advertisement


By how much should the Bank of England increase interest rates in a traditional monetarist economy

A few other members have asked the same question. Team MMT's first response was...you're asking the wrong question. They have now moved onto...it's happening right now in the UK because the government issues its own currency, which is clearly specious. The short answer to your question is no.

Thank you. For some reason I keep thinking of Scientology indoctrination on the one hand, and Stalin's 5-year plans on the other.
 
A few other members have asked the same question. Team MMT's first response was...you're asking the wrong question. They have now moved onto...it's happening right now in the UK because the government issues its own currency, which is clearly specious. The short answer to your question is no.
Our Government does issue its own currency.
 
Thank you. For some reason I keep thinking of Scientology indoctrination on the one hand, and Stalin's 5-year plans on the other.
Or government does issue it’s own currency. If you think that is Scientology or Stalinism I can’t help you.
 
A few other members have asked the same question. Team MMT's first response was...you're asking the wrong question. They have now moved onto...it's happening right now in the UK because the government issues its own currency, which is clearly specious. The short answer to your question is no.
You seem very obsessed about MMT. You keep going on and on about MMT, despite showing very little understanding about it. There is no “have now moved on to”. The very starting point of understanding MMT is that our government issues it’s own currency. It is page 1. It has been repeated here many, many times. You have failed to understand the most basic point about MMT, which is that what follows on from that fact of currency creation is the logic that tax does not our government fund spending. But rather than bringing up MMT again and again, perhaps here, a thread about monetarism, might be just the place for you to speak to the monetarist view that taxes are functional to funding spending?
 
You believe that the measures used to calculate the number of unemployed are the same now as say, several decades ago?
I believe the ONS numbers are reasonably accurate and the evidence of my own eyes. I can tell you at first hand that the factory where I am currently working has full time vacancies. As did the one before in E Anglia, and the one befire that in Wales. Both those places will bus people from neighbouring towns. I can tell you that Wren Kitchens of Scunthorpe are leafletting people leaving work in the local industrial estates with flyers saying "Come and work for us, we pay £X an hour which is more than you get here". So that's 4 locations in my direct personal experience, this year. Why are Wren Kitchens feeling the need to employ people dishing out flyers? If we have significant unemployment in Scunthorpe then it should be a matter of a phone call to the Job Centre. Yet you're still suggesting that there is mass unemployment. Where, and what are your measures or personal experience that support this?
 
I believe the ONS numbers are reasonably accurate and the evidence of my own eyes. I can tell you at first hand that the factory where I am currently working has full time vacancies. As did the one before in E Anglia, and the one befire that in Wales. Both those places will bus people from neighbouring towns. I can tell you that Wren Kitchens of Scunthorpe are leafletting people leaving work in the local industrial estates with flyers saying "Come and work for us, we pay £X an hour which is more than you get here". So that's 4 locations in my direct personal experience, this year. Why are Wren Kitchens feeling the need to employ people dishing out flyers? If we have significant unemployment in Scunthorpe then it should be a matter of a phone call to the Job Centre. Yet you're still suggesting that there is mass unemployment. Where, and what are your measures or personal experience that support this?

I didn’t say they weren’t
 
In fact sod it, it couldn't be plainer:
I didn’t say they weren’t
Yes you did:
Which is why I put in the word “real”. What you have quoted are our Tory Government statistics on Unemployment that have been manipulated time and time again. This government definition of full employment means people being employed, but having several jobs or being dependant of food banks or being in low paid jobs, or having an insecure job, a job on zero hours contracts.

As you say this is full employment, and seem quite happy with Tory definitions I will leave you to it.
It's there in plain English.
 
I didn’t say they weren’t
So I suggest that we have full employment because UK vacancies >UK unemployment, you tell me that you don't disbelieve these numbers, so where's the mass unemployemnt of which you speak? I'll tell you what, if this current government is monetarist (I think they are) and monetarism requires mass unemployment in ordre to function, then the current lot are doing a really, really crap job in trying to maintain it.
 
In fact sod it, it couldn't be plainer:

Yes you did:

It's there in plain English.
Exactly. Do you believe that the same measure of unemployment has been used for the last 50 years? The definition of unemployment has changed.

I also said that current statistics don’t include underemployment or low pay. Are you saying they do?

The fact of the matter is that some companies have got too used to paying people low wages and using zero hours contracts, and can’t survive when it comes to paying a decent wage to attract workers.
 
So I suggest that we have full employment because UK vacancies >UK unemployment, you tell me that you don't disbelieve these numbers, so where's the mass unemployemnt of which you speak? I'll tell you what, if this current government is monetarist (I think they are) and monetarism requires mass unemployment in ordre to function, then the current lot are doing a really, really crap job in trying to maintain it.

I think you are more interested in ranting at me rather than reading what I have said. So I am going to leave you to it after this post. But before I do leave you I notice you have introduced mass unemployment. While it is true that I have made reference to mass unemployment as a feature on monetarism in the past, when I have been posting here I have very clearly been talking about an economy that is low pay. On another occasion I would love to discuss the historic role of mass unemployment in monetarism, but now is not the time.
 
Exactly. Do you believe that the same measure of unemployment has been used for the last 50 years? The definition of unemployment has changed.
That's irrelevant. Historical changes aren't under discussion. You are saying we have mass unemployment. I'm saying not. The ONS says not.

You say one thing, then deny it, then say it again. How is anyone to have a discussion with you?
Are the ONS figures a reliable indication of unemployment, today, or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.

I also said that current statistics don’t include underemployment or low pay. Are you saying they do?
I'm not saying anything about that, I'm saying that 4 places I know at first hand in 4 corners of the country cannot recruit enough full time staff.


The fact of the matter is that some companies have got too used to .......text removed..... using zero hours contracts...
The 4 places I am talking about are all offering full time work.
 
I think you are more interested in ranting at me rather than reading what I have said. So I am going to leave you to it after this post. But before I do leave you I notice you have introduced mass unemployment. While it is true that I have made reference to mass unemployment as a feature on monetarism in the past, when I have been posting here I have very clearly been talking about an economy that is low pay. On another occasion I would love to discuss the historic role of mass unemployment in monetarism, but now is not the time.
No ranting from me, but enjoy your flounce.
 
Or government does issue it’s own currency. If you think that is Scientology or Stalinism I can’t help you.

I don't need any help, thanks. What I meant, and you will observe that I was not responding to you but to another poster, was that in your and a few others' posts about the great validity of MMT and the intrinsic evils of any other economic viewpoint, there is a flavour of authoritarian indoctrination rather than discussion, and an underlying "we know better." Supported by a few catchphrases like "state spending is not funded by taxation," which is absurd, and "Our government issues the currency," which is as obvious as it is meaningless. Combined with a tendency to evade questions and issues that threaten the doctrine.
 


advertisement


Back
Top