the rentier.
Well yes we do use banks to make investments, though the secrets hardly out on that one. And whilst you may assign some morale value to some types of investment over others, and perhaps reasonably so at times, all investment seeks a return else it's just charity, and the systems we have in place which allow for the rent seeking provide liquidity to the investment side.
And yes I've read the odd bit of Keynes, and yes he had issues around the rentier, and inflation, and demand and full employment and so on. But it should be acknowledged that part of what's driving such thinking is not wanting the proles to rise up and seek to install a socialist state. Keynes wants the proles kept busy, kept happy, of course with a chance to progress and towards some notion of social fairness, but also so they don't mess up his nice lifestyle nor that of his equals - which by the by isn't a million miles away from Aristotle.
The point was that the rent seekers aren't funding investment as you claimed.
And I note that you've made the claim again.
Whilst Keynes was no socialist, his motives can't be so casually described as the selfishness you imply.
His thoughts on full employment aren't at all about 'keeping the prols busy'. So no. I'm not acknowledging your claim.
He also said this, which seems relevant.
“Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work together for the benefit of all.”
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
UGagain wrote:
Nearly all business investment is funded by bank loans these days.
There is a huge difference between rent seeking and investment.
As a keen student of Keynes and his work, you'd know that he spoke of euthanasia of the rentier.
Well yes we do use banks to make investments, though the secrets hardly out on that one. And whilst you may assign some morale value to some types of investment over others, and perhaps reasonably so at times, all investment seeks a return else it's just charity, and the systems we have in place which allow for the rent seeking provide liquidity to the investment side.
And yes I've read the odd bit of Keynes, and yes he had issues around the rentier, and inflation, and demand and full employment and so on. But it should be acknowledged that part of what's driving such thinking is not wanting the proles to rise up and seek to install a socialist state. Keynes wants the proles kept busy, kept happy, of course with a chance to progress and towards some notion of social fairness, but also so they don't mess up his nice lifestyle nor that of his equals - which by the by isn't a million miles away from Aristotle.
The point was that the rent seekers aren't funding investment as you claimed.
And I note that you've made the claim again.
Whilst Keynes was no socialist, his motives can't be so casually described as the selfishness you imply.
His thoughts on full employment aren't at all about 'keeping the prols busy'. So no. I'm not acknowledging your claim.
He also said this, which seems relevant.
“Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work together for the benefit of all.”
Sandydragon wrote:
Out of interest, do you regard Eagle as being on the left of the Labour Party, or is she a blairite? Genuine question, opinion seems split amongst people I talk to.
I think she's a repellant non-entity with no policies or principles who is on her way to an ignominious deselection.
...a Blairite then.
Eagle has voted in favour of the party’s right-wing, pro-business and militarist agenda on every central issue. She famously voted in favour of the Iraq war in 2003. But in addition, according to the They Work For You website, she has “consistently voted against an investigation into the Iraq war,” in September 2014 voted in favour of air strikes in Iraq, in December 2015 voted in favour of air strikes in Syria, supports the retention of the Trident nuclear weapons programme, has “generally voted for a stricter asylum system,” voted in favour of increased university tuition fees, supported the Blair government’s 2006 plan to detain terrorism suspects for up to 90 days without charge, and abstained on the vote on the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition’s 2013 workfare programme and on the vote for the 2015 Welfare Bill.
Her candidacy was planned in secret by the Blairites and Brownites weeks before it was announced. She had even commissioned a website, “Angela for leader”, days before she announced her resignation from Corbyn’s shadow cabinet with tears in her eyes for the cameras.
UGagain wrote:
I think she's a repellant non-entity with no policies or principles who is on her way to an ignominious deselection.
...a Blairite then.
Eagle has voted in favour of the party’s right-wing, pro-business and militarist agenda on every central issue. She famously voted in favour of the Iraq war in 2003. But in addition, according to the They Work For You website, she has “consistently voted against an investigation into the Iraq war,” in September 2014 voted in favour of air strikes in Iraq, in December 2015 voted in favour of air strikes in Syria, supports the retention of the Trident nuclear weapons programme, has “generally voted for a stricter asylum system,” voted in favour of increased university tuition fees, supported the Blair government’s 2006 plan to detain terrorism suspects for up to 90 days without charge, and abstained on the vote on the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition’s 2013 workfare programme and on the vote for the 2015 Welfare Bill.
Her candidacy was planned in secret by the Blairites and Brownites weeks before it was announced. She had even commissioned a website, “Angela for leader”, days before she announced her resignation from Corbyn’s shadow cabinet with tears in her eyes for the cameras.
Eagle herself faces a vote of no confidence in her local Wallasey Constituency Labour Party, which has swelled from 900 members before June 24 to 1,200 today.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
