Brexit eta gero behar den erreminta ekonomikoa: DTM

Iruzkinak (2)

• 

  joseba says:

  2021/01/23 at 11:01

  Andrew Berkeley, Richard Tye & Neil Wilson: An Accounting Model Of The UK Exchequer (Part 1)
  #84 Andrew Berkeley, Richard Tye & Neil Wilson: An Accounting Model Of The UK Exchequer (Part 1)
  (https://pileusmmt.libsyn.com/84-andrew-berkeley-richard-tye-neil-wilson-an-accounting-model-of-the-uk-exchequer-part-1)
  #84 Andrew Berkeley, Richard Tye & Neil Wilson: An Accounting Model Of The UK Exchequer (Part 1)
  Jan 20, 2021
  Patricia and Christian talk to the authors of a groundbreaking new study that details the internal accounting operations of the UK exchequer and the ultimate impact of government spending and taxing on the private sector.

  An Accounting Model of the UK Exchequer: https://gimms.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/An-Accounting-Model-of-the-UK-Exchequer-Google-Docs.pdf
  (161 orr.)

  Transcript for opening monologue: https://www.patreon.com/posts/46352937
   [Transcript] Opening monologue for Episode 84 – Andrew Berkeley, Richard Tye & Neil Wilson: An Accounting Model Of The UK Exchequer (Part 1)
  At the beginning there, you heard finance and information systems expert Neil Wilson, who, along with our two other guests this week, Richard Tye and Andrew Berkeley, have produced a groundbreaking new study that details the internal accounting operations of the UK exchequer and the ultimate impact of government spending and taxing on the private sector.
  If this is your first time hearing about MMT, you might want to listen to our first three episodes where me and Patricia talk through the basics in an accessible way, but if you want to dive in here, let’s start with something that’s not controversial to central bank operatives, or to anyone who understands what the word “fiat” in “fiat currency” means, or to just about anyone who’s not the governor of the Bank of England, which is that the currency we use here in the UK, the British pound, is issued exclusively by, or with the permission of, the UK government and if you’re skeptical, fire up your own printing press, print off some ten pound notes and send me a report on your findings when the warden grants you writing privileges.
  The reason that pounds, these otherwise worthless pieces of paper (or, more commonly, electronic entries on a spreadsheet at a bank), the reason they have value, the reason that you and I need to sell the fruits of our time and labour for pounds, and not gold or bitcoin or seashells, is that the UK government demand payment of taxes in pounds, and not gold or bitcoin or seashells – and the government demand these payments expressly to cause the population to need pounds so that they can then hire people to do the things they were voted in to do.
  In order to spend, the government don’t need *your* money, the government need you to need *their* money, of which they have an infinite supply, because at the end of the day, the government spends by changing accounting entries on a spreadsheet over which they have total control – as you’re about to hear.
  Every year, the government spend some money into existence and then tax some of it out of existence. If they spend more than they tax, then that money left over in the private sector is what you and me, and everybody else in the non-government uses to save and transact with, which is great, except some Giuliani-level genius decided to call this number of pounds left over in the private sector “the government deficit”, whereas they could’ve just as accurately have called it “the private sector’s surplus”.
  Calling it a deficit has led to a very unfortunate situation in many democracies around the world, where political parties pearl-clutch about the deficit and then slug it out to see who can kill us with austerity first.
  In the UK, we have a Conservative chancellor fulfilling a sacred obligation to balance the books, opposed by a shadow chancellor fulfilling a sacred obligation to imitate whatever the Conservatives are doing using different language.
  It’s easy to criticise the opposition’s devastating tactic of non-opposition, but to be fair, maybe the critics haven’t grasped the next-level political game being played here.
  As I understand it, when they’re not in power, and can’t bomb defenceless countries, centre-left parties need to use deficit shaming as a way to signal that they are Very Serious People that conservatives can get behind – and what the left – these fair-weather fans of inclusivity and safe spaces – haven’t grasped is that it’s important for conservatives to feel safe and comfortable in literally every space on earth, including all mainstream political parties, and it’s important for them to know that if the actual Conservative party ever decide to quit, there’ll always be a back-up party for them to vote for. So be reasonable and do it their way, so they can go back to guarding statues instead of having to start armed insurrections.
  (…)
  This is part one of a two-part interview, and part two will be out the week after next, (…)
  Thanks as ever for the time you put into understanding MMT – let’s dive in!

• 

  joseba says:

  2021/02/04 at 10:28

  #86 Andrew Berkeley Andrew Berkeley, Richard Tye & Neil Wilson: An Accounting Model Of The UK Exchequer (Part 2)
  #86 Andrew Berkeley, Richard Tye & Neil Wilson: An Accounting Model Of The UK Exchequer (Part 2)
  Feb 3, 2021
  Part 2: Patricia and Christian talk to the authors of a groundbreaking new study that details the internal accounting operations of the UK exchequer and the ultimate impact of government spending and taxing on the private sector.
  [Transcript] https://www.patreon.com/posts/46866433
  Opening monologue for Episode 86 – Andrew Berkeley, Richard Tye & Neil Wilson: An Accounting Model Of The UK Exchequer (Part 2)
  At the beginning there, you heard Richard Tye, who, along with our two other guests this week, Neil Wilson and Andrew Berkeley, have produced a groundbreaking new study that details the internal accounting operations of the UK exchequer and the ultimate impact of government spending and taxing on the private sector. This is part 2 of a two-part conversation and part one is our last but one episode – that’s episode 84, so do skip back and have a listen to that if you haven’t already.
  If you’re new to MMT, you might want to listen to our first three episodes where me and Patricia talk through the basics, but if you want to dive in here, the headline is that a government that issues its own currency can’t run out of that currency and therefore austerity is as pointless and dangerous as the politicians that push it.
  For currency-issuing governments such as those of the UK, the US, Japan Canada and Australia, the money story starts with a government that’s been given a mandate to do certain things, to create and maintain infrastructure, that might mean building schools and hospitals, and paying teachers and nurses, or it might mean building border walls and prisons and paying consultants to come up with reasons to not pay teachers and nurses, but whatever’s been decided, the problem for government is how to mobilise people and resources to achieve those things, and the solution that governments use today with our modern money systems is taxation.
  The purpose of taxation is not for the government to get money to be able to spend, but to get money to be worth something in the first place. The government lays on a tax in something it alone is allowed to create – in the UK we call that something the British pound – and this creates people needing to to earn the government’s unique tokens in order to pay their tax bills. So the government can then spend its money into existence and hire those people to build a space force, or print blue passports, or whatever else a sophisticated government needs to do to provision itself.
  So given there’s no shortage of money for the issuer of it, what, then, causes money to come into existence? As Richard, Neil and Andrew’s paper shows, the money that the UK government spends to achieve their policy goals is essentially voted into existence when parliament passes legislation to achieve those goals.
  Why is this important? Well, Kurt Vonnegut once wrote that he thought that “novels that leave out technology misrepresent life as badly as Victorians misrepresented life by leaving out sex.”
  And in a similar way, I think that economic coverage that leaves out the reality of how governments spend serve humanity as badly as Fred and Mary Trump did by not leaving out sex.
  In our so-called advanced economies where people are dying because of an unwillingness to change a few numbers on a spreadsheet, the government’s infinite capacity to spend its own currency isn’t the end of the story, but it needs to be the end of the austerity story as soon as possible.
  (…)
  Thanks as ever for the time you put into understanding MMT – let’s dive in!