I don’t get this mate. If we have a minimum wage and those in full time work need universal credit then isn’t that the government admitting minimum wage isn’t enough? It would seem a strange thing to do. But universal credit does seem like it’s been a problem child since birth so nothing would surprise me
The concept of part time work being topped up is a good thing but I do disagree with the tax payer footing the bill for low pay of full time employment if that is the case.
Increase minimum wages, and make employers claim universal credit (but that would need some control on profits, and subsidy for new SMEs...)I don’t get this mate. If we have a minimum wage and those in full time work need universal credit then isn’t that the government admitting minimum wage isn’t enough? It would seem a strange thing to do. But universal credit does seem like it’s been a problem child since birth so nothing would surprise me
The concept of part time work being topped up is a good thing but I do disagree with the tax payer footing the bill for low pay of full time employment if that is the case.
And you think the Labour Party lives in the 1970s.Let’s start with your magic money tree. You’re wrong. The way governments get money is by selling bonds/gilts to investors. In return for said investors cash the government pledges to pay an interest rate. The more you borrow the more likely your interest rate will increase. Both the coupon value and principal are in native currency and so said investors will hedge this risk (in our case a US investor would look to sell GBP and buy USD, particularly if they saw volatility in that). This puts downward FX rate pressure on your currency making exports more expensive. And you need exports to attract new money into an economy. Now over time governments gradually increase money supply and this creates an inflationary effect, the key is to keep this money creation slow enough that the economy doesn’t overheat and buyers of government debt believe in your policy to prevent costly debt (if you can sell it at all). Just printing a trillion £ will result in no buyers of government debt, a need to print more money to pay the bills and hyper-inflation. Now the government does have effectively an overdraft with the BOE that it can use for short term borrowing of its own money to prevent spikes in its gilt costs and that was increased during COVID however the money still needs to be borrowed and it was done so last year. So there is no magic money tree and until socialist realise this and stop being so naive of the world around them just because they don’t like it.
Now onto democratic socialism. I’m genuinely interested in how you see this working. I understand the concept of workers owning the companies they work “for”, and don’t have any issue with that concept.
We have two fundamental items at play here. The first is the workers need paying and the second is the workers need to produce something that people will buy (and critically we can export). However we know that not all companies make a profit and this is especially true at the outset. So as your system values jobs over profit it can only be assumed that all profit is collected and distributed via a national payroll? Who decides what companies are viable? I might decide to setup a company making umbrellas made from tracing paper and employee 10000 people on my first day and as you value jobs over profit you’ll support me right? Even thou I’ll never make a profit in a million years because it’s a shit product. On top of this you have government buying up all the remaining labour force to provide a fire service, healthcare, police, teachers, bin collections, lifeboats, and the such as this is public service there will be no profit (nor should there be) and that will get paid for from said profit? Who decides how many teachers or doctors we need? If we aren’t making enough profit to pay everyone how do we fix that problem? Are we all getting paid the same? Who decides how much we get paid?
Do we all live in houses that look the same (drab concrete blocks) that cost the same and drive trabants that cost the same by chance in this system?
Universal Credit is corporate welfare.
Conservatives are not opposed to welfare per se, they would just prefer it didn‘t go to the poor, or as we have seen recently, to feed poorer children.
Increase minimum wages, and make employers claim universal credit (but that would need some control on profits, and subsidy for new SMEs...)
And there was me genuinely interested in how you would see it working. I’m the first to admit I accept the status quo but I also appreciate that acceptance being challenged with different ideas.And you think the Labour Party lives in the 1970s.
I will get back to you later ;)And there was me genuinely interested in how you would see it working. I’m the first to admit I accept the status quo but I also appreciate that acceptance being challenged with different ideas.
I will get back to you later ;)
Got some stuff to do. I used to own a Trabant btw, cost me 4 pints of Robbies Bitter.
That is old fashioned orthodoxy, i am fascinated by although nowhere near fully across Modern Monetary theory. I just haven't had the time to let it all sink it. Hence my rather flippant 1970s reply earlier.Let’s start with your magic money tree. You’re wrong. The way governments get money is by selling bonds/gilts to investors. In return for said investors cash the government pledges to pay an interest rate. The more you borrow the more likely your interest rate will increase. Both the coupon value and principal are in native currency and so said investors will hedge this risk (in our case a US investor would look to sell GBP and buy USD, particularly if they saw volatility in that). This puts downward FX rate pressure on your currency making exports more expensive. And you need exports to attract new money into an economy. Now over time governments gradually increase money supply and this creates an inflationary effect, the key is to keep this money creation slow enough that the economy doesn’t overheat and buyers of government debt believe in your policy to prevent costly debt (if you can sell it at all).
Just printing a trillion £ will result in no buyers of government debt, a need to print more money to pay the bills and hyper-inflation. Now the government does have effectively an overdraft with the BOE that it can use for short term borrowing of its own money to prevent spikes in its gilt costs and that was increased during COVID however the money still needs to be borrowed and it was done so last year. So there is no magic money tree and until socialist realise this and stop being so naive of the world around them just because they don’t like it.
I think owning is a bit too far, having a stake is better wording, if you have a stake in the venture you are more likely to work harder to make it succeed. Have a Democratically elected board and management who make decisions on what direction the venture goes, if it is reinvestment or paying out as in profit sharing.Now onto democratic socialism. I’m genuinely interested in how you see this working. I understand the concept of workers owning the companies they work “for”, and don’t have any issue with that concept.
Capitalism thinks in terms of profit, Socialism thinks in terms of each according to his needs. If you follow the above, a democratically elected management doing what is best for society then profit does not become an issue. If there is enough for everyone of everything then profit is irrelevant because everyone has what they need. Any extra money or profit if you wish to call it that can be put into things that benefit society, like the arts, like parks, libraries, museums. Wages will be awarded democratically, if somebody works hard, then they can earn more, if somebody slacks then they get paid less. Wages though should not really be an issue as you have everything you need anyway. If the Democratically elected management decide to pay themselves more than the office cleaner, then vote them out and vote the cleaner in.We have two fundamental items at play here. The first is the workers need paying and the second is the workers need to produce something that people will buy (and critically we can export). However we know that not all companies make a profit and this is especially true at the outset. So as your system values jobs over profit it can only be assumed that all profit is collected and distributed via a national payroll? Who decides what companies are viable?
Why would you want to, there is already an umbrella factory that exists that supplies perfectly good umbrella's to whoever needs one. As their is full employment, where will you get the workers from?I might decide to setup a company making umbrellas made from tracing paper and employee 10000 people on my first day and as you value jobs over profit you’ll support me right?
Save your money, go and look at the nice art gallery in town or go for a picnic in one of the brilliant parks.Even thou I’ll never make a profit in a million years because it’s a shit product.
Democratically elected officials decide.On top of this you have government buying up all the remaining labour force to provide a fire service, healthcare, police, teachers, bin collections, lifeboats, and the such as this is public service there will be no profit (nor should there be) and that will get paid for from said profit? Who decides how many teachers or doctors we need? If we aren’t making enough profit to pay everyone how do we fix that problem? Are we all getting paid the same? Who decides how much we get paid?
You live in the house you need. If you have two kids, you live in a three bedroom house. If you live on your own you live in a one bedroomed house.Do we all live in houses that look the same (drab concrete blocks) that cost the same and drive trabants that cost the same by chance in this system?
That is old fashioned orthodoxy, i am fascinated by although nowhere near fully across Modern Monetary theory. I just haven't had the time to let it all sink it. Hence my rather flippant 1970s reply earlier.
Out of the EU it is possible,
- MMT is a big departure from conventional economic theory. It proposes governments that control their own currency can spend freely, as they can always create more money to pay off debts in their own currency.
Nearly perfect for Socialism
- The theory suggests government spending can grow the economy to its full capacity, enrich the private sector, eliminate unemployment, and finance major programs such as universal healthcare, free college tuition, and green energy.
struggling to get my head around that, but i suppose its maths
- If the spending generates a government deficit, this isn't a problem either. The government's deficit is by definition the private sector's surplus.
Increased government spending will not generate inflation as long as there is unused economic capacity or unemployed labour, MMT proposes. It is only when an economy hits physical or natural constraints on its productivity — such as full employment — that inflation happens because that is when supply fails to meet demand, jacking up prices.
This is logical , we have loads of spare employment capacity and a lot of underemployment. i.e Zero Hours contracts
MMT proponents argue governments can control inflation by spending less or withdrawing money from the economy through taxes
If the economy overheats then again this logical. Although obviously I would raise taxes rather than spend less on public services, but that is my ideological thinking.
I think owning is a bit too far, having a stake is better wording, if you have a stake in the venture you are more likely to work harder to make it succeed. Have a Democratically elected board and management who make decisions on what direction the venture goes, if it is reinvestment or paying out as in profit sharing.
Capitalism thinks in terms of profit, Socialism thinks in terms of each according to his needs. If you follow the above, a democratically elected management doing what is best for society then profit does not become an issue. If there is enough for everyone of everything then profit is irrelevant because everyone has what they need. Any extra money or profit if you wish to call it that can be put into things that benefit society, like the arts, like parks, libraries, museums. Wages will be awarded democratically, if somebody works hard, then they can earn more, if somebody slacks then they get paid less. Wages though should not really be an issue as you have everything you need anyway. If the Democratically elected management decide to pay themselves more than the office cleaner, then vote them out and vote the cleaner in.
Why would you want to, there is already an umbrella factory that exists that supplies perfectly good umbrella's to whoever needs one. As their is full employment, where will you get the workers from?
Save your money, go and look at the nice art gallery in town or go for a picnic in one of the brilliant parks.
Democratically elected officials decide.
You live in the house you need. If you have two kids, you live in a three bedroom house. If you live on your own you live in a one bedroomed house.
If you want a trabant then get one, but why would you when you can have a good car made by a decent company in Salford.
Obviously i need to work on this a lot, this is just the basic jist of how i think. MMT does intrigue me though and i need to learn loads more about it. So excuse my lack of knowledge around it. If you want to check it out there is stuff on you tube you can watch that is hard going but enlightening.