A word doesn’t fit here

‘discussion’ implies a two-way flow, so this word is clearly inappropriate for a deaf one-directional tirade.

But I’m guessing you are highlighting ‘other’.

I had discussions with other economists yesterday

Did it require the use of a mirror?

There is not and never can be, a shortage of money available to a government of the sort that we have in the UK which has created its own currency, has its own central bank, and has succeeded in both making that currency the dominant medium of exchange in the economy for which is responsible and acceptable for international trade. Such a government can, if it ever wishes to spend more, simply create the money to do so because that is quite literally what it does every single time that it spends. Debate about money as a constraint is, in that context, entirely meaningless.

I am guessing he dominates the conversation as he takes so long to get to the point that people nod just to shut him up – but in response to the above, he clearly lacks knowledge of history as well as economics

That is not, however, to suggest that there are no constraints on the government when it comes to spending. There very clearly are. The actual constraints are represented by the availability of resources on which money might gainfully be spent before inflation is created.

That might be the closest thing to a true statement you’ll get from him

I, and I am sure others, can hear the almost certain response from the likes of Andrew Bailey at the Bank of England. He would say on hearing this suggestion that the bank is respecting that constraint because it is taking labour market considerations into account when setting its policy. Bailey would, however, as usual, be talking nonsense if he made such a claim. There are three reasons for saying so.

Insert Straw men Here

The first is that he is assuming that the current usage of labour is a given fact, determined by the markets, over which neither he nor the government has influence. As a consequence, he would suggest that we are currently at full employment. Office for National Statistics data does, he might say, confirm that fact

I’m not sure it’s just Bailey that would say that – almost every sector (at least prior to recent layoffs in the Tech and Finance sector) is crying out for Labour – albeit the problem is arguably skill shortages rather than simply warm bodies in some cases

Second, Bailey would be wrong to do this. Not only are we not at full employment because there are plenty of people who would like work who do not currently have it, but in making his claim he is ignoring the vast misallocation of labour resources within the economy that we have.

So there’s an army of unemployed out there? He’s clearly been looking carefully at the vacancies sections of every recruitment site?

There are doctors, nurses, teachers, social workers, and many others who would love to pursue their chosen professions, but because of the denial of resources by the government cannot face the quite literal life-threatening stress upon them from seeking to do so.

His evidence for this? In the style with which he treats critics on his blogs – where does his authority to speak on the NHS come from? is he a physician? A social worker? How on Earth can he say the NHS , which seems to have money thrown at it regardless of any outcomes is ‘underfunded’?

Those with these skills are working on other tasks within the economy or are simply not working at all, not because the market indicates that it is desirable, but precisely because government policy has denied them the opportunity to deliver what society needs in ways that are humanly possible.

People are being rejected from positions in the NHS? Possible but I’d need better evidence than his hearsay? I haven’t seen vast swathes of redundant diversity co-ordinators but maybe I haven’t been looking hard enough

No amount of pretence that the market can overcome such a policy failure can disguise this very obvious issue.

So obvious only a coterie of ‘like minds’ has identified it

Third, and as even Andrew Bailey is wont to point out, the UK is constrained by having a sick workforce. Some are simply unable to work because of the failure of the NHS to care for them. Others cannot work because they have to care for others whom the NHS cannot treat. More still work suboptimally because they need treatments that are delayed and the stress of that situation, let alone any physical impact, will impact their work performance. Once more, massive government failure is the issue here, and nothing the market can do will address that

At least he didn’t mention COVID and the need for returned lockdowns – grateful for small mercies

My suggestions are, then, threefold. One is that the appearance of full employment that the Office for National Statistics like to create with their data (which even they admit is sub-optimal) is false. We are massively short of that situation because of underemployment and the serious sub-optimal use of skills within the UK labour market.

His mates can’t get the jobs they want so there’s ‘serious sub-optimal use of skills’. In fairness I’d agree – we have people claiming to be qualified accountants who don’t even understand Double entry outside the context of an adult film, and people holding positions as economics professors who don’t even understand or have a willingness to learn economic fundamentals.

Most obviously, and secondly, this problem is the real constraint on what we can achieve in the UK.

Not everyone can get a job as a GP so the economy is f^&$ed – that’s the key constraint on the UK? Not an utterly dysfunctional public sector that thinks men being able to enter schools in drag is more important than the defense of the realm? Not a population the size of Newcastle arriving on the boats annually?

As a consequence, and thirdly, the real constraint that we face has everything to do with the way in which a false fiscal narrative of austerity that is supported by a false narrative about the shortage of money is preventing this country from meeting needs whilst grossly, misallocating resources within our society, meaning that we all suffer as a result.

I say again – what austerity? Taxes are at their highest since the late 70s and most people receive absolutely nothing for that. the service standard of law and order and education is profoundly shocking. We don’t have functional local administration or an armed forces so where is the money going?

Viewed in this way, I think that there is massive fiscal headroom within the UK economy. What I mean by that is that with the right government fiscal policies that recognise that spending additional government money into the economy in a manner designed to tackle this misallocation of resources we could release significant increases in growth, well-being, the personal satisfaction of vast numbers of people when at work, and increase pay for a great many people, all of whom would then be working to best effect.

I need more money so I will need to define a new reality that the country isn’t on the verge of total fiscal collapse and assailed by apparent ills without any cure. We have taxation at a record high but we still need more so I’m going to advocate stealing pensions, bank accounts and other savings until me and other advocates of ‘Fiscal headroom’ have got our just desserts.

Hope you have a good weekend in Bath Tim!!!

I haven’t been able to identify any government policy that results in my software engineering being used in furniture removal (you’re putting computers on desks, THAT’S *IT*!). It’s the market that doesn’t want to pay me to “pursue [my] chosen profession”, not the government.

Though I see Lord Spudcup’s solution to government failure is MOAR government.

announcing money is so much easier for politicians than having to think about the problem

Particularly when it’s not their money.

“ Ah, the old “All that the NHS needs is more money” argument.

I really thought we’d at least begun to hear the last of that.”

It appears that for some reason doctors never tire of having their mouths stuffed with gold.

Paying people enough to get them to swallow the awfulness only works short term. Pretty soon, they will become sufficiently well off not to have to put up with the shit(s).

Yet another of his heroic battles against reality. I’m losing track of the heroism he’s vicariously experienced. Wasn’t it something in WW2, and possibly the Titanic?

It’s also bizarre how he’s always warning against the inevitable consequences of the things he advocates for.

I can’t be bothered reading it but does he mention high marginal tax rates as a disincentive? Plenty we know stick to fewer days (eg 2 days instead of 3) because of it.