Tax cuts for the rich, hurrah!

[wellyfish]

What you are saying is different to what is happening.

In what way?

Govt is still spending every day
It's still paying nurses, doctors, policeman, judges, and any other contracts it's entered into etc, right?

 

[Notch7]

So this is all about a government daring to reduce Tax. They must be taught a lesson by the IMF etc.. BoE have the hump as they weren't consulted etc.

Completely wrong.

it is all about a government making massive unfounded spending plans.

as for the rest of your horsesh1t …you are so easily brainwashed by the tosh spouted by Tory grifters.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

In what way?

Govt is still spending every day
It's still paying nurses, doctors, policeman, judges, and any other contracts it's entered into etc, right?

Let's put it another way.

Why can't we just keep digitally printing more money and spend our way out of any issues.

Why is the government looking for spending cuts ?

 

[wellyfish]

Why can't we just keep digitally printing more money and spend our way out of any issues.

Did you read this?

WWII - you've inadvertently pointed to the core understanding that most don't get; it's not about £s, it's about resources. UK didn't borrow money from USA because it didn't have enough £s. It borrowed $ from the USA to buy the resources that the USA could provide. It's about stuff, real resources, not £s.

You have it backwards. For example, how will creating more £s make more energy available? It won't, at least not in the short term. The issue with energy is supply, there simply isn't enough of it to meet demand hence the huge price increases. It's about real resources, not the number of £s we can create (which is infinite).

EDIT: I don't consume any legacy so have no idea what you mean by 'spending cuts', can you elaborate?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Did you read this?


You have it backwards. For example, how will creating more £s make more energy available? It won't, at least not in the short term. The issue with energy is supply, there simply isn't enough of it to meet demand hence the huge price increases. It's about real resources, not the number of £s we can create (which is infinite).

EDIT: I don't consume any legacy so have no idea what you mean by 'spending cuts', can you elaborate?

Ministers told to make savings as Tory anger over markets chaos grows

Chief Secretary to the Treasury will write to government departments to demand cuts in bid to restore strength of the pound

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Did you read this?


You have it backwards. For example, how will creating more £s make more energy available? It won't, at least not in the short term. The issue with energy is supply, there simply isn't enough of it to meet demand hence the huge price increases. It's about real resources, not the number of £s we can create (which is infinite).

EDIT: I don't consume any legacy so have no idea what you mean by 'spending cuts', can you elaborate?

So you are now saying there is no benefit in creating more money ?

 

[wellyfish]

So you are now saying there is no benefit in creating more money ?

Of course I'm not saying that, read what I posted. Then ask some nurses, doctors, teachers, policemen, soldiers etc. if they'd like to keep getting paid.

Comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong point. You seem to want to take a specific point and extrapolate it to the general situation to prove some kind of point that only exists in your head. It's infantile.

I predict your next post will be along the lines of 'is there any benefit in creating money, yes or no?'

You don't seem to understand what spending cuts are either.

I checked a few of the government stenographers, sorry legacy MSM outlets and, surprise, surprise they say the same thing:

.From the link to the Telegraph: "Mr Philp’s letter will insist that departments find savings where possible and live within existing budgets"

. From Huffpost: "Chris Philp, chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng’s deputy in the Treasury, will write to Cabinet ministers to urge them to make efficiency savings in their departments’ existing budgets"

. From Sky News: "Now the Treasury is expected to send out a letter within hours to secretaries of state insisting that departments find savings where possible and live within existing budgets.

No departments will suffer spending cuts, their budgets will remain exactly as they were.

That's what we call 'optics'. Utterly meaningless but it makes it look like they are doing something when, in reality they aren't.

Only the politically naive would be taken in by that kind of stunt.

 

[Pat ex]

I predict your next post will be along the lines of 'is there any benefit in creating money, yes or no?'

Is there any detriment in creating money, yes or no?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Of course I'm not saying that, read what I posted. Then ask some nurses, doctors, teachers, policemen, soldiers etc. if they'd like to keep getting paid.

Comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong point. You seem to want to take a specific point and extrapolate it to the general situation to prove some kind of point that only exists in your head. It's infantile.

I predict your next post will be along the lines of 'is there any benefit in creating money, yes or no?'

You don't seem to understand what spending cuts are either.

I checked a few of the government stenographers, sorry legacy MSM outlets and, surprise, surprise they say the same thing:

.From the link to the Telegraph: "Mr Philp’s letter will insist that departments find savings where possible and live within existing budgets"

. From Huffpost: "Chris Philp, chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng’s deputy in the Treasury, will write to Cabinet ministers to urge them to make efficiency savings in their departments’ existing budgets"

. From Sky News: "Now the Treasury is expected to send out a letter within hours to secretaries of state insisting that departments find savings where possible and live within existing budgets.

No departments will suffer spending cuts, their budgets will remain exactly as they were.

That's what we call 'optics'. Utterly meaningless but it makes it look like they are doing something when, in reality they aren't.

Only the politically naive would be taken in by that kind of stunt.

Its not me suffering comprehension problems, its the different comments you keep making.
No such thing as debt
Gdp to (non) debt doesnt mean anything.
We can print as much money as we want
Now there is no benefit in creating more money, which we got to a few days ago.

Not sure you understand what you are lecturing us about.

 

[wellyfish]

Its not me suffering comprehension problems, its the different comments you keep making.
No such thing as debt
Gdp to (non) debt doesnt mean anything.
We can print as much money as we want
Now there is no benefit in creating more money, which we got to a few days ago.

Not sure you understand what you are lecturing us about.

So proving my point about your lack of comprehension.

Your 'contributions' so far can only lead me to the conclusion that you will never understand how the money system works in your own country (even though I laid it out as simply as possible) let alone the implications of that understanding.

I won't be engaging with you any further in this thread.

 

[wellyfish]

Is there any detriment in creating money, yes or no?

Where's your homework?
Don't bother me again until you are ready to have it marked.

 

[Pat ex]

Where's your homework?
Don't bother me again until you are ready to have it marked.

Evasion of the question because you know your answer would prove you very wrong.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

So proving my point about your lack of comprehension.

Your 'contributions' so far can only lead me to the conclusion that you will never understand how the money system works in your own country (even though I laid it out as simply as possible) let alone the implications of that understanding.

I won't be engaging with you any further in this thread.I

can we create money for ever with no problems ?

sounds like Utopia to me

 

[JohnD]

For a fair assessment of the likely results, just read the report which the Office of Budget Responsibility is obliged to produce.

Oooops.. you can't, because Truss has suppressed it.

https://www.ft.com/content/2c48aac5-f65e-4bea-beb9-293c69e5d280

"Last week chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng refused an offer from the OBR to produce forecasts to accompany his £45bn tax-cutting “mini” Budget, a move that was widely cited as a factor in the subsequent crisis in financial markets as government bonds sold off sharply and sterling became extremely volatile.

The Bank of England has since launched a £65bn emergency intervention to buy government bonds, which aims to prevent a crisis in the pensions sector, but it ends on October 14."

 

[wellyfish]

The Bank of England has since launched a £65bn emergency intervention to buy government bonds, which aims to prevent a crisis in the pensions sector, but it ends on October 14.

Stop issuing bonds. Job done.