There is a cost to this. If the government borrows less, someone else has to borrow more: that’s the way in which any economy works if new money (all of which is debt-based) is to be created, which is the actual rule that cannot be broken because, unlike so-called fiscal rules, it is based on facts.
This from the bloke who repeatedly claims that QT destroys money. Even, the bloke who opposes QT because it destroys money.
And if QT is happening – it is – and money is being destroyed – it is – gthen we don’t have a problem about how is going to borrow in order to create new money, do we?
If the government doesn’t spaff trillions in debt spending on HS2, wars, acid-throwing retards from the hills of central Asia, and windmills, your Nan will be forced to pay for these things with Green Shield stamps.
Candidly.
Thursday.
if the government borrows less, someone else has to borrow more
This sounds like a variation of the fixed pie theory.
And if implemented then a sure fire route to getting a smaller pie.
If you go to the pub and other people drink less then you have to drink more. Of course, he wouldn’t know about that.
Martin Near the M25
I didn’t know if the Pubwatch ban was also in Ely.
I did find one accurate prediction elsewhere in the post however:
The reality is that migration is going to increase rapidly in this world (as a result of climate change): that’s the fact, and the above chart is not.
He’s right there albeit it won’t necessarily be driven by Climate change…
It is clear to me that all those climate refugees from the places which become impossibly hot (although climate science makes no such claim for equatorial regions) should move to the newly opened regions of Canada and Siberia which will of course be much warmer.
Tim
There are few subjects where Murphy has even the vaguest understanding (indeed those of an unkind bent might say there aren’t any) but his understanding of Money is particularly lacking. I honestly would say that a first year GCSE economics student who had read the first chapter of Lipsey’s ‘an introduction to Positive economics’ would know more.
Meanwhile, we all wait with baited breath for the publication of Spud’s “Free stuff for everyone and a rich bloke over there will pay for it all – 2024”.
He’s currently asking readers if he should publish the full thing (300+ pages) or just the two word summary “Moooar Tax”
Andrew C
I’m certainly looking forward to it’s publication that’s for sure – and fully debunking every single one of the claims contained therein. Although I am conscious that could be a full time job….
@V_P
He certainly doesn”t seem to see any connection between government issued paper & the value created in the course of commerce. But on the other hand, nor does government.
VP
It’s early for thoughts about Christmas presents I know, but you’ll be glad to hear Murphy’s paper may be available for purchase in printed form, ideal for a signed copy to add to your collection of his works!
BF
For sure it’s on my Xmas list and I imagine the same relative whom was mentioned when I was barred from ‘Funding the Future’ (at least under this identity) has already earmarked it as a possible gift….
VP. Artistic licence or a matter of time. One or the other.
And if QT is happening – it is – and money is being destroyed – it is – then we don’t have a problem about how is going to borrow in order to create new money, do we?
Richard’s Weekly Fundamental Contradiction of Himself doesn’t come until Thursday.
Is that a good sign, or a bad one?
If he doesn’t talk crap someone else has to talk crap?