The Political Thread

[The Legendary Shark]

Jim, total government revenue in the fiscal year 2015/16 was projected to be £673 billion, whereas total expenditure was estimated at £742 billion. Therefore, the total deficit was £69 billion. This represented a rate of borrowing of a little over £1.3 billion per week.

On top of this, as of Q1 2015, UK government debt amounted to £1.56 trillion, or 81.58% of total GDP, at which time the annual cost of servicing (paying the interest) the public debt amounted to around £43 billion (which is roughly 3% of GDP or 8% of UK government tax income).

Government creating its own money would save a fortune.

It's allowing private banks to create the money that leads to this situation of having a government and national debt which can never be paid off and can only continue to rise. (Remember the inflation cycle, the more money there is (represented by savings and debt) the less it's worth and the less it's worth the more is needed.)

Yes, initially the private banks would have to take a haircut, some, most or even all of that £1.56 trillion (which, remember, only exists as ledger entries anyway), but it would lead to a much more stable system.

[Jim_Campbell]

Jim, total government revenue in the fiscal year 2015/16 was projected to be £673 billion, whereas total expenditure was estimated at £742 billion. Therefore, the total deficit was £69 billion. This represented a rate of borrowing of a little over £1.3 billion per week.

Yes, but we're not talking about making up the deficit. Where do you think that £673bn in revenue came from? The government's single largest income source is personal taxation, which your system claims is unnecessary. At the very least, in the 2016 comparison, you have to account for the ~£170bn in personal tax receipts that would no longer be received. Are we getting rid of NI as well? Because that's another ~£120bn that's not coming in each year.

[The Legendary Shark]

Yes, Jim, you are correct. However, these figures are generated using the current system - the system which caused the problem in the first place and skews the figures. The current system cannot be used to fix the current system.

Inflation, as I've said, is rampant and adding a large magnifier to the cost of everything.

I admit that the idea of the banking system paying for everything right off the bat is an extreme one and would require a financial re-set, which is just one option and the end goal of a mathematically "perfect" economy - an economy based entirely on carefully crafted and applied formulae and algorithms, which is quite possible in theory.

Other options exist which allow the banking system to pay for varying levels of public services and infrastructure - but all of them require outlawing private money creation and control. Even if we stopped at making the system pay just for the NHS and nothing else, I think that would be worth it - especially given that government debt and deficit would also cease to exist.

There's even the option of the old tradition of the seven year debt jubilee - where, after seven years, all debts are forgiven and everything starts again. I'm not really a fan of this option but it is a possibility and would mean that money creation could remain, at least partially, in private hands.

[Jim_Campbell]

Yes, Jim, you are correct. However, these figures are generated using the current system - the system which caused the problem in the first place and skews the figures. The current system cannot be used to fix the current system.

So you're proposing to replace one form of funding with another that's an order of magnitude smaller...? You need more than inflation effects and a bit of hand-waving about 'skewing' to explain that away.

[The Legendary Shark]

Inflation, as I've said, is rampant and adding a
large magnifier to the cost of everything.
I admit that the idea of the banking system
paying for everything right off the bat is an
extreme one and would require a financial
re-set, which is just one option and the end
goal of a mathematically "perfect" economy -
an economy based entirely on carefully
crafted and applied formulae and algorithms,
which is quite possible in theory.
Other options exist which allow the banking
system to pay for varying levels of public
services and infrastructure - but all of them
require outlawing private money creation and
control. Even if we stopped at making the
system pay just for the NHS and nothing else,
I think that would be worth it - especially
given that government debt and deficit would
also cease to exist.
There's even the option of the old tradition of
the seven year debt jubilee - where, after
seven years, all debts are forgiven and
everything starts again. I'm not really a fan of
this option but it is a possibility and would
mean that money creation could remain, at
least partially, in private hands.

Given that I obviously know nothing about this subject, how would you propose to make things better?

[Professor Bear]

I propose making the thread about big butts.

[The Legendary Shark]

It would certainly be more enjoyable.

[GordonR]

I propose making the thread about big butts.

Well, there's already one giant arse permanently parked on top of it.

[The Legendary Shark]

Bosh

[Hawkmumbler]

Harsh!

[The Legendary Shark]

He never forgave me for the VVotV thread - nearly five years ago. Sad, really.

And Jim focuses on one small part of the solution, bank profits (under the current system), and ignores the other elements like the effects of nullifying inflation, destroying government debt, sovereigncy and, biggest aspect of all, creating money and spending it directly on public services, infrastructure, wages, energy and supplies. But no, he ignores all this because one small part of the solution won't pay for everything. It's like dismissing the concept of shoes because they don't cover the whole body.

Unbelievable.

[Modern Panther]

This thread is already about big buts...a few unsubstantiated claims...some empty assertions...a complete lack of plans...

[IndigoPrime]

Not really unbelievable, given that your solution appears to leave a massive shortfall in public finances, despite all of the potential advantages you talk about. Although that might just be the anarcho-statist in me talking.

[The Legendary Shark]

IP, the "anarcho-statist" crack was a joke to highlight a point I was making - I'm sorry if it went too far and became an insult, that certainly wasn't my intention.

If I did misjudge and insult you then I apologise and take it back.

[JayzusB.Christ]

He never forgave me for the VVotV thread - nearly five years ago. Sad, really.

Was that the vaccination discussion?  (Which believe me, I have no intention whatsoever of resurrecting.)