Jamie Dow

But that just makes my original question more pressing (and it was part of why I asked it). We're in a situation that would provide ample political cover for the use of QE for e.g. defence and overseas aid. Charitable question is whether there are *good* reasons I've overlooked against doing this.

Yes. All of this seems right.
I guess that some of the political difficulty of having recourse to the "print the money" option would not apply in an emergency situation like the current situation. People don't seem to insist on "balanced budgets" in emergencies (furlough schemes, etc.)!

Of course, one answer is to say simply that govts don't believe in MMT. But in the sense that's important, that's obviously false. Govts know full well how money gets created and where the limits on that come from. MMT people have demonstrated that these are explicitly recognised in govt.

That's why I was hoping @richardjmurphy.bsky.social might step in. There are factors (inflation, devaluation) that limit the extent to which money-creation is wise. And here are 3 cases (1) int'l aid; (2) defence; & (3) inward investment, where govt behaviour doesn't match MMT-informed expectations.

Of course, if it turned out that all the aid was spent in purchases from UK companies, ditto (and more likely) for defence spending ... then it looks as though that might be problematic, because the UK govt would be de facto spending in the UK market.

And in defence - particularly supporting Ukrainian armed forces - again the spend happens elsewhere, and also in a context where you're well below the point where excess GBP availability is going to create GBP devaluation. That's the suggestion. Could it be right? or am I overlooking sthg?

Hi, Stephen. Yes, exactly. That's the question. If the spending power overseas from development is (initially / primarily) spent on essential commodities in the local economy there, then you could ramp up spending a lot of it before you gave rise to either UK inflation or GBP devaluation.

That's understood. We're asking a question that's a bit further down the line from what you've said.

In the case of overseas aid, in particular, it looks as though increased spend does not increase the supply of money within the UK economy at all as it is spent overseas. In defence, I suppose it is more complex, but some of the same would apply. Why not then use QE to massively increase these?

@richardjmurphy.bsky.social In my limited grasp of MMT, a UK govt's (BoE-supported) increased spending is problematically inflationary if spent on some things, but not if it is spent on others (e.g. structural investments). Where do international aid and defence spending fit into this picture?

Badenoch: the UK should "live within its means."
OK.
Roughly translated, it means: "UK national economy = household budget."
That tells us all we need to know about Badenoch's understanding of economics.

Is Labour comms disastrous or genius? Surely it's rubbish. NICs increase was part revenue-raising, part aimed at productivity (so, yes! - orgs feeling under pressure to do more with fewer staff, that's the general idea!). Investment in growth? Same plan (silently initiated) now ="futher and faster"!

Lots of jip for Rachel Reeves just now.
Obvs, taking each in isolation: it would be better for her to spend more, tax less, and keep inflation low.
Much criticism focuses on just one, ignoring the others. But is there a sensible critique saying what she should be doing instead across all 3 areas?

The spending usually talked about is regular ongoing spend (health, education, etc.). And the inflation bit is important, because as we know from MMT, you could just create the money to spend. But that is going to be highly problematic in the current context for various reasons esp inflation.

This weekend brought fresh opportunities to hear familiar complaints about the current UK Labour government: it must spend much more, and tax much less (and not increase inflation). Mmmm.
Slightly less contradictory version: spend much more *on me*, and tax *me* much less. Still: Mmmmm.

I'd be particularly delighted to supervise more in my areas of interest (Ancient Philosophy, Emotions, Leadership Ethics, Persuasion), but with 50+ philosophers in Leeds, we're one of the UK's biggest centres, and a really great place to belong as a researcher.

ahc.leeds.ac.uk/philosophy-r...

3 chances for PhD funding in Philosophy/Ethics at Leeds.
(1) White Rose College of the Arts and Humanities (WRoCAH) PhD studentships - home/intl.
(2) School of Philosophy, Religion, and the History of Science (PRHS) PhD studentships - home/ intl.
(3) IDEA Ethics Centre studentships - UK appls only.

Presidential pardons just shouldn't exist. And they shouldn't be used in suboptimal situations where they do exist. This is deeply disappointing from Joe Biden, who otherwise might be remembered as have done rather better than he's currently seen as having done.