When you are a government, what else can you do? You cannot allow the citizen to be free. A free citizen means they might happen upon the thought that they do not need government. Can't be having that.
Producing video is not laziness it’s a lot of work and I don’t know if you saw my report on British Columbia last week but it was about 5000 words so I think to accuse me of a laziness is not fair
Steve, Dominic….COOPERS!….. (sorry, I couldn’t help myself giving an ‘Italian job’ reference!) however, to be honest a very Frank and thought provoking interview. But I have a few hard comments.
Steve, you started off by saying that others, tend to believe rather than see the facts. But your guilty if exactly that too…. But I’ll come to that later.
The observation that reducing tax, gains more tax revenue isn’t quite true. Yes, in essence by putting more money in pockets to spend, by reducing taxes will do something but, you both have it the wrong way round!
You don’t put taxes down to create revenue increase. You should increase revenue stream so you can eventually reduce taxes and collect more in tax take so you can then reduce tax rates or remove taxes altogether.
If you increase revenue flow to and through peoples hands rotating and revolving to ensure spending freely as a result of that increase in supply the need for taxes reduces! Because the increase in flow automatically increases tax take. You get more tax from less taxation by the increase in money supply and subsequent tax take.
That’s because, our tax system is based on SPENDING! It’s a little know reality and fact that, ALL taxation is a result of money having to change hands like Council tax of windfall tax but mainly by normal SPENDING in exchange for goods assets and services.
Even income tax and Nic are ‘triggered’ by employers SPENDING on their employees. They, the employer pay it not the employee. By SPENDING on the wages and employment of that employee.
And this payment of wages to the employee and taxes to the exchequer comes from the same place as all tax payments, the wages of others, that money and total revenue received into that business from the punters, customers, consumers, and patrons of that business!
It’s their SPENDING that gives the money to that business to pay those wages and taxes from the action of their original SPENDING, setting in oath that chain of events. So all flow comes from SPENDING. All wages come from SPENDING and all taxes come from SPENDING if those who hold it.
No amount of work, planning, endeavour, effort and brilliance can pay those wages and taxes if punters and the rest don’t first SPEND.
Once you realise ( rather than ignore due to belief, Steve) that income tax Nic Vat and Duty come from SPENDING then, you have to see that people and government SPENDING is crucial to supply that money to give the required SPENDING we require. To get the increased in SPENDING (growth) we need to ‘trigger’ sufficient tax to government for a surplus and not constant deficit!
Steve and Dominic. You are both clever. No doubt. But you are both guilty of blinkered thinking that you complain about in others. You say look at the facts. But a lot of your convictions and views are not based on the facts above that I have laid out. All of which is true!
No! You must base your planning and expectations based on the above. So why don’t you accept them?? I guess it doesent fit your view of a small state. So let’s look at that.
Look you say you want private hospitals take over from NHS. We already rely on them and it’s still not working. Why?
Because economically money cures all ills!
And the reason NHS or SOCIAL care which is private mostly, isn’t working is simple. It’s underfunded! And has been for decades not weeks. It’s never been properly funded because we have never had a proper economic system to supply the needed amounts!
Cutting the cost of one part of government to afford another isn’t ever going to work! This proposal is idiotic. The cost is the cost. Yes it may be an apparent right move! But honestly, we need to have sufficient to put it all right not insufficient funding!
Do we need more money flowing to trigger more tax take sufficient to pay our way.
But if I may say so, your immediate response Steve is because you’re an accountant. Like lawyers (Starmer) I don’t think either make good leaders. Because neither can see beyond the obvious argument.
You can’t look at one side of the book in a two sided two dimension set of accounts to make the other side work out! That’s like treating our economy as a household budget. Money in money out. If that’s the best you can do then obviously it’s not anywhere near good enough.
Similarly lawyers look at acts instead of the spirits of the law or decide to change laws when obviously wrong. This inability to look beyond the obvious isn’t good for …vision!
Sorry to rubbish two professional groups crucial of our lives but, it is how I feel, I have spent a lifetime putting right professionals who think they know. When they don’t. Sometimes they agree with me and sometimes they dig in, but either way if true evidence is overwhelming then intransigence prevents agreement or acceptance. But I’ll still keep pointing out what I think is wrong.
Yes, a large state can be better managed. I’m not saying it can’t be improved. To save more. But people need jobs Steve. The point is do we need podcasters or nurses? Bankers or soldiers? And so on. We have yo have it fair.
But before we go down that rabbit hole let’s just concentrate on money flow.,
To begin with we need sufficient money in the pot. Sufficient to go around 70 million citizens. And it needs to cover their needs and aspirations. So I have sympathy with MMT that we can and should produce enough to begin with. It’s mathematical and beyond me. But it’s doable. We need sufficient money not insufficient money in the daily tax paying pot.
Then money has to flow from SPENDING because, as I have explained how, we all need paying and we all need to spend sufficient of that money to cover the fully required tax bill of government. Do money has to flow unhindered. Unfettered.
And the more that amount of money that flows and the faster it flows (time! So enough time to fit the need of flow say, monthly) the more tax is ‘triggered’ then more tax can be gained from increased revenue stream that as we can agree will grow the tax take of government then, that is how increased revenue rotating through our hands between us all can and will gain more tax take so much that overall taxation can reduce and still get more tax revenue. More flow more spending more tax triggered by that increased SPENDING.
So digital payment banking systems can enact this beautifully. Steve don’t be frightened!
We can enforce SPENDING not choice. We can freely choose who we spend. But spend we must. To increase wealth creation by not holding onto money. We are guilty of withholding money from the pot that creates tax take. That’s the SPENDING pot! As apposed to the NON SPENDING pot.
It’s people who don’t SPEND their incomes each month that make us devoid of its use. Banks holding money unspent is the problem. All money has to move to create growth and subsequent wealth. Money must not stop moving. That’s the best economy. One that’s fully funded not underfunded. We are underpaid because of this underfunding.
If we were all properly paid sufficient to spend to give sufficient tax then we wouldn’t need to borrow! Neither would our governments!
And guess who it is that makes us borrow. That causes this interference to our flow? Banks! They hold or rather withhold money to make us borrow. Instead of getting it freely. From the spending if those others.
And who do we borrow money from? The very people withholding our money from us! The few who hold the majority to ransom. That’s undemocratic.
Wealth should be kept, not money. The wealth is the stuff we buy with money, gold, assets, goods and services that others produce. That can be sold on as time goes by. To raise money when required but maybe monthly payments are that much we don’t have to spend and forced to selling our stuff. As our wages may be that good we never have the need to save.
Money is a token of work effort to be used as an exchange with others for their work. In full and fair exchange of work for work. To swap produce of production with that of the others in our economy. To pass on the tokens to be used time and time again over and over again.
But this isn’t happening now. It’s not being spent monthly. It’s not even being taxed! There is no tax on unspent money. None.
So the key always has been spending and not, NOT SPENDING. That contributes nothing. Not even taxes.
I've lost the capacity to take any advice from politicians who have ran the country into the ground. I'll give this a miss as he'll only pass me off and ruin my day. See you in the next video.
Do you understand that government doesn’t need to tax or borrow in order to spend? Please do some research into MMT and your whole perspective will be changed. Government owns the Bank of England, which has monopoly issue over the pound. Spending comes before taxation, government finances are not akin to household finances, and there is no actual need to borrow or tax - inflation should be the main concern. Balance the real economy, not the budget.
Sorry mate but Keynes wasn’t a socialist. Keynes saw a broken unmanaged capitalist system (which culminated in the Wall Street Crash of 1929) and sought to fix it. The New Deal Order, based on Keynesian economics, led to the Golden Age of Capitalism in the 30 years after the war. There was full employment (everyone willing and able to work could get a job!), higher growth and falling economic inequality - ordinary people with ordinary jobs could afford to go on holiday.
This New Deal Order was overthrown by the Neoliberal Order after external shocks and the misinterpretation of Keynesianism in the 1970s. Neoliberalism came into government with Reagan and Thatcher, and has dominated political economy ever since. It champions free markets and ignores inequality as an issue, amongst other things, leading to the economic woes we face today. Did you know that the 50 richest families in the UK have more wealth than the bottom 50% of the population (34.1 million people)? Neoliberalism doesn’t work.
So please analyse different viewpoints and ditch the ‘socialist’ and ‘Fabian’ labels without proper justification. Keynesianism delivered the best 30 years in human history - he wasn’t a socialist, he was a capitalist seeking to fix its problems!
Sorry 'mate' - he was a Fabian Society member and believed in central (government) control of the money supply. Unfortunately a number of his premises were incorrect... for example interest rate manipulation which he believed controlled employment and commercial activity - which historical empirical data shows to be incorrect.
"John Maynard Keynes was not a formal, voting member of the Fabian Society, but he was deeply aligned with Fabian Socialism and served as its unofficial "official economist." He was an associate member of the New Fabian Research."
Well I don’t know what you want me to say (I’ll drop the mate thing). Most of this is untrue or at best over exaggerated. Keynes was not deeply aligned with Fabian socialism. True, he was in contact with members like George Bernard Shaw, but he criticised both socialism and laissez faire capitalism on many occasions. He was not deeply aligned with Fabianism and he didn’t serve as its unofficial economist. As I said before, he was a capitalist who sought to fix unbridled capitalism. As for being an associate member of the New Fabian Research, I’ve never heard of this I my life and a quick Google suggests it’s nonsense.
Your first reply was factually incorrect, and so is your second. What are you going to say next? From my perspective it seems you’re trying to treat Keynes in a way that aligns with your views on political economy. Please ditch this predetermined opinion and stop trying to force a view of Keynes that doesn’t upset your views.
Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do Sir?”. Please consider the facts.
In my view, most of the inequality we see to day has been created by the last 40 years of money printing and devaluating labour by bringing more people to increase the supply, onto which has been layered an expansion of credit, to which those who already own assets have the easiest and cheapest access.
Having not studied economics formally, I don’t know whether these policies fall within Neoliberalism, Keynesianism, or Thatcherism.
Debasing the currency has been the Left's plan for a very long time. Who is so dumb to think HS2 has anything to do with shorter journey times to Birmingham? Same goes for welfare, windmills and solar panels, nothing whatsoever to do with saving the planet, that's for idiots. It's to break us economically. Pure Cloward Piven. ps the infiltrated 'liberal' top Tories massively involved.
Read for yourself. He was intrigued by 'State Control' and believed in Fiscal Control (state control of interest rates), a fallacy as we know (well - I do anyway).
Yup - Thank You. I ain't necessarily your 'mate'; never even met you!
Interesting Dominic, you should think about what Elon Musk said the other day in an interview — I paraphrase, in a world of unlimited stuff, being produced (I guess he means enough Tesla cars for everyone and stuff like that, or everyone in the world can have a copy of your latest book) he seemed to think people needed to forget money. He made some interesting points as he is saying we will not need money or banks ? What he is saying is that people will not need to work, or what they do will not pay, so perhaps I can learn to paint, like hitler wanted (I have no wish to be a great painter), it just always makes me think if he had of been allowed to learn to do what he wanted, perhaps 🤔 we would still have our empire.
So joining up this observation from Musk is he sees no limits on resources and robotics can automatically produce whatever we need. Trouble is with that argument. If I want to live in Buckingham Palace, how does that work! What happens to the private property some have amassed.
I guess he is thinking that everyone will live in the same apartments (built by the Trump family) and the super wealth overloads have the bigger section of the pie. What is in effect a tyrannical world.
Money must remain free of state control BITCOIN seems to have been shown to have a flaw in the sense the exchanges are not legally allowed to trade without KYC fully in place. So if Mr Putin has £1m to spend in the UK, I cannot sell him or swap some of my lovely home grown tomatoes 🍅 for his bitcoin but I can with you 😉
When you are a government, what else can you do? You cannot allow the citizen to be free. A free citizen means they might happen upon the thought that they do not need government. Can't be having that.
A great conversation between you both. Many thanks.
Meanwhile, Japan is about to crash the global financial system. Gold, silver and pm mining. Wish I had a spare 100k.
when belief meets contrary facts, belief prevails.
Please stop the laziness of moving everything to video and return to the art of good writng!
Producing video is not laziness it’s a lot of work and I don’t know if you saw my report on British Columbia last week but it was about 5000 words so I think to accuse me of a laziness is not fair
Fair enough!. I guess it is my problem. I love good writing and do not watch video content.
Steve, Dominic….COOPERS!….. (sorry, I couldn’t help myself giving an ‘Italian job’ reference!) however, to be honest a very Frank and thought provoking interview. But I have a few hard comments.
Steve, you started off by saying that others, tend to believe rather than see the facts. But your guilty if exactly that too…. But I’ll come to that later.
The observation that reducing tax, gains more tax revenue isn’t quite true. Yes, in essence by putting more money in pockets to spend, by reducing taxes will do something but, you both have it the wrong way round!
You don’t put taxes down to create revenue increase. You should increase revenue stream so you can eventually reduce taxes and collect more in tax take so you can then reduce tax rates or remove taxes altogether.
If you increase revenue flow to and through peoples hands rotating and revolving to ensure spending freely as a result of that increase in supply the need for taxes reduces! Because the increase in flow automatically increases tax take. You get more tax from less taxation by the increase in money supply and subsequent tax take.
That’s because, our tax system is based on SPENDING! It’s a little know reality and fact that, ALL taxation is a result of money having to change hands like Council tax of windfall tax but mainly by normal SPENDING in exchange for goods assets and services.
Even income tax and Nic are ‘triggered’ by employers SPENDING on their employees. They, the employer pay it not the employee. By SPENDING on the wages and employment of that employee.
And this payment of wages to the employee and taxes to the exchequer comes from the same place as all tax payments, the wages of others, that money and total revenue received into that business from the punters, customers, consumers, and patrons of that business!
It’s their SPENDING that gives the money to that business to pay those wages and taxes from the action of their original SPENDING, setting in oath that chain of events. So all flow comes from SPENDING. All wages come from SPENDING and all taxes come from SPENDING if those who hold it.
No amount of work, planning, endeavour, effort and brilliance can pay those wages and taxes if punters and the rest don’t first SPEND.
Once you realise ( rather than ignore due to belief, Steve) that income tax Nic Vat and Duty come from SPENDING then, you have to see that people and government SPENDING is crucial to supply that money to give the required SPENDING we require. To get the increased in SPENDING (growth) we need to ‘trigger’ sufficient tax to government for a surplus and not constant deficit!
Steve and Dominic. You are both clever. No doubt. But you are both guilty of blinkered thinking that you complain about in others. You say look at the facts. But a lot of your convictions and views are not based on the facts above that I have laid out. All of which is true!
No! You must base your planning and expectations based on the above. So why don’t you accept them?? I guess it doesent fit your view of a small state. So let’s look at that.
Look you say you want private hospitals take over from NHS. We already rely on them and it’s still not working. Why?
Because economically money cures all ills!
And the reason NHS or SOCIAL care which is private mostly, isn’t working is simple. It’s underfunded! And has been for decades not weeks. It’s never been properly funded because we have never had a proper economic system to supply the needed amounts!
Cutting the cost of one part of government to afford another isn’t ever going to work! This proposal is idiotic. The cost is the cost. Yes it may be an apparent right move! But honestly, we need to have sufficient to put it all right not insufficient funding!
Do we need more money flowing to trigger more tax take sufficient to pay our way.
But if I may say so, your immediate response Steve is because you’re an accountant. Like lawyers (Starmer) I don’t think either make good leaders. Because neither can see beyond the obvious argument.
You can’t look at one side of the book in a two sided two dimension set of accounts to make the other side work out! That’s like treating our economy as a household budget. Money in money out. If that’s the best you can do then obviously it’s not anywhere near good enough.
Similarly lawyers look at acts instead of the spirits of the law or decide to change laws when obviously wrong. This inability to look beyond the obvious isn’t good for …vision!
Sorry to rubbish two professional groups crucial of our lives but, it is how I feel, I have spent a lifetime putting right professionals who think they know. When they don’t. Sometimes they agree with me and sometimes they dig in, but either way if true evidence is overwhelming then intransigence prevents agreement or acceptance. But I’ll still keep pointing out what I think is wrong.
Yes, a large state can be better managed. I’m not saying it can’t be improved. To save more. But people need jobs Steve. The point is do we need podcasters or nurses? Bankers or soldiers? And so on. We have yo have it fair.
But before we go down that rabbit hole let’s just concentrate on money flow.,
To begin with we need sufficient money in the pot. Sufficient to go around 70 million citizens. And it needs to cover their needs and aspirations. So I have sympathy with MMT that we can and should produce enough to begin with. It’s mathematical and beyond me. But it’s doable. We need sufficient money not insufficient money in the daily tax paying pot.
Then money has to flow from SPENDING because, as I have explained how, we all need paying and we all need to spend sufficient of that money to cover the fully required tax bill of government. Do money has to flow unhindered. Unfettered.
And the more that amount of money that flows and the faster it flows (time! So enough time to fit the need of flow say, monthly) the more tax is ‘triggered’ then more tax can be gained from increased revenue stream that as we can agree will grow the tax take of government then, that is how increased revenue rotating through our hands between us all can and will gain more tax take so much that overall taxation can reduce and still get more tax revenue. More flow more spending more tax triggered by that increased SPENDING.
So digital payment banking systems can enact this beautifully. Steve don’t be frightened!
We can enforce SPENDING not choice. We can freely choose who we spend. But spend we must. To increase wealth creation by not holding onto money. We are guilty of withholding money from the pot that creates tax take. That’s the SPENDING pot! As apposed to the NON SPENDING pot.
It’s people who don’t SPEND their incomes each month that make us devoid of its use. Banks holding money unspent is the problem. All money has to move to create growth and subsequent wealth. Money must not stop moving. That’s the best economy. One that’s fully funded not underfunded. We are underpaid because of this underfunding.
If we were all properly paid sufficient to spend to give sufficient tax then we wouldn’t need to borrow! Neither would our governments!
And guess who it is that makes us borrow. That causes this interference to our flow? Banks! They hold or rather withhold money to make us borrow. Instead of getting it freely. From the spending if those others.
And who do we borrow money from? The very people withholding our money from us! The few who hold the majority to ransom. That’s undemocratic.
Wealth should be kept, not money. The wealth is the stuff we buy with money, gold, assets, goods and services that others produce. That can be sold on as time goes by. To raise money when required but maybe monthly payments are that much we don’t have to spend and forced to selling our stuff. As our wages may be that good we never have the need to save.
Money is a token of work effort to be used as an exchange with others for their work. In full and fair exchange of work for work. To swap produce of production with that of the others in our economy. To pass on the tokens to be used time and time again over and over again.
But this isn’t happening now. It’s not being spent monthly. It’s not even being taxed! There is no tax on unspent money. None.
So the key always has been spending and not, NOT SPENDING. That contributes nothing. Not even taxes.
I've lost the capacity to take any advice from politicians who have ran the country into the ground. I'll give this a miss as he'll only pass me off and ruin my day. See you in the next video.
Do you understand that government doesn’t need to tax or borrow in order to spend? Please do some research into MMT and your whole perspective will be changed. Government owns the Bank of England, which has monopoly issue over the pound. Spending comes before taxation, government finances are not akin to household finances, and there is no actual need to borrow or tax - inflation should be the main concern. Balance the real economy, not the budget.
Great interview.
Good to hear that Steve Baker is still trying to get the message out.
I will certainly visit the website referred to.
(I have met both of you at the Oxford Univ Mises Society)
Driven by Fabianism and Keynesian mal-economics sadly… . plus a lot of ignorance.
Sorry mate but Keynes wasn’t a socialist. Keynes saw a broken unmanaged capitalist system (which culminated in the Wall Street Crash of 1929) and sought to fix it. The New Deal Order, based on Keynesian economics, led to the Golden Age of Capitalism in the 30 years after the war. There was full employment (everyone willing and able to work could get a job!), higher growth and falling economic inequality - ordinary people with ordinary jobs could afford to go on holiday.
This New Deal Order was overthrown by the Neoliberal Order after external shocks and the misinterpretation of Keynesianism in the 1970s. Neoliberalism came into government with Reagan and Thatcher, and has dominated political economy ever since. It champions free markets and ignores inequality as an issue, amongst other things, leading to the economic woes we face today. Did you know that the 50 richest families in the UK have more wealth than the bottom 50% of the population (34.1 million people)? Neoliberalism doesn’t work.
So please analyse different viewpoints and ditch the ‘socialist’ and ‘Fabian’ labels without proper justification. Keynesianism delivered the best 30 years in human history - he wasn’t a socialist, he was a capitalist seeking to fix its problems!
Sorry 'mate' - he was a Fabian Society member and believed in central (government) control of the money supply. Unfortunately a number of his premises were incorrect... for example interest rate manipulation which he believed controlled employment and commercial activity - which historical empirical data shows to be incorrect.
Well you’ve got one thing wrong - he was never a member of the Fabian Society! Cheers, mate
As good as
"John Maynard Keynes was not a formal, voting member of the Fabian Society, but he was deeply aligned with Fabian Socialism and served as its unofficial "official economist." He was an associate member of the New Fabian Research."
Cheers 'mate'.
Well I don’t know what you want me to say (I’ll drop the mate thing). Most of this is untrue or at best over exaggerated. Keynes was not deeply aligned with Fabian socialism. True, he was in contact with members like George Bernard Shaw, but he criticised both socialism and laissez faire capitalism on many occasions. He was not deeply aligned with Fabianism and he didn’t serve as its unofficial economist. As I said before, he was a capitalist who sought to fix unbridled capitalism. As for being an associate member of the New Fabian Research, I’ve never heard of this I my life and a quick Google suggests it’s nonsense.
Your first reply was factually incorrect, and so is your second. What are you going to say next? From my perspective it seems you’re trying to treat Keynes in a way that aligns with your views on political economy. Please ditch this predetermined opinion and stop trying to force a view of Keynes that doesn’t upset your views.
Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do Sir?”. Please consider the facts.
In my view, most of the inequality we see to day has been created by the last 40 years of money printing and devaluating labour by bringing more people to increase the supply, onto which has been layered an expansion of credit, to which those who already own assets have the easiest and cheapest access.
Having not studied economics formally, I don’t know whether these policies fall within Neoliberalism, Keynesianism, or Thatcherism.
Debasing the currency has been the Left's plan for a very long time. Who is so dumb to think HS2 has anything to do with shorter journey times to Birmingham? Same goes for welfare, windmills and solar panels, nothing whatsoever to do with saving the planet, that's for idiots. It's to break us economically. Pure Cloward Piven. ps the infiltrated 'liberal' top Tories massively involved.
Spot on. But I think all politicians are compromised by those truly in charge.
So true
Maybe, but how does that work, given that it affects the poorest most, and the Left aims to attract the majority of its votes from such people?
I guess they don't understand the cause of their poverty, but as they're poor, they vote for more handouts, as offered by The Left.
https://mises.org/free-market/keynes-and-reds
Read for yourself. He was intrigued by 'State Control' and believed in Fiscal Control (state control of interest rates), a fallacy as we know (well - I do anyway).
Yup - Thank You. I ain't necessarily your 'mate'; never even met you!
Interesting Dominic, you should think about what Elon Musk said the other day in an interview — I paraphrase, in a world of unlimited stuff, being produced (I guess he means enough Tesla cars for everyone and stuff like that, or everyone in the world can have a copy of your latest book) he seemed to think people needed to forget money. He made some interesting points as he is saying we will not need money or banks ? What he is saying is that people will not need to work, or what they do will not pay, so perhaps I can learn to paint, like hitler wanted (I have no wish to be a great painter), it just always makes me think if he had of been allowed to learn to do what he wanted, perhaps 🤔 we would still have our empire.
So joining up this observation from Musk is he sees no limits on resources and robotics can automatically produce whatever we need. Trouble is with that argument. If I want to live in Buckingham Palace, how does that work! What happens to the private property some have amassed.
I guess he is thinking that everyone will live in the same apartments (built by the Trump family) and the super wealth overloads have the bigger section of the pie. What is in effect a tyrannical world.
Money must remain free of state control BITCOIN seems to have been shown to have a flaw in the sense the exchanges are not legally allowed to trade without KYC fully in place. So if Mr Putin has £1m to spend in the UK, I cannot sell him or swap some of my lovely home grown tomatoes 🍅 for his bitcoin but I can with you 😉