Well, no, not really

You’ve not addressed it:

Richard Murphy says:
October 20 2019 at 10:56 am
He also chose badly

And what this shows is that markets are not able to support such activity

Hence the need for an active state backed investment bank issuing its own bonds

I think you’ll find I have addressed this issue

Because you’ve not worked out how to make sure the state doesn’t make bad investments. After all, the idea that John McDonnell knows how to invest for our pensions is pretty much of a stretch, isn’t it…..

Price fixing always works so well, doesn’t it?

It’s called a Green New Deal, of course.

Start insulating houses in these places. Create jobs.

Build the infrastructure for the growing home holiday market we are going to have to have whilst we’re at it. That’s improved public transport. And facilities.

And at the same time regulate this debt: better fix the price that can be paid.

And we’re going to do really, really, well when politicians get to pay for things by increasing the base money supply and can only control the resultant inflation by raising taxes.

Those holding bonds with a fixed rate of interest are going to do really, really, well under that set of incentives, aren’t they?

How does this work then?

The choice is now between the NHS and US health care.

What portion of EU law means we must have the NHS and not US style health care?

Worker rights or US-style employment arrangements.

All EU derived workers’ rights – many of which we overperform on anyway – are already transposed into British law.

Care for the environment or no future at all.

The EU is the only fount of care for the environment?

Concern for the whole country or the interest of tiny minority, some of whom control too many of our newspapers.

The interests of that plurality that voted to leave?

One person had a good day. Keir Starmer shone out from the Labour benches. He was reasoned, considerate, fair to all sides of the House, and tore to shreds the Tory claims – which, despite his invitation that they do so, they did not defend. You could just say it was a lawyer’s speech. It was more than that. It was excellent politics. I admit that for the first time I am persuaded that he is the leader Labour now needs.

Gimmie Vermine!

BTW, has he told the SNP he’s agin Scots independence yet?

This parliament has to build on that. And he has to be completely defeated – by the people of this country as a whole – to ensure that he and those he represents never again get the chance to ruin the four countries within our Union. I am sincerely hoping they are up to the task.

Does Snippa even realise it yet?


And do you really think piles of cash will stop that climate crisis? Really? How? Please tell, because 97%+ of the world’s climate scientists disagree with you. Are you one of them?

If piles of cash won’t stop climate change then why’s he sop insistent on spending everything everyone has to prevent climate change?

The Green New Deal is rather the argument that cash will solve the problem, isn’t it?

Seriously stupid

The essence of sustainable cost accounting is simple. It would require that every large business prepare a plan to show how it would manage the consequences of climate change. That plan would have to state how it might become net carbon-neutral by a specified date, both within its own business and within its supply chain.

We don’t actually want each part of the system to become carbon neutral.

The desire is that the system as a whole becomes carbon neutral.

Think slightly differently about the wider sustainability idea. Say, the use of metals – as the Club of Rome did.

So, do we want washing machine makers to be recycling steel so that washing machine manufacturing is using a closed loop?

Nope, we don’t. We’re overjoyed that there is a system to recycle the steel in washing machines of course. Meaning that the wider world of steel use is at least getting closer to being a closed loop system.

But we’d be mad to insist that each and every player in the system had to recycle their own steel. For the division and specialisation of labour is a real thing.

So too with this narrower idea of carbon neutrality. Division and specialisation. An airline doesn’t need to be growing algal jet fuel, or planting trees, or iron fertilising the ocean. Nor retrofitting gas boilers to equal the plane’s emissions.

We want reductions and reversals of emissions to be made where they’re easiest, by those who are best equipped to do them.

Standard, basic, economics. In fact, that damn pin factory again. The divisions and specialisation of labour means we don’t want to try to force every business and or organisation to be carbon neutral. Even as we desire the system as a whole to be so, we still don’t want that from each component.

And as ever if you can’t even understand Adam Smith then you’re not going to have much useful to say about economics.


EU competition regulators on Monday approved a 380-million-euro German bridging loan to Thomas Cook’s German airline Condor, saying the measure would ensure the continuation of air transport services.

Condor ran into a liquidity problem after its parent company and the world’s oldest travel firm Thomas Cook collapsed last month.

In other words, the UK government need not have let Thomas Cook fail. It could have guaranteed a loan that meant it did not have to fall to ABTA, which is guaranteed by the UK government, to spend more than the value of the required loan guarantee to repatriate vast numbers of people who could have instead continued their holidays uninterrupted whilst an orderly reorganisation of Thomas Cook could have been arranged. And EU law permitted that.

It’s often said that the EU obstructs commercial matters to promote competition: the reality is it very clearly takes reality into account. This is a case in point. It’s the UK government and free-market ideologues who promote the idea that the EU is a problem. Very often it is not. And the left should take note.


That a parent company goes bust does not mean that the subsidiary is also bust. That T Cook went bust does not mean that all subsidiaries of T Cook are bust.

Further, that Condor is perhaps viable but that T Cook airline is not are different issues. Whether or not T Cook could have been bailed out by the UK government depends upon whether T Cook was perhaps viable. With that £3 billion hole perhaps not.

Whether or not T Cook airline could have been subsidised depends upon whether T Cook airline was perhaps viable or not.

That a possibly viable subsidiary got support doesn’t mean that a possibly not viable one would be legally able to have the same.

But then, you know, Snippa, accounting, the law……

We can explain this

I could hardly disagree, could I? It’s been more than a decade coming, and about 440 blogs worth of effort here to help keep it going, but the time for the Green New Deal has arrived. And it’s now.

But not a word of it was heard in the Queen’s Speech, which hardly mentioned climate-related issues at all. Which is how out of touch this government is.

The current government disagrees with you Ritchie. That’s why your foolishness is not in the Queen’s Speech.

Therefore no one made a profit out of privatisation

The CBI really needs to learn double entry accounting and something about business valuation before it talks about the costs of nationalisation


But, second, it gets worse. This payment is apparently a ‘cost’ to government. It’s as if the CBI thinks that in every takeover in British history value was destroyed and the acquiring company wrote off the asset bought through the profit and loss account as an expense straight after the purchase. That, of course, is not what happens. And there is good reason for that: valuable property have been acquired, as would also be the case here. In other words, this is not a cost. It is an investment. And the investment goes on the country’s balance sheet in that case. Which means it is not a cost.

Third, the CBI then claim that the interest cost of the acquisition, which would be just £2bn a year, is a burden to be suffered. But that, of course, ignores the fact that these assets acquired have earned a return to date, which is precisely why they attribute such high value to them. In that case they are more than capable of covering a £2bn cost of interest. But the CBI forgets this.

So is any part of the CBI claim as to value, asset accounting or income cost true? No: not a single part is. The CBI apparently does not know how to value assets and account for takeovers, and nor does it realise that costs might have income compared to them.

To describe their claims as a shoddy piece of work worthy of a fail in sixth form business studies is to be too kind to them. It’s just incompetent.

If the CBI does not like nationalisation it will have to do a lot better than that. And understand some basic, but essential accounting as well.

Therefore privatisation was just double entry bookeeping as well, wasn’t it? Govt got what the assets were worth.


I’d pay to see the reaction

Making profit should not now be the primary goal of a business: being net-zero carbon should be

I should add that I have already written to Mark Carney on this issue.

It’s that Pooteresque mixture of idiocy and self-importance……

The actual task – as Stern and others have pointed out – is how to make it profitable to be less carbon emitting. ‘Cuz us humans tend to do more of things that are profitable.


The government has tabled the most extraordinary statutory instrument as a result of Brexit.


And all this will be done without recourse to parliament. There will be non-taxation by Treasury edict without parliamentary consent.

An SI is rule without parliamentary consent.

So, given that near all EU stuff is enacted by SI then that’s near all EU stuff happens without parliamentary consent then, is it?

Quite so

Prominent figures from the arts and academia have piled pressure on Nicola Sturgeon ahead of the SNP conference by publishing their own “declaration of independence”.

The 50 signatories – including actor Brian Cox, author Val McDermid and historian Sir Tom Devine – said staying in the Union meant Scots giving up their right to “decide their own destiny”.

Now put “European” in front of that union and it’s an anathema that anyone should or even could possibly believe that independence might be a reasonable idea.

Odd that, eh?

Well, yes, but

I admire the radicalism of Extinction Rebellion. But, as Roger Hallam explains in the book to which I have linked this morning, whilst its objective is radical social change, and that is almost certainly necessary

Actually, no. Climate change means – if it means anything at all – that we need to reduce emissions. And nowt else.

It’s just an excuse for that radical social change….

Isn’t logic lovely?

Let me deal with the self-interest issue first. Mr Fisher is described as the founder and executive chairman of Fisher Investments and chairman and director of Fisher Investments Europe. I have seen their adverts. They are targetted at the reasonably wealthy soon to be retired person whose portfolio Fishers wish to manage. So Mr Fisher has an alignment of interest with a particular group who want high-interest rates to keep them in retirement and to increase the value of their annuities.

This is the group who have already done best out of the recessionary environment of the last decade.

So, err, they’re arguing for higher interest rates and higher annuity rates because they’ve done so well out of low interest rates and low annuity rates?

First, Mr Fisher’s facts are wrong. Bank margins on lending – which is what motivates them – have not fallen as a percentage or in value terms over the QE period.

Yes, they have. It’s a standard that falling rates compress bank margins. Why? Because a large part of the deposit base doesn’t receive interest. That float of the money passing through our accounts. A fall in lending rates when your cost base is 0% does compress margins.

This is simple well known stuff. But Snippa seems entirely unaware of it. Even though I’m sure I recall him complaining about this at some point in the past.

I won’t be seeking Mr Fisher’s advice any time soon.

And who else should we be ignoring?


And this time I think few doubt recession is coming. It’s hard to see how this combination will fail to deliver the downturn that has been delayed for longer than I suspected, given all the failings of austerity.

What we know is that austerity cannot happen this time. There is nothing left to cut without enormous harm resulting.

Both taxation and government spending as a proportion of GDP are higher than they were under the Brown Terror.

What austerity?

Hmm, well, a point Sirrah.

When the aim was no border in Ireland, Johnson has delivered one. And it will not work. Whilst the compliant will submit to the proposals the whole reason for border checks is that we know there are those who will cheat. Johnson’s plan for checks away from the border provides no mechanism to deal for those who will flout the border for gain. At which point the plan, necessarily, fails. And that’s before the politics are considered.

There are people who cheat on the current border arrangements too. So, the logical difference between the new and the old is what?

For example, those claiming asylum regularly cross national boundaries within the EU. It’s also, inside the Schengen area, illegal to have general checks set up to stop them doing so – that’s to interfere with the free movement of people. It is only allowable to have spot and intelligence led stops.