Once again a great podcast, very informative. The governments need to bill for Renters and Landlords is another concoction from a government who has no joined up view of governance. It seems to me it’s another waste of time effort and money making changes for change sake rather than a coherent plan or vision that needs certain changes to happen for it all to come to fruition.
As for your discussion on growth, it’s clear to me you see growth in the deep brain area of innovation and potential productivity that, that could increase our growth and profit line for an increase in our collective fortune? I think that’s a fair description??… I think you are over thinking it guys. It’s much more simple than that. Growth is an increase in SPENDING. With the ability to have money to spend!
Affluent areas are those where lots or more money is concentrated with a willingness or a need to spend it. That’s why poor areas are not affluent!
Yes, if you group companies together that thrive off one another, then increased productivity can grow. But not without money and a willingness to spend money!
Yes investors can encourage new production backing new and indicative ideas. But again, not without money and a willingness to SPEND it. The common denominator is money and money freely being spent. Investing is of course another word for SPENDING. So is credit (loan) another word(s) for SPENDING. But those represent different burdens on that SPENDING.
Credit is capital repayment plus interest. And investment is the same plus capture of future profits!
Do neither are the same as money being transferred free like SPENDING. A free exchange or rather a free and fair exchange of money. That’s my sort of SPENDING.
So if your asking about or trying to explain GROWTH then you have to concede that it’s not the chicken if the egg. It’s money snd SPENDING in that order that has to happen first. Ideas on their own change nothing. It’s the path to implementation or production that makes the grade, and that needs MONEY and it’s SPENDING and preferably a free SPENDING not one that attaches penalty conditions. As business can’t survive, nor any commerce survive without MONEY and SPENDING.
You are right, you need ideas and innovation in a real space a physical space.
So again I ask you all at the IEA. Tell me what GRIWTH is? It’s this illusive ‘Higgs Bosun particle’ that you snd every economist is talking about but, had yet to describe it?
Because if you could describe it then, of course you would be able to give the holy grail or indeed give the Higgs Bosun explanation everyone wants to know!
Admit it. You can’t explain what growth is let alone explain how to get it or how it happens? Indeed, growth is different things to different scenarios. And they don’t know the difference either!!
Let me try and explain again.
Growth to Reeves is increased tax take. She needs more tax revenue do she doesn’t have to increase taxes and shouldn’t have to borrow or cut her spending. That’s her ‘growth’.
If the money supply is based on population then, for that position the more population the more money can be printed. That’s also growth. Maybe that’s our problem, there is not enough actual money out there to go around? Or maybe there is a formula that allows the BOE to provide more money when population increases, that may be why they are letting immigration rise? Maybe you have the answer to that?
Or is growth an increase in GDP? Maybe that’s the growth you say we need. More great ideas or innovation can give us that if more people spend money they don’t presently spend. So again we see money supply and its spending being the factors for a growth in GDP. As ideas and innovations alone can’t give that growth without money and it being spent first and last and in between.
Or is growth the increase in taxation that Reeves proposed? Is it more taxes?
Or is it growth from the cuts you are suggesting is done, similarly to Argentina. Is it the growth in balance sheet figures from cutting expenditure to have more money or growth of money to fight of the other side if the balance sheet money to pay the bills of state? Is that growth?
Or is it the growth of profits? Is it just a question of price rises that will bring the revenue up enough to grow that figure?
What is growth to the IEA?
You have attempted it but laughed at the idea of a one solution to get growth when ad I see it, you can’t yourselves explain this as it is to you a Higgs Bosun of unknown particles! Are you short if the ideas and innovation to collectively dismiss the shifts Bosun because it’s to difficult to get, it’s too much of a theory and not enough if evidence?
Can you see guys, I am trying to help you see, you are all unable to pin down the partial of growth. Especially as you haven’t got the hadron collider for which you need to see it?
Well here I am! I’m that hadron collider. Figuratively speaking of course.
I don’t think you should joke that there isn’t x simple way to get growth. There is. You just have to look for it. I have. And then work your way through it however counterintuitive it sounds.
Money is finite. Despite the ability of governments to print money in the main, money is more or less static at any one time.
There is a little difference with QE or Banks ability to leverage but in the main it’s a finite amount.
Now, because the rich and super rich snd mega rich individuals, companies or Countries can hold on to money sometimes for a very long time indeed then thus gives rise to an imbalance of money supply.
If all the money is not available then, the business of economies and commerce must make do with what there is in the pot rather than have the whole pot available to SPEND.
Commerce of economies businesses and governments alike need a ready supply of money and its movement via spending if that money preferably freely. Without the burden of debt, interest or future earnings of profits as attached penalties.
Now that all seems perfectly sensible. Until you see that the mega rich and super rich Banks individuals and companies, countries across the world have got so rich they don’t need to spend snd lose any money. Because they can attach such earnings to that money, no matter what taxes they pay or not pay no matter what they might spend themselves, the earnings from lending it back to us are so great they just get richer and richer. Like Musk or apple or Google or Amazon or Saudi Arabia. Most of our money will always flow down hill to these giants weighing down the balance of fairness. Let alone the really big earners of tech, guns, oil and drugs. These powerhouses of money receipts can always be relied upon to collect all our working money.
So what’s left? Not enough that’s the short answer.
We are left with a big hole where money once was. We are all devoid of it on a day to day basis.
This leaves us all devoid of it. It leaves us all desperately trying to claw it back. Working more for less. Making us all ill and unhappy.
But I say take back control of our money! That’s not a joke guys. But it will fire our growth problem, so maybe you should start to look again?
My simple vote is to let them all earn what they want. Including us. It makes no sense to stop the flow. But, once they get our money, we need it back! So impose a rule or framework to make it come back! So it’s now a democratic process to make sure money is spent back.
Now as I see it, we have the ability at last to do this. Make money have a spend by date digitally.
I suggest an exchange of old currency for new. Not asset. But money only. Exchange old for new. And keep all currencies in house. In their country of origin.
That way all money can be tracked and traced.
Put a spend by date on all money so it’s made to be spent. To give us all the freely spent money we need as a supply to run.
Unspent money goes to the government.
Just have one tax vat.
Thus is more than sufficient to bring in do much more taxes that s tsunami of flow will now follow.
Think it through guys. Think! Compare my view to your own views on growth. Then explain to us your thoughts. Debate it!
Once again a great podcast, very informative. The governments need to bill for Renters and Landlords is another concoction from a government who has no joined up view of governance. It seems to me it’s another waste of time effort and money making changes for change sake rather than a coherent plan or vision that needs certain changes to happen for it all to come to fruition.
As for your discussion on growth, it’s clear to me you see growth in the deep brain area of innovation and potential productivity that, that could increase our growth and profit line for an increase in our collective fortune? I think that’s a fair description??… I think you are over thinking it guys. It’s much more simple than that. Growth is an increase in SPENDING. With the ability to have money to spend!
Affluent areas are those where lots or more money is concentrated with a willingness or a need to spend it. That’s why poor areas are not affluent!
Yes, if you group companies together that thrive off one another, then increased productivity can grow. But not without money and a willingness to spend money!
Yes investors can encourage new production backing new and indicative ideas. But again, not without money and a willingness to SPEND it. The common denominator is money and money freely being spent. Investing is of course another word for SPENDING. So is credit (loan) another word(s) for SPENDING. But those represent different burdens on that SPENDING.
Credit is capital repayment plus interest. And investment is the same plus capture of future profits!
Do neither are the same as money being transferred free like SPENDING. A free exchange or rather a free and fair exchange of money. That’s my sort of SPENDING.
So if your asking about or trying to explain GROWTH then you have to concede that it’s not the chicken if the egg. It’s money snd SPENDING in that order that has to happen first. Ideas on their own change nothing. It’s the path to implementation or production that makes the grade, and that needs MONEY and it’s SPENDING and preferably a free SPENDING not one that attaches penalty conditions. As business can’t survive, nor any commerce survive without MONEY and SPENDING.
You are right, you need ideas and innovation in a real space a physical space.
So again I ask you all at the IEA. Tell me what GRIWTH is? It’s this illusive ‘Higgs Bosun particle’ that you snd every economist is talking about but, had yet to describe it?
Because if you could describe it then, of course you would be able to give the holy grail or indeed give the Higgs Bosun explanation everyone wants to know!
Admit it. You can’t explain what growth is let alone explain how to get it or how it happens? Indeed, growth is different things to different scenarios. And they don’t know the difference either!!
Let me try and explain again.
Growth to Reeves is increased tax take. She needs more tax revenue do she doesn’t have to increase taxes and shouldn’t have to borrow or cut her spending. That’s her ‘growth’.
If the money supply is based on population then, for that position the more population the more money can be printed. That’s also growth. Maybe that’s our problem, there is not enough actual money out there to go around? Or maybe there is a formula that allows the BOE to provide more money when population increases, that may be why they are letting immigration rise? Maybe you have the answer to that?
Or is growth an increase in GDP? Maybe that’s the growth you say we need. More great ideas or innovation can give us that if more people spend money they don’t presently spend. So again we see money supply and its spending being the factors for a growth in GDP. As ideas and innovations alone can’t give that growth without money and it being spent first and last and in between.
Or is growth the increase in taxation that Reeves proposed? Is it more taxes?
Or is it growth from the cuts you are suggesting is done, similarly to Argentina. Is it the growth in balance sheet figures from cutting expenditure to have more money or growth of money to fight of the other side if the balance sheet money to pay the bills of state? Is that growth?
Or is it the growth of profits? Is it just a question of price rises that will bring the revenue up enough to grow that figure?
What is growth to the IEA?
You have attempted it but laughed at the idea of a one solution to get growth when ad I see it, you can’t yourselves explain this as it is to you a Higgs Bosun of unknown particles! Are you short if the ideas and innovation to collectively dismiss the shifts Bosun because it’s to difficult to get, it’s too much of a theory and not enough if evidence?
Can you see guys, I am trying to help you see, you are all unable to pin down the partial of growth. Especially as you haven’t got the hadron collider for which you need to see it?
Well here I am! I’m that hadron collider. Figuratively speaking of course.
I don’t think you should joke that there isn’t x simple way to get growth. There is. You just have to look for it. I have. And then work your way through it however counterintuitive it sounds.
Money is finite. Despite the ability of governments to print money in the main, money is more or less static at any one time.
There is a little difference with QE or Banks ability to leverage but in the main it’s a finite amount.
Now, because the rich and super rich snd mega rich individuals, companies or Countries can hold on to money sometimes for a very long time indeed then thus gives rise to an imbalance of money supply.
If all the money is not available then, the business of economies and commerce must make do with what there is in the pot rather than have the whole pot available to SPEND.
Commerce of economies businesses and governments alike need a ready supply of money and its movement via spending if that money preferably freely. Without the burden of debt, interest or future earnings of profits as attached penalties.
Now that all seems perfectly sensible. Until you see that the mega rich and super rich Banks individuals and companies, countries across the world have got so rich they don’t need to spend snd lose any money. Because they can attach such earnings to that money, no matter what taxes they pay or not pay no matter what they might spend themselves, the earnings from lending it back to us are so great they just get richer and richer. Like Musk or apple or Google or Amazon or Saudi Arabia. Most of our money will always flow down hill to these giants weighing down the balance of fairness. Let alone the really big earners of tech, guns, oil and drugs. These powerhouses of money receipts can always be relied upon to collect all our working money.
So what’s left? Not enough that’s the short answer.
We are left with a big hole where money once was. We are all devoid of it on a day to day basis.
This leaves us all devoid of it. It leaves us all desperately trying to claw it back. Working more for less. Making us all ill and unhappy.
But I say take back control of our money! That’s not a joke guys. But it will fire our growth problem, so maybe you should start to look again?
My simple vote is to let them all earn what they want. Including us. It makes no sense to stop the flow. But, once they get our money, we need it back! So impose a rule or framework to make it come back! So it’s now a democratic process to make sure money is spent back.
Now as I see it, we have the ability at last to do this. Make money have a spend by date digitally.
I suggest an exchange of old currency for new. Not asset. But money only. Exchange old for new. And keep all currencies in house. In their country of origin.
That way all money can be tracked and traced.
Put a spend by date on all money so it’s made to be spent. To give us all the freely spent money we need as a supply to run.
Unspent money goes to the government.
Just have one tax vat.
Thus is more than sufficient to bring in do much more taxes that s tsunami of flow will now follow.
Think it through guys. Think! Compare my view to your own views on growth. Then explain to us your thoughts. Debate it!