Fourth, capital controls are a defence of democracy. Without them, governments are constantly held hostage by the threat that markets might withdraw funds if they disapprove of policy choices. With them, economic policy can be oriented toward public well-being rather than placating global finance. Controls weaken the power of hot money to veto democratic priorities.
You should only be allowed to do with your own money what The Sage of Ely approves of.
People might choose not to lend their money to the State, so must be forced to?
This is “democracy” in the sense of two wolves and a sheep deciding on what’s for dinner.
But I thought under MMT the government didn’t need to tax people to fund its spending?
Murphy tells us that it only needs to tax to reduce inflation, and if people are investing outside the UK then it isn’t going to cause inflation here.
So if he’s correct, why would capital controls be needed?
Its Sunday. MMT day is Tuesday.
Don’t worry. In a Spud-run economy, none of us will have any money to do anything with.
“… constantly held hostage by the threat that markets might withdraw funds if they disapprove of policy choices …”
How many effing times? They’re not “hostages”, they put themselves in this situation by reckless borrowing over decades. Of course investors are going to “disapprove” of policies that might mean they don’t get their money back.
If had more than 2p to invest he might understand it a bit more.
So people are voting with their dollars (or currency of your choice depending on country) and that’s not democratic?
Currency controls are inherently fascistic in the original sense of the word, not the scare-quote sense. Means of production/capital/wealth is still held privately, but the government places so many restrictions on it that the government might as well own it.
That is not, in Murphy’s view “democratic” because these people are not part of the “demos” and have no voting rights. [In the original democracies, slaves and women did not have any votes]
Commie speak. ‘Democracy’ good. So they use the word . . . independent of definition.
He reveals his belief in government control, not custodial government. Totalitarianism. Constantly INTERFERING with the public. A public subservient to government. For the public’s benefit (ha ha). He speaks of democracy as if he cares about the public, but it’s a damn lie: he hates the public. He hates democracy.
‘Economic policy,’ whatever that is, is in charge of the marketplace. What the commie dick wants is government ownership of the marketplace.
FIFY
Nobody in government sems to understand trust any more. You rely on people (the demos or the markets, whoever) to trust you to some extent. You push your luck a bit. No pushback, so you push it a little more….when trust goes, it’s a trickle then a flood. And when it’s gone it’s very hard to get back. Takes years, and people don’t forget. But a new generation will have to learn it all again the hard way.
Exactly. This has been a hobby-horse of mine for years. Government, institutions, corporations: all have pissed on their chips.
Limbaugh said the Left has a static view of the world, as if their actions will not produce reactions. Gamecock doesn’t understand the Left’s abnormal psychology, but the best he can figure is the Left is stuck in the present, with no consideration for tomorrow.
They’re stuck in 1967, when supposedly they were on the outside.
Not quite. They appear to believe that their actions will only produce their intended consequences, with no side-effects. At least, that’s what I believed when I was a lefty. Of course the more devious fuckers intend to harm the well-off, so they make up something plausible as the supposed intended consequence which just happens to have as a side-effect the result for the well-off that was always their primary intent.
Gamecock doesn’t understand the Left’s abnormal psychology, but the best he can figure is the Left is stuck in the present, with no consideration for tomorrow.
And no knowledge of history.
Don’t capital controls just hasten the inevitable end anyway? If a country such as the UK that is spending more than it generates in tax revenue and borrowing the balance suddenly introduces capital controls due to its dislike of the spending discipline that borrowing creates, doesn’t that just bring the axe down on being able to borrow any more money, and thus mean the only way it can continue is by living within its means? And if it attempts to just print the money it wants to spend, that will devalue its currency rapidly, resulting in a massive loss of purchasing power (and thus wealth) for its population?
No country can control its exchange rate, other than via its own actions convincing other people it is serious about living within its means. So any country that isn’t in the lucky possession of a reserve currency and that wants to spend more than it earns relies on the whims of foreigners regardless of what actions they take. There is no alchemists stone of economics that allows you to spend whatever you like with no consequences. A 5 year old soon grasps the concept that just printing lots of money and giving it to people doesn’t work.
Which is why I still say Spud is a scammer, writing what he knows to be false just to take money off the gullible. No one can be that stupid without being a drooling moron who can’t add 2 and 2 together. IMO its all an act, a grift.
I don’t care about all your vapouring, chaps. Will someone please just tell me a safe way to store some of our assets abroad?
He believes government must be able to control the flow of capital – but not people.
>Without them, governments are constantly held hostage by the threat that markets might withdraw funds if they disapprove of policy choices.
Democracy is when the people have no control over policy choices.
Stalin getting 110% of the vote is democracy manifest.