Advertisement



  1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

The Fight for the NHS/MMT economics

Discussion in 'off topic' started by ks.234, Oct 26, 2021.

  1. Le Baron

    Le Baron pfm Member

    Just to address that directly above. Money transactions don't 'stabilise' the money supply. The idea of 'stabilising' or limiting or controlling the money supply' is a fiction. The BOE and the govt has no real control over supply levels (though it does have power of its issue/destruction. Read well, that is not a contradiction). Money supply control is a monetarist tenet, ideological. It is behind all of the current misconceptions of how monetary operations work and the reason they kept on all the charade of gilt sales 'debt'.

    There's something further up about MMT placing government at the centre of the economy with emphasised power. It's not MMT doing that, in a sovereign monetary system it is just a fact. The question seems pointless. If you decide to have some other authority issuing a money of account, then that authority has monetary/fiscal control. MMT is describing it, not prescribing it. An idea that somehow you 'deregulate' the money system is nonsensical.

    Let's also make a distinction between money used by users as economic actors (and all its transactions) and government as an issue-by-spending entity. There's no debate that spending on social goods by government is for the most part discretionary. I say 'most part' because obviously there is the question of resources that can be mobilised and their natural limit. However since that is not even in question, it is a question of will and priorities, not a financial question. Sovereign governments don't have 'financial concerns'.

    Nice to see the seed has grown.
     
    Sue Pertwee-Tyr likes this.
  2. ks.234

    ks.234 pfm Member

    Welcome back
     
  3. Super Bigote

    Super Bigote New Member

    Nice to see a Terrot.
     
  4. ks.234

    ks.234 pfm Member

    [​IMG]

    We know that government can make money available when it sees fit.

    To deny proper funding of the NHS is a deliberate choice.

    This government is running down the NHS for political reasons, the consequences will be paid by poorer health outcomes for patients and poorer mental health for NHS staff

    Any government that decides to make this happen is immoral.
     
    Snufkin likes this.
  5. Heckyman

    Heckyman pfm Member

    How would running down the NHS be a vote winner at the next election?
     
  6. Snufkin

    Snufkin pfm Member

    Because us Brits have a long record of voting against our own best interests. Back in the 60’s Johnny Speight created a wonderful sitcom based on just that premise.
     
    ks.234 and Heckyman like this.
  7. ks.234

    ks.234 pfm Member

    I didn’t say if it would be a vote winner. I said the NHS is being run down.

    Are you saying that the NHS is NOT being run down?
     
  8. Heckyman

    Heckyman pfm Member

    No!

    You said run down “for political reasons”. I am just trying to understand what you think those reasons are.

    Perhaps Snufkin already answered, although I’d add it’s not so much voting against “our” best interests as the perverse enjoyment of punishing other members of “our” society who are not in our particular clique (for whatever reason).
     
  9. Enfield boy

    Enfield boy pfm Member

    The political reasons being crooks can make more money out of a rigged, privatised system than one free at the point of use, run by the state for the benefit of the public. But I guess you knew that already.
     
  10. Jim Audiomisc

    Jim Audiomisc pfm Member

    The 'reason' is perhaps the one that has driven Government policy for decades now WRT the NHS. That it means they can 'privatise by stealth' under the claim "The NHS doesn't work as things are, it need the 'better' methods provided by outsourcing, PFIs (under various names)." That means staff quit as NHS employees, for example, because the NHS pay is limited and set conditions are poor. But some can then come back as 'contracted out' workers now employed by corporations that the NHS pays for for because Government allow that. The company creams off profits, some of which goes to the relevant MPs, their party, etc. Similary, the NHS contact out work to private hospitals, etc, because they are required to get the treatments done but Government prevent them from having the resources to do the work in-house. Add in that Government now 'loans' money to NHS trusts, and charges interest, all rolled over as a rising debt burden for the NHS but used by Government as a 'credit' to take off Public Debt!

    Its a racket, we and the NHS lose out. The leeches bribe the Tories (inc. ones like T.B. Liar) as a part of the fun in response to getting things this way.

    The 'political' mantra is : private good, state bad.
     
    ks.234 likes this.
  11. ks.234

    ks.234 pfm Member

    Monetarism is ideologically opposed to public spending which sits nicely with the Tory political ideology that sees privatisation as good and social provision as bad.

    The myth that government spending has to be paid for by the taxpayer is part of that ideology. It says that the electorate will have to pay for any government spending. It says that if the electorate dares to vote for increased public spending, it will be presented with a hefty bill.

    By putting a charge on social improvement Tory Monetarism is fundamentally undemocratic.

    As @Jim Audiomisc says, the Tories are running down the NHS by underfunding it and justifying it with a massive lie about the purpose of tax. If voters want improvements to the NHS without being presented with the hefty bill, privatisation is the only option.

    But the truth is that government can fund every need the NHS has without any cost to that taxpayer, which is why defunding the NHS is a political choice. A political choice hiding behind a big lie.
     
  12. Heckyman

    Heckyman pfm Member

    Thanks, and agree that like many other things, it’s a racket, increasingly run for private interests rather than the common good.

    But in the above scenario wouldn’t they be increasing spending, so that even more money can be syphoned away? Especially if said spending needn’t be paid for?
     
  13. ks.234

    ks.234 pfm Member

    They are increasing spending, but not to public services!
     

Share This Page





Advertisement


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice