Where's the money coming from?Capital spenditure btw is a direct investment into the private sector. Much better that investment comes from a currency issuing government than from a private bank expecting it to be repaid with interest. Well done to Reeves for announcing this and let's have more of it.
I don’t think either apply to a conversation about nuclear in the UK in 2025.
Please explain how the UK government could ever struggle to repay a debt it owes denominated in pounds sterling.
I've borrowed some thoughts from others on the thread. Can I ever run out of thoughts to repay those debts?
The same is true for most people. Difference is people have to pay it off before retirement and a country never retires. This deficit hawk attitude has consistently just lead to expensive failures in public services and crumbling infrastructure that needs rebuilding. We’ve had 14 years of stagnation, how you can argue for more is beyond me TBH.
Good to see more funding for science in this country anyway. Better late than neverNot sure who you’re replying to there but as I’ve just said we need to spend and invest more (but need to make sure cash is spent wisely) I presume it’s someone else
Where all money comes from, being spent into existence by the issuer of the currency. Where do you think it comes from?Where's the money coming from?
Well, apart from the fact we've increased borrowing under the Tories whilst also letting the infrastructure go to ruin, choosing instead to give loads of money to the rich with tax breaks and subsidies.Can hardly be a surprise. History tells us Labour overspend, The Conservatives clear it up and get blamed for needless austerity. Rinse and repeat.
So are you seriously suggesting that quantitive easing is the correct way to go?Where all money comes from, being spent into existence by the issuer of the currency. Where do you think it comes from?
The issue we have is that the infrastructure spend has (historically)largely been done on completely pointless projects, such as the Thames flood barrier, HS2, millennium dome etc etcAt least if you spend on that infrastructure you have a capital asset, plus providing employment thus increasing tax take and purchasing power whilst decreasing welfare and benefit payments.
Where have I said thatSo are you seriously suggesting that quantitive easing is the correct way to go?
I get your point, I'd just rather have energy from other sources but I know that's a bit utopian. I'm more interested in when fusion kicks off so we can have warp drives tbh!
But I’ll take any energy production that isn’t beholden to a bunch of despots.
I don't disagree with that, but you were saying that we always have to cut spending because Labour always overspend.The issue we have is that the infrastructure spend has (historically)largely been done on completely pointless projects, such as the Thames flood barrier, HS2, millennium dome etc etc
While at the same time we've neglected our power infrastructure and water supply systems, two vital pieces of infrastructure that have been crying out for investment for years. A couple of new reservoirs to supply the massive house building project would make far more sence than HS2
Well you can only produced the money promised by raising taxes, or by further austerity, or by irresponsible leanding or by shaking the mythical money tree and printing extra money out of thin air. (ie quantitive easing with all the negative consequences involved)Where have I said that
It's not, but at least the overspend would be justifiable as it's on desperately needed infrastructure.I don't disagree with that, but you were saying that we always have to cut spending because Labour always overspend.
What you've just stated there isn't that though is it?
Quantitative easing is the manufacturing of money specifically to stimulate the economy. Manufacturing money for the purpose of investing in capital expenditure is not quantitative easing, it’s investment. To use the simplistic analogy of household spending it’s borrowing money just so you can spend more on nothing in particular vs borrowing money to invest in your house, new windows, re-wiring, maybe an extension etc. One is intangible the other is tangible. So not nearly the same thing.Well you can only produced the money promised by raising taxes, or by further austerity, or by irresponsible leanding or by shaking the mythical money tree and printing extra money out of thin air. (ie quantitive easing with all the negative consequences involved)
So which of the above are you suggesting?
You are wrong, it's pointless talking to youWell you can only produced the money promised by raising taxes, or by further austerity, or by irresponsible leanding or by shaking the mythical money tree and printing extra money out of thin air. (ie quantitive easing with all the negative consequences involved)
So which of the above are you suggesting?
Rediculous way of avoiding the most obvious question.You are wrong, it's pointless talking to you
and tbf I'd take hardcore Scientists over goons from petrostates. You've talked me round. Kudos! Still hope the reactors don't kill us all, though.
Well you can only produced the money promised by raising taxes, or by further austerity, or by irresponsible leanding or by shaking the mythical money tree and printing extra money out of thin air. (ie quantitive easing with all the negative consequences involved)
So which of the above are you suggesting?
Overqualified.Rediculous way of avoiding the most obvious question.
Clearly you have no answer.
You should apply for Rachel Reeves's job.
His theories don't stack up in the "real world" wage and price inflation, tax avoidance by the wealthy and corruption at senior levels saw to that.Read some Keynes if you want the theory behind it. This is fairly bog standard mainstream economics.
In the real world money is created every day through government spending, that is a fact. Here is some research into how it all worksHis theories don't stack up in the "real world" wage and price inflation, tax avoidance by the wealthy and corruption at senior levels saw to that.
His theories don't stack up in the "real world" wage and price inflation, tax avoidance by the wealthy and corruption at senior levels saw to that.
But five minutes ago you were blaming Starmer for being weak and sucking up to Trump in order to try and minimise the effect of the tariffs. Can hardly blame UK government when you've got a DESPOTUS wildly slapping tariffs on and off on a whim without having the faintest idea what trade deficits are.Growth, growth, growth….
Largest ever plunge in UK exports to US as Trump tariffs hurt growth; Britain ‘turning into a National Health State’ – business live
UK economy shrank by 0.3% in April, biggest fall since October 2023, as trade with the US slumpedwww.theguardian.com
I think they can, but only with optimum conditions. Outdated rather than don't work would be fairer.His theories don't stack up in the "real world" wage and price inflation, tax avoidance by the wealthy and corruption at senior levels saw to that.
Outdated, maybe.I think they can, but only with optimum conditions. Outdated rather than don't work would be fairer.
Outdated, maybe.
But if his theories worked, the whole world would have adopted them.
It's not government spending it's borrowing.In the real world money is created every day through government spending, that is a fact. Here is some research into how it all works
Modern Monetary Theory - a brief introduction - The Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies
Living within your means is a good rule for households, but a government with its own currency and its own central bank is not at all like a household.gimms.org.uk
I'll give you your due, consistently clueless whether on or off topic
Huge strategic error by Reeves and Starmer to impose massive tariffs on UK exports to the United States imoGrowth, growth, growth….
Largest ever plunge in UK exports to US as Trump tariffs hurt growth; Britain ‘turning into a National Health State’ – business live
UK economy shrank by 0.3% in April, biggest fall since October 2023, as trade with the US slumpedwww.theguardian.com
The US tried trickle down economics more than once, and is in the midst of doing it again. The wealth never trickles down and the deficits get exploded.Outdated, maybe.
But if his theories worked, the whole world would have adopted them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?