The reason why it’s a lie is, in the first instance, that the government cannot owe itself money, and yet £735 billion of the so-called national debt is now owned by the government, and so cannot be included in the figure for debt.
When one is out of step with the world a certain puzzling over who is out of step, the world or you, might be useful. Have you done this yet?
And then there’s the fact that almost £200 billion of this supposed debt is actually deposits at National Savings and Investments, and to call that debt is grossly misleading.
And another question. Are deposits at banks borrowings by banks?
Technically, deposits at banks *are* borrowings by banks.
Technically the Bank of England is a separate entity which is subject to company law.
That is the key question, j77. Will the BoE request repayment from the licensed deposit takers?
The problem you have to understand is I think, deep in the Bowels of what passes for a mind there’s that scintilla of doubt – what if MMT (on which the revolution is based) turns out to be a crock of shit? What if every economist, like Tim, in the centre, spent years working on their hypotheses rather than walking out in the first term of their undergraduate degree and therefore may know something I don’t?
I think as with his Dachau doppelgänger there’s a huge amount of fear there which is covered by bluster. What Hannah Arendt called ‘The banality of evil’ is very much alive with Murphy,,,,
VP
I don’t think the doubt is even that deep. Of course, he must know MMT is a crock of shit. All of its exponents do. If they genuinely believed it to be a better explanation of our world, they wouldn’t be so goddamn obnoxious to everyone who asks even the most innocent question about it.
Just like the current campaign for rugby players with dicks to be able to play womens rugby, extraordinary amounts of scorn must be heaped on anyone who questions the orthodoxy. Otherwise, it would be plain that the ‘argument’ is, somehow, both hollow and full of shit.