skip to Main Content

British Labour may as well just not turn up at the next election

Why does the Shadow Chancellor of Britain have a WWW page entry at the Institute for Fiscal Studies? HERE. Perhaps when you read this you will have the answer. What follows is bad. It won’t make anyone happy – my critics or those who agree with the analysis. But that is what has happened in the progressive world as lots of ‘progressives’ added the neoliberal qualifier to their progressiveness and paraded around claiming technical superiority and insights on economic policy that the old progressives just could not grasp. They have become so enthralled by their own cute logic that they cannot see they are handing the opposite side of politics electoral victory on a consistent basis. After you read this you might understand why I say that the British Labour may as well just not turn up at the next election.

I loved the recent statement from Paul Ziemiak, who is the general secretary of Germany’s Christian Democratic Union and a member of the Bundestag.

He was attacking the Die Gruenen (Germany’s Green Party) proposal to reform the German debt brake to provide more scope for public infrastructure spending.

Ziemiak is a conservative voice in a conservative CDU. His conservatism extends well beyond economic matters and into social policy (abortion etc). Not a likeable fellow.

Ziemiak tweeted on January 12, 2021:

Kinder können nicht auf Schuldenbergen spielen. @Die_Gruenen wollen die #Schuldenbremse schleifen und legen die Axt an Generationengerechtigkeit & Nachhaltigkeit an. Wir sollten begriffen haben: Solide Finanzen sichern Handlungsfähigkeit in der Krise …

Which means:

Children cannot play on mountains of debt. @Die_Gruenen want to weaken the # debt brake and put the axe to generational justice & sustainability. We should understand: solid finances ensure the ability to act in a crisis …

Metaphor!

Children play in playgrounds, which should be provided as public infrastructure everywhere.

Without sufficient public spending the children will have nowhere to play!

Think about this obsession with sound finances.

It is easy to characterise it as a German trait given their pathological anxiety about inflation and concern to be rule-driven (when it suits them).

But it extends (and still dominates) the English-speaking polities.

Yesterday (January 13, 2021), the Shadow British Chancellor presented the so-called – Mais Lecture, which is hosted by the City University of London and is a “leading event for the banking and finance community in the City of London”.

If you track through the various speakers since the lecture began in 1978, there have been no non-mainstream economists invited.

It is all sound finance, then when you have enough of that, repeat.

You can read her speech – HERE.

We heard:

1. “Central bank independence – introduced by a Labour government here in the UK – is essential for the tough, transparent and coherent macroeconomic policy framework that is necessary for a resilient economy.”

2. “the UK’s monetary policy regime is both democratically legitimate and highly effective.”

3. “The Bank’s monetary policy role also continues to be essential – and I want here to be crystal clear that this role must continue to be exercised independently.”

4. And this joke of the year so far:

The Bank’s quantitative easing measures – on a scale that has seen asset holdings double in the last year, and its balance sheet set to represent half the stock of the UK’s total outstanding debt – are, clearly, within its mandate, and consistent with the Bank’s symmetrical inflation target. Andrew Bailey, the Governor has made clear that at no point did the Bank believe its job was just to finance whatever debts the government issues.

So playing the standard neoliberal card that the huge debt purchases are liquidity measures designed to push up the inflation rate to the Bank of England’s target.

Everybody knows what is going on.

The central banks are buying the debt to take control of bond market yields because they know the fiscal deficits will have to be large to meet the challenges of the pandemic.

Their behaviour has nothing to do with pushing up inflation rates towards targets.

Because if they really believed that they should all resign for being incompetent given they have been spectacularly unsuccessful in pushing up inflation rates.

Just look at Japan and Europe.

Why not just admit what they are doing and allow the public to better understand the monetary dynamics involved.

And the reason that inflation has not risen as a result of the massive bond purchases is because the theory these characters preach based on the quantity theory of money and the money multiplier, which lies at the heart of the New Keynesian mainstream, is wrong in the first place.

5. She then basically contradicted her previous point by saying that without the Bank’s massive bond purchases:

… the cost of public sector borrowing at such a precarious moment would have become highly contingent on the appetites of private investors, hampering the government’s ability to put economic measures in place to support workers and businesses through the crisis.

Nothing about ‘symmetrical inflation targets’ here. This is all about ensuring bond yields are low and that the bond markets have no role in setting yields.

She apparently doesn’t see the contradiction, which should worry British voters.

I wouldn’t vote for a Party that paraded these views as a CV for future control of government.

6. And why not then introduce the ‘we can keep borrowing because rates are low for the time being’ argument that ‘neoliberal progressives’ love to repeat endlessly.

This strange bunch who think they are outsmarting the conservatives with their technical nous only to lose repeated elections because the progressive parts of the package don’t stack up with the sound finance parts.

The Shadow Chancellor said that:

… it would be an irresponsible economic policymaker who planned on the assumption that low interest rates will continue indefinitely.

Which means that they will have to cut spending if interest rates rise, which means she wants bond markets to reassert their control over yield setting and then will accede to nonsensical claims that the public debt is too high and the deficits are ‘costing’ the taxpayer and will have to be reigned in.

7. She then invoked the mainstream economics notion of ‘time-inconsistency’ which has been used as a hammer to force governments to accept inflexible fiscal rules and avoid discretionary fiscal interventions.

I wrote about this notion in this blog post – MMT is just plain good economics – Part 2 (August 13, 2018).

You can read up on it there.

There is little credibility in the notion but has been a powerful ideological weapon to bring progressive political parties into line. And since it entered the lexicon, social democratic-type parties, which accepted the fiscal rule dogma have seen their electoral fortunes systematically decline to the point they are mostly unelectable.

I noted that this notion underpinned British ‘Labour’s Fiscal Credibility Rule’ that helped destroy its 2019 election chances.

It was a product of these developments and attempts to cast it as progressive are just in denial of the roots of the ideas underlying the Rule.

And it seems that the current Labour Party will continue down this track.

The Shadow Chancellor cited the OECD, IMF and IFS as authorities that the Party will follow as it brings in “a more responsible approach to fiscal policy”.

I told you it was bad.

She told the audience that “The question is, indeed, not whether there should be rules in place– but whether those rules are the right ones and whether they are properly implemented.”

And considered the IFS analysis in this regard to be “useful”:

… a rolling, forward-looking target of current budget balance which allows the government to borrow for additional investment spend when interest rates are low, and which provides flexibility during times of economic shock. The IFS suggested that in a crisis scenario, a so-called fiscal anchor could be set to limit the amount of permanent tax cuts or further increases in day-to-day spending that is announced.

They may as well not bother to turn up to the next election.

So governments can only invest in public infrastructure if “interest rates are low”.

And some sort of recurrent balance between spending and taxation with all the flaws that type of reasoning carries or in her words “a balanced budget over the cycle”.

I am waiting for the Tweets to come from the insiders claiming (once again) that I don’t understand the rules.

They didn’t Tweet much when they were forced to change the previous rule in the weeks before the 2019 election because the problems I had exposed with it were more broadly picked up in the media.

The New Statesman commentary on her lecture (January 13, 2021) – Anneliese Dodds’ Mais Lecture articulates Labour’s new approach on economics – concluded by noting that:

Today, Dodds achieved a politically remarkable feat: she attracted a glowing write-up from the FT’s influential economics editor Chris Giles and an approving tweet from James Meadway, the adviser who more than anyone bar John McDonnell himself shaped the Labour Party’s economic strategy under Corbyn.

Which should give all Labour Party members cause for concern.

The Shadow Chancellor’s speech drew (plagiarised) doctrine from the IFS.

Compare these two paragraphs.

IFS publication (October 8, 2019) – Fiscal targets and policy: which way next?

This would allow additional investment spending to be financed from borrowing when interest rates are low, and would also allow the chancellor some flexibility when responding to adverse shocks.

Mais Lecture Text:

… allows the government to borrow for additional investment spend when interest rates are low, and which provides flexibility during times of economic shock.

Who wrote her speech?

So what is this fiscal anchor? Remember that anchors stop boats from moving by introducing rigidity.

In the blog posts listed at the end, you will find detailed discussion of these type of rules.

I also analysed the Swiss debt brake, which is often held out as the model to be followed, in this blog post – Fiscal rules going mad … (June 24, 2009).

I show that typically these debt brakes will create rules that start restricting net public spending (deficits) well before full employment is reached.

It is interesting that the Shadow Chancellor’s speech yesterday didn’t mention full employment as a policy goal once.

It didn’t mention that the role of fiscal policy is to ‘fund’ the non-government overall saving desire to ensure that full employment is sustained.

It was full of stupid neoliberal statements about ‘credibility’ and ‘responsibility’ but failed to actually mention the only fiscal rule that makes sense, which I outline in detail in this blog post: The full employment fiscal deficit condition (April 13, 2011).

If fiscal policy pursues that condition, then there is never a need for any voluntary constraints like debt brakes on the discretion of government.

All these constraints do is make it easy for the conservatives to give progressive governments hell during downturns for ‘spending too much’.

Concepts of credibility are equally flawed.

Credible to whom? Well the financial markets is the answer.

What priority should they have? For British Labour – the City of London is to be prioritised – and the government has to be credible in the eyes of the speculators who play with fire in the financial market casino.

Of course, that lot talk big about credibility. What it means to them is that government will give them handouts when they overreach in their greed and will give them leverage over bond yields so they can bleed more corporate welfare from the state.

This has been an obsession of British Labour since the mid-1970s and really marked the end of them as a progressive party.

If the government defied the City, what do you think would happen?

Not much, except the population would realise that the legislative power of the British government is dominant and the bankers would be crawling around for crumbs.

Until Labour realise that and stop pandering to this amorphous lot of gold diggers they will continue to fail.

The IFS claim that a fiscal anchor might be designed to “set a maximum amount of permanent discretionary fiscal loosening that the chancellor would be prepared to implement.”

Why?

Why not leave it to the government which has to face regular elections to pursue full employment using whatever fiscal position they deemed to be appropriate and face the consequences from the voters if they fail?

Labour is trapped in this technical world they think will be attractive to voters. Meanwhile the Tories have broken free of it and while I am not in agreement with the way they are using the fiscal flexibility they are now enjoying, the point is that they are no longer talking about sound finance.

That role is now being taken up by the Leader of the Opposition.

Starmer said the other day (January 11, 2021) that (Source):

Of course there is a borrowing issue for the longer term … The level of debt is much higher than it’s ever been before, and there are going to have to be long-term answers as to how we repay that

So now they are playing the ‘sound finance tough guy’ role.

This sort of ‘technical’ obsession was brought home again in the UK Guardian Op Ed (January 13, 2021) – Keir Starmer won’t bring voters back to Labour with just a list of Tory failures – which was commenting on a speech made by Labour leader Starmer about current British policy failures.

We read:

Starmer’s difficulties were illustrated by a speech he gave on Monday … mostly it sounded as if it had been composed on a spreadsheet.

So sterile, no vision, no daring, no hope!

I should also qualify the use of the term ‘technical’.

It is, in fact, faux technical, because it thinks rehearsing mainstream macroeconomics and its sound finance principles is somehow scientific and authoritative.

Sound finance is fake knowledge.

Isaac Newton’s theory of gravity is knowledge and carries the authority and respect that all knowledge should carry.

Sound finance and the type of economics that Starmer and his gang are continuing to rehearse is not knowledge.

Its only authority lies in the fact that it suits the top-end-of-town by giving them more access to national income, more public largesse, and keeps the working class in subjugation approaching poverty, which then suppresses wages growth and the wheel turns.

On January 1, 2021, the UK Guardian published an Op Ed by academic historian David Edgerton – One good thing could come out of Brexit: a bonfire of national illusions.

I had mixed reactions to his analysis – that is, I agreed with some and disagreed with some other.

But David Edgerton made some very important points that will definitely pass the Labour Party honchos by.

In responding to his own question about Brexit: “Does it offer possibilities for Labour?” he answered:

For now the answer is no, given that Labour’s position is to be patriotic and prostrate. Indeed, Brexit is a potent reminder of the power of new conservative ideas in shaping Labour’s agenda. In the 1930s, Labour followed the Tories from being a party of free trade to one of imperial protection – and then, to backing the EEC, and in the 1990s, to globalisation and the free market …

Keir Starmer is straining to appeal to a mythical ur-Labour voter, constructed like a specimen of stone age man by Tory paleontologists of the “red wall”.

Yet the ideological maelstrom of Brexit gives Labour the opportunity to abandon old nostrums and re-energise itself with a new national mission and a new history of its own. The left needs to disabuse itself of the cosy and outdated notion that Britain’s ills are caused by imperial hangovers and a consequently incompetent upper-class elite. Labour needs to wake up and offer an alternative future to contest the Tory narrative – one that amounts to more than just better welfare and more administrative competence …

Labour could start by being nostalgic not for a Tory past, but a Labour one: of greater equality, of common purpose, of strong trade unions, of rising wages, of meaningful work …. Labour should be the party that speaks in realities, not in celebratory fantasies …

And Starmer’s ambition saw a genuine progressive (Jeremy Corbyn) eviscerated in public and the Labour Party lose another election.

For reference, here is a sequence of blog posts I wrote about the last Fiscal Rule adopted by the Labour Party:

1. The British Labour Fiscal Credibility rule – some further final comments (October 23, 2018).

2. British Labour Party is mad to sign up to the ‘Charter of Budget Responsibility’ (September 28, 2015).

3. The non-austerity British Labour party and reality – Part 2 (September 29, 2015).

4 The full employment fiscal deficit condition (April 13, 2011).

5. Seeking zero fiscal deficits is not a progressive endeavour (June 18, 2015).

6. Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘New Politics’ must not include lying about fiscal deficits (September 15, 2015).

7. British Labour has to break out of the neo-liberal ‘cost’ framing trap (April 12, 2017).

8. British labour lost in a neo-liberal haze (May 4, 2017).

9. When neoliberals masquerade as progressives (November 9, 2017).

10. The lame progressive obsession with meaningless aggregates (November 23, 2017).

11. The New Keynesian fiscal rules that mislead British Labour – Part 1 (February 27, 2018).

12. The New Keynesian fiscal rules that mislead British Labour – Part 2 (February 28, 2018).

13. The New Keynesian fiscal rules that mislead British Labour – Part 3 (March 1, 2018).

14. MMT is just plain good economics – Part 1 (August 9, 2008).

15. MMT is just plain good economics – Part 2 (August 13, 2008).

16. A twitter storm of lies … (August 15, 2018).

17. A summary of my meeting with John McDonnell in London (October 17, 2018).

Conclusion

The Labour Party could save their members the anxiety by just agreeing that it is pointless to turn up to the next election.

With the Tory government demonstrating it is one of the worst in British history (as far as I know that history) the fact Labour is trailing the Tories in the polls and the gap is widening again tells you something (Source).

Perhaps Starmer and Dodds might also get some speech advice from Paul Ziemiak, he seems to know a bit!

That is enough for today!

(c) Copyright 2021 William Mitchell. All Rights Reserved.

Spread the word ...
    This Post Has 22 Comments
    1. Labour are just going through the same process the Tories went through after 1997. Just as the Tories harked back to Thatcher by electing Iain Duncan Smith as leader, Labour are harking back to Blair by electing Starmer.

      Quite why Labour is against full employment is beyond me. They will get nowhere until they embrace the Functionalism of MMT.

      But it is more evidence that my bet that a UK Job Guarantee will be introduced by the Tories, not Labour is still on the money.

    2. What is happening in the Labour Party so saddens me. At every possible level during the pandemic Labour politicians have failed to oppose. I really wonder if any of the MPs ever read anything other than Tony Blair’s memoirs. If I can pick up on MMT then surely a person paid to be a political representative should be able to read broadly enough to pick up new ideas. It really isn’t difficult but to trot out all the neoliberal stuff at every opportunity sounds increasingly pathetic.

      I resigned as a member of the party shortly after Starmer took over. I did not like the ad hominem attacks on him during his period of leadership and I don’t like the continuing character assassination and blame for defeat that has continued since. I’ve voted Labour in every election we’ve ever had but I can’t vote for them again. I don’t believe the majority of their MPs have a single genuine belief in their brains. Britain needs a new party of the left, it’s too late the convert the LP.

    3. The UK Labour Party seems to be following Germany’s SDP in dwindling voters and increasing distance from power. @Rod White ‘ really wonder if any of the MPs ever read anything other than Tony Blair’s memoirs’. The tunnel vision is quite extraordinary isn’t it. I remember after the GFC I started reading/websurfing more widely, discarding some stuff and learning more from what stood up to reality. Shortly after the GFC I had more time on my hands having been made redundant. Maybe that’s what all these Labour MPs need – a long time out to research and learn. This applies to Con MPs too of course. In fact, pretty much the whole lot in both Houses of Parliament.

    4. @Chrislongs, Starmer is a knight of the realm, not a peer.

      @Bill, I’m afraid that it is entirely possible for the tories to lose the next election.

      It’s the pit of despair in UK. Surely the only way is up. We need one of our Aussie/US academics to pitch an op ed to FT. Don’t know how to do it. Maybe start at the bottom with Guardian.

    5. Starting point for all is to know where money now comes from. The Positive Money website tells us but for straight from the horse’s mouth The Bank of England Q1 2014 Bulletin website two articles on money creation confirm what PM stated for years.
      The New Economics Foundation also published a book titled “Where Does Money Come From?”
      In his 1934 book “the Financiers and the Nation” Labour politician Thomas Johnston states in Chapter 21 that the money creation system must be nationalised. Labour!! 1934!!

    6. There’s an outside possibility that a better example may be soon set in the US, in which case the Labour Party will look rather stupid not only taking an economic stance to the right of Rishi Sunak, but also to the right of Biden’s Democrats.

      If so, the meme that says the UK follows five years behind America could perhaps offer some encouragement?

    7. “Sound finance is fake knowledge:” MMT’s assessment of mainstream economics in a nutshell. No matter how formidable the opposition may look at the moment, no matter how maddening the delay in alleviating unnecessary pain, reality will inevitably assert itself. In light of the pandemic, which is just BEGINNING to unfold, all currency-sovereign nations will have no choice but to operate their economies on MMT principles. Patience is a virtue that we MMTers are now called upon to exercise–the quiet, steady resolve which accompanies CONFIDENCE.

    8. “I really wonder if any of the MPs ever read anything other than Tony Blair’s memoirs”

      The ones who were parachuted in by him certainly haven’t. The vast majority of the PLP are there because it’s a nice little earner for them, not because they have any interest in improving society for the majority. There are probably only 20-30 MPs that are genuine socialists.

    9. All the cryptic techno-speak is meant to confuse the listener, and awe him, of so complex and inscrutable a field of expertise. Hey, we should be grateful that our welfare is in such good hands. You know what I’ve realized through life: if something is hard to understand – you’re probably being lied to.

    10. You would hope that mainstream framing of fiscal capacity might lessen in USA. However I saw a Biden snippet on the news today paraphrased ‘we must do something, re covid, our econimists are telling us we can while interest rates are so low’

      I think that is what I heard.

    11. Bill. you wrote, “But that is what has happened in the progressive world as lots of ‘progressives’ added the neoliberal qualifier to their progressiveness and paraded around claiming technical superiority and insights on economic policy that the old progressives just could [not] grasp.”

      I’m doing this late, but it still is as I quoted. I think you need that “not”.

    12. In Australia the Greens are slowly edging towards a MMT aware policy platform with a fiscal position that is more expansionary, in the form of their own Green New Deal, than the duopoly and a Job Guarantee for those up to age 30 that could presumably expand to include all age groups. The ALP do take note and seem to alter their policy platform to be closer to that of the Greens in many areas over time but they are still captive to the big end of town but probably less so than the British Labour Party?

      The down side is that most Greens members also want a UBI and that is also Greens policy for up to age 30 at a lower rate than the JG. The fact that a JG makes a UBI more affordable is another selling point for a JG. Free education and plenty of social housing are also Greens policy. The other down side is that borrowing by the federal government to pay for any federal deficits is stated in the Greens policies.

      I suspect MMT is generally accepted by many key people in the Greens senior levels but they don’t want to fight with that label assigned to them at the moment as the general public remain hopelessly ignorant about MMT, macroeconomics in general and are easily swayed by a cunning and malevolent corporate and state owned mass media that serves the ruling oligarchies.

      Many Australians have however realised that the federal debt has expanded hugely during the pandemic response and that this has kept the economy from descending into depression and are suspecting the conservatives prior fear mongering about the debt was hot air or at least exaggerated.

      Back to Britain if Nigel Farage could build up UKIP to a sizable party based on Brexit, patriotism, racism and not much else but with the backing of segments of the oligarchy then it should be possible for a populist progressive party to be created along similar lines?

      Or just wait till the Blairites fail and fail, another decade passes and reenergise another Corbyn like revolution after Boris implements his nationally funded and locally administered PRIVATE SECTOR RUN ‘Employment Equity’ scheme that will use the poor to serve the rich – on steroids??

    13. It puzzles me that the FT reports Dodds’ speech under the headline ‘Dodds signals end to Corbyn era as labour sets out economic vision’. I cannot see that McDonnell would have disagreed with any of it. It treats the economics of a country as similar to the economics of a household thus failing to understand or choosing to misrepresent the capabilities of a currency creating state. All this is done with endless genuflections to the neo-liberal institutions. It was somewhat odd that she decided to hook up with fiscal-anchor theory in the same week the Peterson Institute decided to throw it overboard.
      Then like McDonnell she states that only vastly increased fiscal spending can save the world and we should not worry about paying it back for many years. But, in equating the economics of a state to those of a household, she has completely undermined her ability to defend her own call for vastly increased public spending.

    14. The Meadway set doesn’t quote “proven facts” merely “received opinion” usually the vested opinion of private sector bankers. Where are their proven facts that taxation pays for government goods and services, that government has no money creation powers of its own and must automatically balance its books within a given time frame? Where are its proven facts that given the above “opinions” the nation must pay a “tribute” in the form of interest to private sector bankers for creating money to pay the nation’s taxes? Where is Keir Starmer and Anneliese Dodds making much in the way of effort to deal in “facts” as opposed to “opinions”? Very much not in evidence especially given Starmer worked as a barrister!

      Is it their convinced opinion they are dealing with a “Ring-Through-Their-Noses” nation that don’t do “facts” just “opinions” as far as understanding the role played by the monetary system in the economic life of the nation and leave it at that with maybe a little bit of tinkering round the edges? Feels like it!

    15. Of course the shadow chancellor is talking unmitigated rubbish.
      But labours would be financial rules are not being widely discussed and are irrelevant electorally.

    16. “But it is more evidence that my bet that a UK Job Guarantee will be introduced by the Tories, not Labour is still on the money.”
      says neil wilson
      Well the tories may give lipservice to levelling up ,have described the minimum wage they introduced
      as a living wage but not a chance in hell they would introduce a job guarantee. That is simply
      the wishful thinking of a right wing MMTier .

    17. @’kevin harding’ hmmm, Neil Wilson has been described as many things online, but never a right-winger. He was only placing a bet. In fantasy betting people often bet against what they want as a kind of reverse karma: “if I make a gambling bet I’m bound to lose, so I should at least bet against what I want, then I’ll lose, and get what I want.” Something similar to that is in play when we bet that the opposition we hate will get the credit for doing what we think is good.

      But even if you do not take the playful view, Tories are forever wanting workers to work harder, they complain about slackers all the time. A job guarantee Tory-style (workfare, work for the dole digging coal or what-have-you, Tory dictated jobs programs) is a wet dream for them, and they’re only not doing a JG because they know workfare will be eviscerated in the press. But there is a high probability they’d *vote* for an MMT style JG, simply because they know it’s better to keep people working than not. The hurdles are; (a) getting over the deficit hawk mindset i.e., actually understanding MMT literature and the real life studies like the Jefes program in Argentina, and (b) actually writing a JG bill. But voting for the bill is not a hurdle. My bet is they won’t get around to (b), and perhaps not even (a).

      My other bet is some small insignificant nation will implement a proper JG, but not even use it much, since they’ll just hire everyone unemployed in the private sector into proper paid public sector jobs, and their JG will be very small. An island nation needing to mitigate against sea level rise is a good sort of candidate. Such a nation will likely experience a sort of “economic miracle”. Then others will cotton on. In economics, theory is never seriously trusted, not even by the nerdiest of nerds and wonks (although they’ll always protest otherwise for their own theory), but real results speak for themselves. This is how I predict MMT informed policies will get adopted.

      What odds would I give? Well, I’m not a betting man and my probability estimation sucks despite having absorbed all of Kahneman and Tversky, but I’d wager 25 to 1 that a small nation will, within 20 years adopt public sector full employment with a buffer JG and do it MMT (progressive) style. I’d bet against New Zealand doing it, because I’m a Kiwi and never having made a successful bet in my life I hope to lose that bet. In fact, I will work hard to lose the bet.

    18. I got a great into to MMT trough the CANA Brown Bag Lunch event with you. In the meantime I was in a webinar with Stephanie Kelton who enlightened me even more. I noticed that she sometimes had some success in enlightening some US congresspeople, and that have been doing some things with European countries, and maybe others. I wonder if there is any coordinated or individual effort to liberate the minds of our MPs, from the usual myths about money? If so have there been any positive experiences so far?

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

    Back To Top