Skip to content


So, we’ve inflation in the economy. Tsk.

As I argued yesterday, we live in a society in dire need of redistribution of income and wealth. The absence of this is not the only reason why nothing is working in the UK. But without the stimulus serious redistribution of income and wealth would bring to the economy and real people’s lives we will continue to live without hope in the UK. It is as straightforward as that.

Therefore we must redistribute to create stimulus to beat inflation.

9 thoughts on “Ahahahahaha”

  1. “I’ma steal your stuff because I don’t like you having the stuff and I have friends that like your stuff.”

    Checking his Friend List, it starts with “me”, “myself”, and “I”.

  2. @ Grikath
    It also includes anyone whom he thinks likely to give him an honour or even remotely likely to give him a life peerage.

  3. Single man living in house with

    Kitchen diner
    Family room
    FOUR bedrooms

    complains about inequality.

    Where’s that fvckin’ baseball bat? There’s vermine around.

  4. It’s a strange inversion of common sense when someone has worked hard and built up some wealth but becomes less and less worthy of respect because of their hard work.

  5. Tomorrow the non-teaching visiting professor root vegetable will tell us that Space exploration should be left to the State because the State doesn’t blow things up, or if they do it is done courageously. And will find a way to blame Twitter but not Tesla for the RUD.

  6. This from Brian Romanchuk who actually understands MMT:

    Silly “MMT” Drama

    If I were smart, I would skip mentioning this, but there has been some drama between “Richard J. Murphy” and MMT proponents. Since I mentioned him recently, I blundered into creating a moral obligation to dip further into this mess. I do not really know who Richard J. Murphy is, but he apparently is high profile among some section of British progressives, which is the source of the drama. As a crotchety old school Canadian Prairie Populist (who is inexplicably stuck in Montreal), intra-left drama is not something I find surprising nor interesting. The issue here from my perspective is that Murphy is attempting to commandeer “MMT.”

    His latest salvo is publishing an article that is his version of “MMT.” It is basically what you get if you read a bunch of MMT primers written by MMT economists and paraphrase them, and inject random political bits. It has no references, nor is there any reason to believe it is reliable. (About the only reason I will read a MMT primer again is if I write a new edition of my “MMT books,” so I am not interested in wading through the text to find issues.)

    This passage demonstrates that Murphy understands the accounting side of “MMT operations analysis” — not a big ask for a part time professor of accounting — but does not grasp economic theory nor its context. If literally everyone who has studied economic theory and is sympathetic to MMT states that the Job Guarantee is a core part of MMT and you do not understand them, the correct response is to reduce your ignorance, and not write a primer on MMT.

    Richard Murphy attempting to re-invent MMT is not a problem for me — I’ll just go back to ignoring his output. I doubt that he could get anything past peer review in a real economic journal, so this is not really a concern for academics either. The only people that seem to be affected are MMT activists, and the “information space” on social media is going to be polluted with yet more incorrect descriptions of MMT. I would argue that this was a somewhat inevitable development, and people need to re-think “branding” around MMT. If you are branding yourself around an abstract theory, you are going to end up splintering over arcane theoretical points sooner or later.

    Yes, the Job Guarantee (JG) is foundational to MMT. It replaces an unemployed buffer stock with an employed buffer stock.

  7. Since I live in the UK, but not without hope, the above is factually incorrect. It is as straightfoward as that.

  8. The problem is that we subsidise consumption and penalise production – that will always cause a shortage.
    I know people who have been living subsidised in London for decades – that is why we have a shortage of homes in London.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *