Robmaslen oh dear oh dear you have had the highest Paye taxation in 80 years your wages have gone down at a faster rate than any other time since Napoleon food inflation rose to 20% and you had the highest interest rate hike and inflation since the last Tory government the economy has limped along recession after recession after a Labour government that Gave you 43 consecutive quarters of economic growth ! You have just had party gate you had to stay in alone no visiting your dying family or going to their funeral just like the Queen while the Yank Alexis had wine Fridays and was fined for attending an illegal gathering ! Your tax was used to illegally award lucrative PPE contracts for faulty PPE then their mates ran and put their huge profits your tax into off shore accounts wakey wakey
She's handling the economy like a neoliberal ideologue - likening her to a looter makes more sense than a householder. It's worrisome to see the array of challenges our economy is currently grappling with, ranging from uncertainties to housing problems, adverse weather, foreclosures, global fluctuations, and the aftermath of the pandemic, all contributing to instability. The increasing inflation, sluggish growth, and trade disruptions urgently need attention from all sectors to restore stability and foster growth. How do you reckon these issues can be effectively tackled?
The analogy worsens for households. It's like needing a roof fixed and then leasing the new roof from a company for the next 25 years with an initial price tag for the first 5 years, followed by letting the company set the price freely. It's a bit unsettling to witness the government's approach. The pounds devaluation due to inflation, while other currencies are gaining strength, is causing some uncertainty. Despite this, there's still a sense of trust in the pound’s perceived stability. I understand your concern about the potential devaluation of your £420,000 retirement savings. Exploring alternative methods to safeguard your money seems like a prudent step. Have you considered any specific alternatives or strategies to protect your retirement savings?
With my demanding job, I lack time for investment analysis. For seven years, a fiduciary has managed my portfolio, adapting to market conditions, enabling successful navigation and informed decisions. Consider a similar approach.
This is definitely considerable! Do you think you could suggest any professionals or advisors I can get on the phone with? I'm in dire need of proper portfolio allocation.
I'm grateful for your help. After looking up her name online and checking out her credentials, I must say, I'm really impressed. I reached out to her because I could really use all the help I can get. We've set up a call for further discussion.
The more I learn about Reeves' decisions the more I believe she is economically illiterate or to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, she knows the price of everything & the value of nothing.
The analogy is even worse for households. It is as if I need a roof fixed and I would lease the new roof from a company for the next 25 years with the first 5 years prices fixed and after that let the company price it freely.
Sailwaysteam gosh a Tory mp just trashed the pound and cost your household thousands in interest rate hikes and your pension pot was raided all to give the wealthy a tax break that you were going to pay for ! What’s up with you ? Your food budget rose bye 20% in one hit ontop of other yearly rises ! Your tax is the highest it’s been in 80 years that’s higher than any Labour or Tory or any coalition has ever done ? Tap waters not safe to drink and bathing is no longer safe while water bosses have taken out £ billion loans to award themselves & investors huge above inflation rises ! Wake up
@chrisrobinson860 You're a bit early for the performative scoffing, Reeves has had little time to do anything yet. So long as these Labour working class raggamuffins don't blunder into removing the UK from the Single Market and raise taxes to the highest burden since WWII we'll be just fine! Oh wait....
Politicians swallow an obsession with "borrowing" as the media talk about the national debt, without taking cognisance of state assets. In reality, when creating money we are borrowing from ourselves, yet no distinction is made for the purposes of forcing a small state and imposing austerity. We are continually being scammed and our politicians are complicit.
The problem with that is the government currently dictates how and where the state spends that money without any accountability, wile the responsibility for repaying the debt incurred by state borrowing rests solely upon the nation. Also don't kid yourself that we are 'borrowing it from ourselves', government bonds are bought and sold on international markets.
Who is she kidding? She studied PPE at Oxford University. This makes things worse. Her sister Lady Cryer, is also a Labour MP and also went to Oxford. These are not anti-establishment figures. Labour has lost its way. Social Science must redraw the class definitions. We are all working class now. Work on that Labour.
Don’t be fooled by the Oxbridge tag - I agree. I joined the Government Economic Service as an economist back in the late 80’s. Me a son of a coal miner and a cleaner, from a council estate house and local comprehensive school in South Wales. I stood out like a sore thumb against the almost exclusive Oxbridge PPE graduates in my intake. I was not impressed by the majority of them - all very, very confident, mature and eloquent. However the majority blinded by that same confidence to the often basic and pragmatic approach to issues / making them difficult to work with and almost useless at finding well justified solutions. There were a few who were truly excellent economists who I continue to respect hugely for their intellect and open minded approach to issues. The moral of the story is not to be blinded by titles and badges. Judge the individuals on their abilities and actions - the Treasury and Bank of England is full of highly qualified individuals who few would employ to mow their lawns let alone run the country!!!
@@garethmills105 Great comment, and rachael reeves does not fool me, it well know she plagiarised a lot of her book, and her economic skills or lack of will be found out sooner rather than later of this I am sure
2015, Reeves was one of nineteen MPs to have her official credit card suspended by IPSA after racking up £4,033.63 in invalid expense spending - the third-highest sum of all nineteen listed.
Reeves claimed almost £1,300 pounds for utilities for her Home including almost £1,200 for Energy .The parliamentary standards suspended her Credit card when she was unable to Show that more than £4000 of her spending was valid expenditure
Interestingly when the PFI's had all been set in a high borrowing rate environment their expense a few years later was so obvious when rates lowered that a company I worked for was advising public sector to buy themselves out of the PFI and fund the projects via Prudential borrowing. Red or blue the uniparty works for their donors in business who make the easy money with the flick of a pen on the contract.
You have to wonder about her competence when a look back to the previous PFI deals would show her how bad they are for the state and how good for the private companies.
I may be wrong but the pfi deals set up by Blair and Brown are taking 17% straight out of the hospitals budgets that were financed in this way.to paraphrase freddy mercury it's a kind of madness.
Whichever party a UK chancellor comes from, I would guess that the implied function of the task is to keep things running broadly the way the Establishment wants and has historically prevailed on them to operate. That would sit on top of long-established channels, flows, linkages and networks which possibly are not to be called too often or too enthusiastically into question.
Unfortunately, university education is no longer sufficient. That seems to be the peak of her ability, getting a post graduate degree in the LSE. BoJo, T May, Osborne, Clegg, Cameron, Truss, Sunak all went to Oxford, which has the highest prestige in The UK for third level education. The systems are too complex. There is too much immediate reaction in the system. Reeves can not fix what everybody since Lawson created. Alistair Darling was up to the job. Spreadsheet Phil was the best Tory Chancellor. The rest were incapable of handling the complexity of it all.
That is all very clear and agreable, but the interesting question is: "If the country's interest is not looked after, whose interest is? And how could it possibly be acceptable that such state of affairs continues?"
Thatcher said the same, which was pure poppycock and she knew it. They both exploit the general public's ignorance of the difference between macro and micro economies. It's not rocket science: everyone understands what a micro economy because anything from a household budget, shop, factory or multi national is a micro economy. What comes in must exceed what goes out, or you go broke. Macro economies, on the other hand, are the sum total of all the nation's micro economies, plus things like the police, military and schools. But, more importantly (as you said) macro economies can create their own currency. Hence Keynes's counter intuitive solution to the Great Depression: spend your way out of it. Cameron's Austerity program flew in the face of proven economic FACT by doing the opposite of what he should have done: embark on a Green New Deal and build the infrastructure we need for the 21st century. It would have secured his legacy as a great PM rather than the blithering dolt whose mismanagement inflicted Brexit upon us.
Who operates the U.K postal system because it cost around $22.00 U.S Dollars, just to ship a small toy car to the U.S when China charges only around $1.00-$5.00 U.S Dollars to the U.S, Your international shipping rates to the U.S makes almost it impossible for lower income Americans to do online business in the U.S with the U.K on Ebay.
Yep absolutely, I wil share this. EngGBUK Labour party had TEN years at the helm at Holyrood once devolution had been voted for by 75% of the people of Scotland. In that time EngGBUK Labour forced their PFI scheme (scam) onto Scotland to build a few new 'public' buildings, a school or 2, and the main hospital in Edinburgh the ERI. Not only were the buildings not fit for purpose, the ERI was too small for the city and outlying areas, and the heating system was dysfunctional, but it also left the country and councils in massive debt, we are still having to pay the £BILLIONS of 'debt' to private companies and far as I know, once the 'debt' is paid, the ERI STILL won't be in public hands! The staff parking charges were disgraceful, the SNP removed those, and expanded the ERI. I am sure one of Labours' PFI schools had a defect and a wall fell down just missing some students! To add insult to injury at that time, EngGBUK Labour sent £1.5BILLION BACK to Westminster saying ''nothing to spend it on in Scotland''. Not health, education, jobs, adequate infrastructure, housing, 'NOTHING'. I'm not sure if Labour's Edinburgh trams fiasco which cost £bILLIONS more than it was meant to, was PFI scam, but there was a long drawn out expensive investigation, no one went to prison for wasting £BILLIONS of Scotland's money. This is why I would NEVER ever vote Labour again, not anywhere, they are scammers, conning people, even removing winter fuel payment for the older folks, digusting. Oh and UKGB Labour in Scotland started to sell of Scottish Water, thankfully SNP saved it and kept it in public hands! Oh and LabCons were planning to sell off Edinburgh's Western General hospital ( prime site re land) it's a major cancer research hospital and crucial to the capacity of the city. Never ever trust Labour, they ruined lives, did nothing good for Scotalnd whatsoever, wasted £billions, and would totally reverse all progress re postive policies in Scotland if they ever get near being at the helm at Holyrood again, an absolute terrifying thought! Sorry long comment, good to see comments here some very funny too. :-) Hetty, Scotland. Ps Labour ran Glasgow city council for 70+ years, the corruption was off the scale.
Just imagining a conversation between Rachel Reevers and her mother with Rachel looking at the bank statement in alarm and asking whether Granny has any money spare, and Rachel Reeves' mother saying any bailout would come with tough conditions on economic reforms.
Doesn't the government believe that anything that is run by it is inherently less efficient that if it were run privately? And as such the profit would vanish
I love how Richard explains this stuff so well. Now we need someone to make a series of podcasts that honestly and openly explain why politicians are doing what they're doing. Similar to what this podcast did today but even more so. Is their rejection of mmt an honest difference in opinion on economic matters, or is it dishonesty so as to achieve other ends, like privatisation? I bet much like Kernow Damo, another RUclips channel. Thanks Richard for referring to Chris Dillow. I wish folks like Richard and Damo would make more recommendations for other related commentators and channels. Pitchfork Economics is also a great podcast to listen to.
Reeves worked at the boe surrounded by tory bankers living in a deluded bubble and still believes that the fiscal rules that have resulted in zero growth will some how magically work for her.
PFI=Kicking the can down the road; that's what irresponsible (and to be expected) teenagers do; adults (Mrs Rachel Reeves) should be above such immaturity.
why do we have to buy the businesses when nationalising? They've already made enough money out of us. Compulsory purchase order for £1.00 Or Luca Brazzi will do what he does best.
@@Tensquaremetreworkshop TBF that happens every time the markets get the slightest scare. I'm sure you are right but also they have screwed us and the system and ruined the country/ rivers/ seas/ etc so without doubt they will be back when they think they can make money again and we have a government that will elt them squeeze as much out of us without giving anything back so seriously... what is the big deal. Change the system.
@@TensquaremetreworkshopAnd plenty of examples of where it doesn't. It depends entirely on the strength of the local political will and how stupidly entangled you've gotten yourself in this "capital" in the first place. As an example, the water companies could very easily be nationalised at zero cost whilst driving nobody anywhere. All you'd have to do is enforce the laws on sewage already on the books and fine them at the rates already provided for. Instead, we bend over backwards to pretend that the Big Bad Wolf will blow our house down, as you have alluded, if we dare to act in our own interests.
Good god!, i voted for a Labour government, and got a conservative one instead.😅 Still lets give them a chance, they've settled long running public sector disputes, i think. getting rid of repressive anti Union laws, but one of the fundamental things, is to tackle the evil and unjust private housing sector, because having a secure and affordable roof over your head is the best thing in the world. Amen
PFI a Blair witch project, one that we will be paying for the lifetime of the project / contract, take an example: PFI supply money to build hospital and they own the maintenance contract of the building. A lightbulb needs changing which their maintenance company will change and bill the NHS for this. A typical bill..... £80.
Because they realize governments are crap at running things. And they do not have the backstop of bankruptcy. A failing company goes out of existence, to be replaced by one better run. It is called creative destruction, and it is at the heart of western society.
Here in Victoria, Australia we have a Government that is so inept economically that I am pretty sure we are literally headed for State bankruptcy or taxes so high that the people who are not able to flee the state (like me) will end up in poverty through taxation. If you had actually given me the job of deliberately destroying an economy, they would leave me in the dust. They've actually managed to lose money literally faster than if you shovelled it all day and all night every day of the year into a giant furnace! We are talking about a Government debt per capita that has grown from a few thousand AUD to nearly 50,000 in just a decade!! At the rate they are going, they won't even be able to pay the interest on their debt with all of their income and that takes some real, executive skills in a negligence!
I think the secondary point casually dropped in is a good one - even if you're not a Marxist, intelligent people engage with the ideas, not demonise an entire school of thought blindly More people should be like this 🙂
Really, if it were my household finances I certainly wouldn't be flushing 3bn a year (for as long as it takes) down the toilet which is the Ukraine conflict! Surely this is the same bilge water that Thatcher espoused, if so the Labour Party has ceased to exist!
Very clever wording to use real cost (inflation adjusted). In other words if you ignore inflation which is driven by people's opinion then anything is possible, just keep printing and spending and the rest is just irrelevant noise... for the first time I'm glad rachel reeve is the Chancellor! I understand your ideology but we are not a closed system, we heavily rely on other federal banks (we have a trade deficit, a negative balance of payments).
Am I too late to suggest that we should start a campaign to get Professor Richard Murphy offered the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer to replace the current gawd auful incumbent Reeves?🤔🤭
So… hands up now, all those who believe the heart-warming story of kitchen-table thrift. It sounds all together too perfect. Let’s remember that this is a professional politician we’re discussing.
Reeves claimed almost £1,300 pounds for utilities for her Home including almost £1,200 for Energy .The parliamentary standards suspended her Credit card when she was unable to Show that more than £4000 of her spending was valid expenditure @50sBornWomen
I did after 14 years of Tory corruption in which our national debt went from £600 Billion to £2.2 Trillion. The Tories proved that they are not the party of the economy, quite the opposite !!!
'Households mostly take the best deal'. Yeh, right. So none of them take PCP to fund a car, rather than buy an older one that they can afford. Difference in utility is very low, and cost massively higher. But they do it.
That depends on what factors you include in the evaluation of utility. For example, what utility does "signalling high social status" have for one person compared to another when purchasing a car?
@@rfrisbee1 Ahh a new meaning of the word utility I had not previously met… How does demonstrating poor financial management give 'high social status '?
@@TensquaremetreworkshopThe poor financial management is hidden, whilst the flash car is on public display. For some people projecting an image of success is worth financial hardship.
@@rfrisbee1 Read what you have written, and you will see the paradox. Image over reality, more the show less the content. And it all supports what I was saying- many (if not most) households do NOT take the best deal. Irrational, financially illiterate, take your choice.
@@Tensquaremetreworkshop Ever heard the expression "Fake it till you make it"? Unfortunately, in this world image is often more important than substance and people (and advertisers) know this.
I would suggest that 'most households' would and do take short term PFI type of financial decisions. Fixed rate mortgages? Cashing in Privatised industry shares at the first opportunity. .....?
Absolutely. The very existence of a betting industry proves it. You take a bet where the other side decide the odds so they cannot lose? And millions do.
Rachel reeves was given the job of Chancellor because she new how to operate a calculator. Edd balls good mate of George Osborne has told her he can get a copy of osbornes dodgy austerity spreadsheet for her to use .
As currency issuer the government can just create the money to pay for these utilities. However, the reason for paying with bonds would be to ensure there isn't a spike in cash injected into the economy that would be spent on assets or valuable resources. The money for the bonds would come from money created, just like all other government spending, by the Bank of England at the behest of the government and authorised by an act of parliament. Interest is optional, and certainly where created money is offset by the BoE where they own the bonds just a smoke and mirrors operation to convince everyone that bonds finance spending. This is never the case, bonds are a reserve drain; a remnant from the gold standard era where it was important to prevent capital flight via gold or dollars under Bretton Woods. The conversation about return to the government is interesting because profits from state enterprises becomes a form of tax, removing money from circulation so that it can't be spent by the population. It feeds into the whole taxes fund government spending Thatcher lie, "The government has no money but the people's" BS. So should nationalised energy be free? Not really, it's a finite resource and price is a way of controlling access. So a fair amount of energy can be free, a tiered model so that people don't go crazy and run a bitcoin farm for free. This is the sort of argument we should be pursuing, how can we set the public free (in speech and in beer) so that they have a fair shot at an equitable life. So that they have more money to spend in the real economy. So they can trade overwork and under security for Keynes 15 hours per week I like Richard as a social commentator and sometimes he gets the economics right. Use this as a stepping off point into the wider world of heterodox economics. Personally I would recommend Modern Money Theory #MMT. Good luck
The point on nationalisation being made here is ignoring the inevitable and very significant loss of operating efficiency that will arise under a nationalised structure. I am not attempting to make a simple case for privatised ownership of key assets here, however, we cannot ignore the very significant empirical dataset that underpins this statement. If industries that are currently under private ownership become nationalised they will eventually (and maybe very quickly under a Labour administration, with the inevitable leverage the unions have) become operational ‘dogs’. The terms and conditions of employees will balloon to something unsustainable and the investment required to continue necessary gains in productivity will disappear (it is likely that productivity will indeed actually start to fall in nominal and real terms as we have across almost all public services). All this points to an overall economic loss in anything beyond the short term even when considering the financing benefits that are alluded to in the video. Hence the issue is far more complex than the oversimplified and rather naive position set out here.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves earns around £160,000 a year as a Government Minister. I survive on a state pension of £12,000 a year ... and she says SHE had to make difficult decisions. Well, now I have difficult decisions to make: FEED and FREEZE or keep the heating on and STARVE this WINTER! I am really NOT looking forward to the next few months ... if I make it. I SHALL NEVER VOTE FOR LABOUR AGAIN!
Let’s borrow more money when interest rates have been the highest they’ve been for decades, excellent idea NOT, we’re going to get saddled with a bucket load of fixed interest borrowing that as a country we will have to pay for decades beyond this Labour term. This sounds as good as Gordon Brown selling gold stocks at a low. Labour like to spend as much as they like free gifts, just look at how many local authorities are bankrupt and still spending cash on unnecessary projects
I find these vlogs interesting in the sense they over simplify the obvious things govts can do, but don't! In this particular vlog, there is one statement that, in my lifetime, has not proven to be true, and that is that State run industries are better run. I just remember Unions in state run institutions milking it for what it's worth. Productivity was poor. Not that much has changed even today as I think RMT and ASLEF.
I live mine in negative equity and still balance the books 😂 incomings well you know that ..out goings all exspences ..expected borrowing and intrest that entails
@@bearsbreeches Which bit are you having difficulty with? Anyone can issue paper (as it is called). It will have a face value, an interest rate, and a redemption date. What price you get for it will depend on these, but more on the risk it carries.
Talking rubbish the new labour qill do better with no corruption, no filling of pockets, no ridiculus schemes for the poor. It all comrs down to a labour government is unacceptable!!!
You say we don' know why Labour is adopting these policies. But we do know: they"re not working to serve the needs of the population but those of our corporate overlords, the billionaires and trans-national corporations for whom the political class actually works. We all know this, so why not say it.
You have changed your tune quite a bit on second hand investments. Investors now have your endorsement to the extent that they would be "mad" not to borrow money to buy assets that give a positive return (which is what I do).
2015, Reeves was one of nineteen MPs to have her official credit card suspended by IPSA after racking up £4,033.63 in invalid expense spending - the third-highest sum of all nineteen listed.
Let’s not forget that this is, in Starmers words, the ‘most diverse cabinet ever assembled’ I would say it’s the most diversely incompetent cabinet ever assembled and has already proven itself to be just that in a few weeks.
Yeah bring back Liz Truss, VIP lanes, water board share holders bonuses, track and trace (32 £Bn), no benefit Brexit, Rwanda Scheme, highest taxation since WW2. Ahh, those were the days.
@@paultraynorbsc627 We’ve never had such an incompetent government, it was a real clown show. Brown had the highest NHS approval rating in history 85%. Tories wrecked that, they left government with record waiting list for operations that’s over 7m. Same day GP appointments have gone also.
ah, another safe pair of hands - how fortunate we are that this, and the next generations to come, are being landed with the debt - don't bother having kids as they will have a future less worth living than the one we have now..............
Ha ha ha ho ho ho ho take a look at what the brilliant mathematiciancarol vordamen has to say about Uk finances ! National debt hamper person has gone up bye thousands while the amount of £ billionairs has skyrocketed rocketed ! Baroness Mone etc etc
Very condescending video. And doesn't really look at these decisions in the round. One might ask why if Murphy is so smart why he isn't Chancellor or in another major position of influence.
'Better managed under state control'. If history teaches us anything, it is that this is not true. Not even close. Private companies are focused on efficiency to give returns. Civil servants are focused on not being visible until they collect their pension. There is a great deal of difference between owning something and running it. Even then- Post Office anyone? Success or not?
Water companies, success or not? Railways, success or not? Private companies only work in a truly competitive market. The fake markets (like water and the other utilities, rail, prisons etc.) do not deliver the benefits of which you speak.
@@helenheenan3447 The system worked perfectly- it is called creative destruction. You fail, you die. Government departments do not- failure just means we all pay more. And more.
That's very similar to what people were saying about Labour in 1919 and Labour's vote actually decreased in 2024, as did the Liberal Democrats'. The way they are currently going about government, they will certainly be even less popular in 5 years time and get an even lower vote, losing even more seats to independents and Greens. Most of the Labour and Lib Dem gains from the Conservatives were by very small margins and, because of the silly arithmetic of FPTP, it will only take a relatively small Tory recovery to reverse the current situation.
You must be missing the Tory's and its only 6 weeks. not enough hungry children in the county for you. Pleas keep you self opiniated comments to your self and let the rest of us get on with our life's tory free.
The thought that nationalised industries would remain profitable when every business decision is rendered political through state ownership is highly questionable - I remember the 70s
If you remember the 70s, you weren't there... But I remember that wonderful construct, the leading edge car company BL. What wonderful products. If it had only been propped up longer, we could have had Trebant level quality to savour.
Your analogy with the options on the Thames Crossing is just daft. Private finance do it for £9 billion it cost £9 billion and arrives on time. If we use a valid example to show how governments try to run projects we look at Concorde, It was estimated to cost £1.7 billion (in 2023 prices) and ended up costing us the taxpayer £16 billion! She is sensibly option for a fixed price and then letting the private sector run it and deliver it on time. But then you probably want to ignore the Private financed Channel tunnel that was built in just 6 years. The Thames Link project is a tiny element in the whole budget, I am not sure why you are so obsessed with it. Basically you do not understand anything other than the government running everything and running up debt buying up everything into state ownership. Sorry but that view went with the Berlin Wall. But there are still believers in magic money trees and I guess your little fantasy trips appeal to them.
Yeah! Cos, after privatising everything in sight, the UK is doing SO much better than France, Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Norway etc where they didn't. No? The Channel Tunnel came in at twice its original cost, by the way. In Edinburgh, the private sector built a tram system which cost twice the original estimate for half the project and it was delivered two years late. You're the one living in a fantasy world, chum. PFI is just a way of cooking the books to look as if we're not spending money when we are.
@@charliemoore2551 Nothing is perfect but I would note- Concorde which was government run and financed was estimated at under £2bn but then the tax payer had to stump up an extra £14bn. With Private run stuff, we do the deal at X price and if it costs £14bn more (as the channel tunnel did) then the private sector is the one putting their hands in their pockets not the taxpayer. So it seems to me to be the other way round to Murphy's analogy in that Reeves is doing a set deal now at £9bn rather than basically writing a blank cheque of government commitment at whatever cost for later governments to cover (as has happened with so many government grand projects. The key thing is governments are rubbish at running things. The private sector tends to be able to deliver at a lower cost overall even with a profit margin. With your example of France, you seem to have overlooked the fact that France has sold off state assets like their motorways to the private sector. There are difficulties in privately run monopolies like openreach or water companies that I do accept are difficult.
@@grolfe3210 On the contrary. The state is very good at running things. It was the total failure of the private sector to run procurement in the Crimean War which led to the establishment of the UK's Civil Service - which supercharged the running of the British Empire and, in due course, the welfare state. It was the state which resued the railways from chaos and inefficiency - which has since been returned by privatisation, gave us clean water and effective sewage disposal (ditto), standardised electricity and gas production, gave us a universal postal service, telephone coverage, universal schooling and so on. Public Transport was much better when it was municipally run. The NHS, before it was "reformed" by Kenneth Clark and his successors was one of the world's most efficient and effective health care providers. Compare it with the top heavy US system. Private sector efficiency is largely myth based on ideology.
Is it your claim that all PFI buildings are always on budget and on time - if so I like to see the evidence for this. It's not £9 billion, did you forget that you pay for maintenance as well plus their margin?
@@ONeill01 I claim neither point! BUT if it is over budget then we the tax payer do not cover the extra, the private company does (so we dont care) And if they run late then the contract usually and should have a penalty clause in it. Their margin is in the quote. If they quote £9 billion, it costs us £9 billion. We do not get the next minister come along and it rack up to £18 billion as seems to always happen with government spending.
I CAN create my own money (0:38) - I do it every time I use my credit card. It springs into existence as a credit on the shopkeeper's account, and a debit on mine. New. Not a transfer from elsewhere.
@@clementattlee6984 Yes! I have created more money out of thin air. Which currency it is in is irrelevant. And all money is a promise to pay later. Read your banknotes! Most money is created by commercial banks, and they do it in exactly the same way that I do when using a credit card. I have expanded the money supply.
Criticism of not handling the economy like a household is nonsense because the two operate on fundamentally different principles. Households manage a fixed budget and aim to balance income with expenses, while national economies involve complex interactions, including monetary policy, fiscal policy, and macroeconomic factors like inflation and unemployment. Unlike households, governments can influence money supply and borrow at lower interest rates, allowing them to invest in growth even when running deficits. Therefore, applying household economic models to national economies oversimplifies the complexities involved.
If you watched the video, then you will have noticed this is exactly what Murphy was saying. "I make it clear, I don't believe in the household analogy. But if she's going to use it, she should at least follow it. And she's not even doing that."
Why did people vote them in..I cannot get my head round it..well..they've got what they deserve..just keep taking the money off the pensioners and all those people on the edge at the moment..🤢😡
DONT YOU THINK SHE HAS A VERY DIFFICULT JOB IN AFTER WHAT THE CORRUPT USELESS TORIES LEFT HER TO SORT OUT ??? COME IN ANSWER THAT,4 WEEKS SHE'S HAD AND YOUR COMPLAINING, GET A PROPER JOB AND STOP TELLING GUFF AND LIES AND STOP USING THE EASY WAY PUT WITH GETTING PEOPLE TO CLICK SUCH RUBBISH
She hasn't presented a budget yet somehow she's incompetent. Why didn't you complain about Jeremy Hunt and the Tories making an absolute clusterfuck of the economy?
I like these analogies, however, previously when the govt ran state industries, they showed conclusively that they were unable to operate them properly, and they became a loss to the public purse, so it would not make sense to put them in public ownership in the first place. We will find out the truth of this once the rail network falls into public ownership.
Did they? CEGB was in profit for the exchequer when privatised And of course the water industry has been a roaring success Meanwhile our energy and rail are run very well by governments, just not ours
Reeves claimed almost £1,300 pounds for utilities for her Home including almost £1,200 for Energy .The parliamentary standards suspended her Credit card when she was unable to Show that more than £4000 of her spending was valid expenditure @50sBornWomen
You have clearly not lived through and been employed by a nationalised industry I have (British Steel) and under Labour the company was brought to its knees. It a shame educated people like you do not read the history of Nationalisation. Learn lessons from history Professor?
What you are missing from your view on nationalisation (and yes I remember the 70's, I was there), is that nationalised industries don't work well in a globally competitive market. They are necessary in non-competitive areas like water, utilities etc. where there can be no true competition (whatever the Tories might say). Look at our water companies, wholly foreign owned, indebted up to the hilt and yet paying vast dividends to foreign investors. The trouble is that people view nationalisation in a binary way, exclusively good or bad. I say good for public services and utilities, bad for international competition.
For ANY industry to work no matter who owns it, it has to have GOOD managers and in the main as far as I can gather MOST UK industry had BAD managers. In my nearly 50 years of work I only worked for 1 UK owned company it was not badly managed but nowhere near as well managed as the "foreign" owned multinationals I worked for, the exception was "Carilion" it was very badly managed hence went bust.
British Steel was brought to its knees by chronic underfunding, much like every other nationalised industry was, and like the NHS is currently experiencing.
@@richardc513 It is not the dividends that are the problem- it is that they borrowed to pay them. This is a regulation issue- it should not have been permitted. Shareholder value can disappear, debt cannot (without the company failing). And who ran the regulator? That would be the government. The answer for water is to let the companies fail, do NOT compensate the creditors, and take them back for zero (their true value).
She is running the economy as a neoliberal ideologue.
A looter is a better analogy than a householder.
She has no choice. Look at the smear job done on Jeremy Corbyn because he suggested nationalising water, energy and rail
Robmaslen oh dear oh dear you have had the highest Paye taxation in 80 years your wages have gone down at a faster rate than any other time since Napoleon food inflation rose to 20% and you had the highest interest rate hike and inflation since the last Tory government the economy has limped along recession after recession after a Labour government that Gave you 43 consecutive quarters of economic growth ! You have just had party gate you had to stay in alone no visiting your dying family or going to their funeral just like the Queen while the Yank Alexis had wine Fridays and was fined for attending an illegal gathering ! Your tax was used to illegally award lucrative PPE contracts for faulty PPE then their mates ran and put their huge profits your tax into off shore accounts wakey wakey
same as Thatcher did
She's handling the economy like a neoliberal ideologue - likening her to a looter makes more sense than a householder. It's worrisome to see the array of challenges our economy is currently grappling with, ranging from uncertainties to housing problems, adverse weather, foreclosures, global fluctuations, and the aftermath of the pandemic, all contributing to instability. The increasing inflation, sluggish growth, and trade disruptions urgently need attention from all sectors to restore stability and foster growth. How do you reckon these issues can be effectively tackled?
The analogy worsens for households. It's like needing a roof fixed and then leasing the new roof from a company for the next 25 years with an initial price tag for the first 5 years, followed by letting the company set the price freely. It's a bit unsettling to witness the government's approach. The pounds devaluation due to inflation, while other currencies are gaining strength, is causing some uncertainty. Despite this, there's still a sense of trust in the pound’s perceived stability. I understand your concern about the potential devaluation of your £420,000 retirement savings. Exploring alternative methods to safeguard your money seems like a prudent step. Have you considered any specific alternatives or strategies to protect your retirement savings?
With my demanding job, I lack time for investment analysis. For seven years, a fiduciary has managed my portfolio, adapting to market conditions, enabling successful navigation and informed decisions. Consider a similar approach.
This is definitely considerable! Do you think you could suggest any professionals or advisors I can get on the phone with? I'm in dire need of proper portfolio allocation.
Just research the name Desiree Ruth Hoffman. You’d find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment.
I'm grateful for your help. After looking up her name online and checking out her credentials, I must say, I'm really impressed. I reached out to her because I could really use all the help I can get. We've set up a call for further discussion.
The more I learn about Reeves' decisions the more I believe she is economically illiterate or to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, she knows the price of everything & the value of nothing.
Concur
Tory.
The analogy is even worse for households. It is as if I need a roof fixed and I would lease the new roof from a company for the next 25 years with the first 5 years prices fixed and after that let the company price it freely.
Sailwaysteam gosh a Tory mp just trashed the pound and cost your household thousands in interest rate hikes and your pension pot was raided all to give the wealthy a tax break that you were going to pay for ! What’s up with you ? Your food budget rose bye 20% in one hit ontop of other yearly rises ! Your tax is the highest it’s been in 80 years that’s higher than any Labour or Tory or any coalition has ever done ? Tap waters not safe to drink and bathing is no longer safe while water bosses have taken out £ billion loans to award themselves & investors huge above inflation rises ! Wake up
I’m so pleased Reeves isn’t running my business. I’d be bankrupt within six months.
I think you underestimate this shower- they could do it much faster than that.
You'd be bankrupt quicker if the Tories were running it !!!
@chrisrobinson860 You're a bit early for the performative scoffing, Reeves has had little time to do anything yet. So long as these Labour working class raggamuffins don't blunder into removing the UK from the Single Market and raise taxes to the highest burden since WWII we'll be just fine! Oh wait....
Politicians swallow an obsession with "borrowing" as the media talk about the national debt, without taking cognisance of state assets. In reality, when creating money we are borrowing from ourselves, yet no distinction is made for the purposes of forcing a small state and imposing austerity. We are continually being scammed and our politicians are complicit.
The problem with that is the government currently dictates how and where the state spends that money without any accountability, wile the responsibility for repaying the debt incurred by state borrowing rests solely upon the nation.
Also don't kid yourself that we are 'borrowing it from ourselves', government bonds are bought and sold on international markets.
Who is she kidding?
She studied PPE at Oxford University. This makes things worse.
Her sister Lady Cryer, is also a Labour MP and also went to Oxford.
These are not anti-establishment figures.
Labour has lost its way.
Social Science must redraw the class definitions.
We are all working class now.
Work on that Labour.
Most MP`s are there because of family and friends, it is the most nepotistic institution in the UK
Oxford is over rated.
Don’t be fooled by the Oxbridge tag - I agree. I joined the Government Economic Service as an economist back in the late 80’s. Me a son of a coal
miner and a cleaner, from a council estate house and local comprehensive school in South Wales. I stood out like a sore thumb against the almost exclusive Oxbridge PPE graduates in my intake.
I was not impressed by the majority of them - all very, very confident, mature and eloquent. However the majority blinded by that same confidence to the often basic and pragmatic approach to issues / making them difficult to work with and almost useless at finding well justified solutions.
There were a few who were truly excellent economists who I continue to respect hugely for their intellect and open minded approach to issues.
The moral of the story is not to be blinded by titles and badges. Judge the individuals on their abilities and actions - the Treasury and Bank of England is full of highly qualified individuals who few would employ to mow their lawns let alone run the country!!!
@@garethmills105 Great comment, and rachael reeves does not fool me, it well know she plagiarised a lot of her book, and her economic skills or lack of will be found out sooner rather than later of this I am sure
Reeves like most politicians is at best it seems a mediocre person but withe a politicians ego that gives us the joy of leaders like Liz Truss.
Then Rachel’s Oxford degree was a waste of MY household’s money.
2015, Reeves was one of nineteen MPs to have her official credit card suspended by IPSA after racking up £4,033.63 in invalid expense spending - the third-highest sum of all nineteen listed.
Reeves claimed almost £1,300 pounds for utilities for her Home including almost £1,200 for Energy .The parliamentary standards suspended her Credit card when she was unable to Show that more than £4000 of her spending was valid expenditure
Interestingly when the PFI's had all been set in a high borrowing rate environment their expense a few years later was so obvious when rates lowered that a company I worked for was advising public sector to buy themselves out of the PFI and fund the projects via Prudential borrowing. Red or blue the uniparty works for their donors in business who make the easy money with the flick of a pen on the contract.
You have to wonder about her competence when a look back to the previous PFI deals would show her how bad they are for the state and how good for the private companies.
You mean the private companies that politicians are employed by when they quit politics? Purely coincidence, of course.
I may be wrong but the pfi deals set up by Blair and Brown are taking 17% straight out of the hospitals budgets that were financed in this way.to paraphrase freddy mercury it's a kind of madness.
Spot on 😢
Whichever party a UK chancellor comes from, I would guess that the implied function of the task is to keep things running broadly the way the Establishment wants and has historically prevailed on them to operate. That would sit on top of long-established channels, flows, linkages and networks which possibly are not to be called too often or too enthusiastically into question.
Unfortunately, university education is no longer sufficient. That seems to be the peak of her ability, getting a post graduate degree in the LSE.
BoJo, T May, Osborne, Clegg, Cameron, Truss, Sunak all went to Oxford, which has the highest prestige in The UK for third level education.
The systems are too complex. There is too much immediate reaction in the system.
Reeves can not fix what everybody since Lawson created. Alistair Darling was up to the job. Spreadsheet Phil was the best Tory Chancellor.
The rest were incapable of handling the complexity of it all.
I remember Margaret Thatcher coming out with this - does Rachel Reeves think we've forgotten?
That is all very clear and agreable, but the interesting question is: "If the country's interest is not looked after, whose interest is? And how could it possibly be acceptable that such state of affairs continues?"
Thatchernomics were the same.
She has said that she finds it challenging to live on a 6 figure income!!!
Thatcher said the same, which was pure poppycock and she knew it. They both exploit the general public's ignorance of the difference between macro and micro economies. It's not rocket science: everyone understands what a micro economy because anything from a household budget, shop, factory or multi national is a micro economy. What comes in must exceed what goes out, or you go broke.
Macro economies, on the other hand, are the sum total of all the nation's micro economies, plus things like the police, military and schools. But, more importantly (as you said) macro economies can create their own currency. Hence Keynes's counter intuitive solution to the Great Depression: spend your way out of it. Cameron's Austerity program flew in the face of proven economic FACT by doing the opposite of what he should have done: embark on a Green New Deal and build the infrastructure we need for the 21st century. It would have secured his legacy as a great PM rather than the blithering dolt whose mismanagement inflicted Brexit upon us.
Who operates the U.K postal system because it cost around $22.00 U.S Dollars, just to ship a small toy car to the U.S when China charges only around $1.00-$5.00 U.S Dollars to the U.S, Your international shipping rates to the U.S makes almost it impossible for lower income Americans to do online business in the U.S with the U.K on Ebay.
Rachael Thieves, thats`s her new nickname
only for the childish and it's far better than the Tories last chancellor Hunt with a capital C
Yep absolutely, I wil share this. EngGBUK Labour party had TEN years at the helm at Holyrood once devolution had been voted for by 75% of the people of Scotland. In that time EngGBUK Labour forced their PFI scheme (scam) onto Scotland to build a few new 'public' buildings, a school or 2, and the main hospital in Edinburgh the ERI. Not only were the buildings not fit for purpose, the ERI was too small for the city and outlying areas, and the heating system was dysfunctional, but it also left the country and councils in massive debt, we are still having to pay the £BILLIONS of 'debt' to private companies and far as I know, once the 'debt' is paid, the ERI STILL won't be in public hands! The staff parking charges were disgraceful, the SNP removed those, and expanded the ERI. I am sure one of Labours' PFI schools had a defect and a wall fell down just missing some students! To add insult to injury at that time, EngGBUK Labour sent £1.5BILLION BACK to Westminster saying ''nothing to spend it on in Scotland''. Not health, education, jobs, adequate infrastructure, housing, 'NOTHING'. I'm not sure if Labour's Edinburgh trams fiasco which cost £bILLIONS more than it was meant to, was PFI scam, but there was a long drawn out expensive investigation, no one went to prison for wasting £BILLIONS of Scotland's money. This is why I would NEVER ever vote Labour again, not anywhere, they are scammers, conning people, even removing winter fuel payment for the older folks, digusting.
Oh and UKGB Labour in Scotland started to sell of Scottish Water, thankfully SNP saved it and kept it in public hands! Oh and LabCons were planning to sell off Edinburgh's Western General hospital ( prime site re land) it's a major cancer research hospital and crucial to the capacity of the city.
Never ever trust Labour, they ruined lives, did nothing good for Scotalnd whatsoever, wasted £billions, and would totally reverse all progress re postive policies in Scotland if they ever get near being at the helm at Holyrood again, an absolute terrifying thought! Sorry long comment, good to see comments here some very funny too. :-) Hetty, Scotland.
Ps Labour ran Glasgow city council for 70+ years, the corruption was off the scale.
Just imagining a conversation between Rachel Reevers and her mother with Rachel looking at the bank statement in alarm and asking whether Granny has any money spare, and Rachel Reeves' mother saying any bailout would come with tough conditions on economic reforms.
Doesn't the government believe that anything that is run by it is inherently less efficient that if it were run privately? And as such the profit would vanish
I love how Richard explains this stuff so well.
Now we need someone to make a series of podcasts that honestly and openly explain why politicians are doing what they're doing. Similar to what this podcast did today but even more so. Is their rejection of mmt an honest difference in opinion on economic matters, or is it dishonesty so as to achieve other ends, like privatisation?
I bet much like Kernow Damo, another RUclips channel. Thanks Richard for referring to Chris Dillow. I wish folks like Richard and Damo would make more recommendations for other related commentators and channels. Pitchfork Economics is also a great podcast to listen to.
Concerning.
Reeves worked at the boe surrounded by tory bankers living in a deluded bubble and still believes that the fiscal rules that have resulted in zero growth will some how magically work for her.
A meta mistake.
A country shouldn’t be run as a household, but can’t even do that!
Actually, the more I hear the country/household analogy, the more I believe that balancing a household budget is the more difficult task
PFI=Kicking the can down the road; that's what irresponsible (and to be expected) teenagers do; adults (Mrs Rachel Reeves) should be above such immaturity.
PFI Schemes are like taking out a mortgage to buy a single meal or one chocolate bar.
why do we have to buy the businesses when nationalising? They've already made enough money out of us. Compulsory purchase order for £1.00 Or Luca Brazzi will do what he does best.
At which point capital flees the country and it all goes downhill fast. Plenty of examples in the world.
@@Tensquaremetreworkshop TBF that happens every time the markets get the slightest scare. I'm sure you are right but also they have screwed us and the system and ruined the country/ rivers/ seas/ etc so without doubt they will be back when they think they can make money again and we have a government that will elt them squeeze as much out of us without giving anything back so seriously... what is the big deal. Change the system.
@@TensquaremetreworkshopAnd plenty of examples of where it doesn't. It depends entirely on the strength of the local political will and how stupidly entangled you've gotten yourself in this "capital" in the first place.
As an example, the water companies could very easily be nationalised at zero cost whilst driving nobody anywhere. All you'd have to do is enforce the laws on sewage already on the books and fine them at the rates already provided for.
Instead, we bend over backwards to pretend that the Big Bad Wolf will blow our house down, as you have alluded, if we dare to act in our own interests.
Good god!, i voted for a Labour government, and got a conservative one instead.😅
Still lets give them a chance, they've settled long running public sector disputes, i think. getting rid of repressive anti Union laws, but one of the fundamental things, is to tackle the evil and unjust private housing sector, because having a secure and affordable roof over your head is the best thing in the world. Amen
PFI a Blair witch project, one that we will be paying for the lifetime of the project / contract, take an example: PFI supply money to build hospital and they own the maintenance contract of the building. A lightbulb needs changing which their maintenance company will change and bill the NHS for this. A typical bill..... £80.
Actually, John Major's government initiated PFI's in 1992. Blair took them up to the max.
Why didn’t the Tory’s do that when they were in power for 14yrs…
Because they realize governments are crap at running things. And they do not have the backstop of bankruptcy. A failing company goes out of existence, to be replaced by one better run. It is called creative destruction, and it is at the heart of western society.
Here in Victoria, Australia we have a Government that is so inept economically that I am pretty sure we are literally headed for State bankruptcy or taxes so high that the people who are not able to flee the state (like me) will end up in poverty through taxation. If you had actually given me the job of deliberately destroying an economy, they would leave me in the dust. They've actually managed to lose money literally faster than if you shovelled it all day and all night every day of the year into a giant furnace! We are talking about a Government debt per capita that has grown from a few thousand AUD to nearly 50,000 in just a decade!! At the rate they are going, they won't even be able to pay the interest on their debt with all of their income and that takes some real, executive skills in a negligence!
What's worse ... Taxes, which benefit everybody or corruption which only benefits the rich?
Read up on Cloward Pithen
All by design by pyschotic Marxists who hate the west
@@william_marshal lose the ? that was a rhetorical question
I think the secondary point casually dropped in is a good one - even if you're not a Marxist, intelligent people engage with the ideas, not demonise an entire school of thought blindly
More people should be like this 🙂
@@stephfoxwell4620 You seriously think ideas kill people?
PFI it's like taking money from a loan shark ,if London wants it building then let tfl pay for it and make Londoners pay for it
Really, if it were my household finances I certainly wouldn't be flushing 3bn a year (for as long as it takes) down the toilet which is the Ukraine conflict! Surely this is the same bilge water that Thatcher espoused, if so the Labour Party has ceased to exist!
Very clever wording to use real cost (inflation adjusted). In other words if you ignore inflation which is driven by people's opinion then anything is possible, just keep printing and spending and the rest is just irrelevant noise... for the first time I'm glad rachel reeve is the Chancellor! I understand your ideology but we are not a closed system, we heavily rely on other federal banks (we have a trade deficit, a negative balance of payments).
And the fucking tories dud nt allow my landlord to put up rent by 30% comment on that
Am I too late to suggest that we should start a campaign to get Professor Richard Murphy offered the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer to replace the current gawd auful incumbent Reeves?🤔🤭
He makes a good point, if the figures are correct, but it’s not always sensible to borrow to invest- ask the Financial Ombudsman…
But… do her actions make sense when you consider her hopes for a tasty new job, after her political career has ended?
The Chancellor is A Chance seller, selling chances, like the lottery, one winner Vs millions of loosers
So… hands up now, all those who believe the heart-warming story of kitchen-table thrift.
It sounds all together too perfect.
Let’s remember that this is a professional politician we’re discussing.
Reeves claimed almost £1,300 pounds for utilities for her Home including almost £1,200 for Energy .The parliamentary standards suspended her Credit card when she was unable to Show that more than £4000 of her spending was valid expenditure @50sBornWomen
@@paultraynorbsc627 I expect she needed a really special new kitchen table for doing her sums 😆
Is anyone admitting to voting for this lot? I know I definitely didnt
I did after 14 years of Tory corruption in which our national debt went from £600 Billion to £2.2 Trillion. The Tories proved that they are not the party of the economy, quite the opposite !!!
I did.....
I did, but only because the Tories were a disaster. And no, I wouldn't change my mind after years of Boris, Truss and Sunak.
Rachel Reeves isn’t the brightest is she
Evil is never bright, they're just not held back by a conscience.
Have you heard how it's voice ? Ugh, truly awful.
'Households mostly take the best deal'. Yeh, right. So none of them take PCP to fund a car, rather than buy an older one that they can afford. Difference in utility is very low, and cost massively higher. But they do it.
That depends on what factors you include in the evaluation of utility. For example, what utility does "signalling high social status" have for one person compared to another when purchasing a car?
@@rfrisbee1 Ahh a new meaning of the word utility I had not previously met…
How does demonstrating poor financial management give 'high social status '?
@@TensquaremetreworkshopThe poor financial management is hidden, whilst the flash car is on public display. For some people projecting an image of success is worth financial hardship.
@@rfrisbee1 Read what you have written, and you will see the paradox. Image over reality, more the show less the content. And it all supports what I was saying- many (if not most) households do NOT take the best deal. Irrational, financially illiterate, take your choice.
@@Tensquaremetreworkshop Ever heard the expression "Fake it till you make it"? Unfortunately, in this world image is often more important than substance and people (and advertisers) know this.
I would suggest that 'most households' would and do take short term PFI type of financial decisions. Fixed rate mortgages? Cashing in Privatised industry shares at the first opportunity. .....?
Yeah, but the comparison isn't valid. Fixed rate mortgage with massive exit or renewal charges would be more comparable to psi.
Absolutely. The very existence of a betting industry proves it. You take a bet where the other side decide the odds so they cannot lose? And millions do.
I see Labour has its own Kwasi Kwarteng
You ain't seen nothing yet. Tories V2 will have their own lettuce soon.
Why has she borrowed £45 Billion to give to the rich?
@@william_marshal give her a luttle more time, her numbers will match Kwasi and perhaps surpass them, albeit more subtly and not so ham fisted
@@william_marshal Because she's a Tory wearing a red wig?
Rachel reeves was given the job of Chancellor because she new how to operate a calculator. Edd balls good mate of George Osborne has told her he can get a copy of osbornes dodgy austerity spreadsheet for her to use .
I some counties households can have mortgage-bonds issued on the free value of their homes.
As currency issuer the government can just create the money to pay for these utilities. However, the reason for paying with bonds would be to ensure there isn't a spike in cash injected into the economy that would be spent on assets or valuable resources. The money for the bonds would come from money created, just like all other government spending, by the Bank of England at the behest of the government and authorised by an act of parliament. Interest is optional, and certainly where created money is offset by the BoE where they own the bonds just a smoke and mirrors operation to convince everyone that bonds finance spending. This is never the case, bonds are a reserve drain; a remnant from the gold standard era where it was important to prevent capital flight via gold or dollars under Bretton Woods.
The conversation about return to the government is interesting because profits from state enterprises becomes a form of tax, removing money from circulation so that it can't be spent by the population. It feeds into the whole taxes fund government spending Thatcher lie, "The government has no money but the people's" BS.
So should nationalised energy be free? Not really, it's a finite resource and price is a way of controlling access. So a fair amount of energy can be free, a tiered model so that people don't go crazy and run a bitcoin farm for free. This is the sort of argument we should be pursuing, how can we set the public free (in speech and in beer) so that they have a fair shot at an equitable life. So that they have more money to spend in the real economy. So they can trade overwork and under security for Keynes 15 hours per week
I like Richard as a social commentator and sometimes he gets the economics right. Use this as a stepping off point into the wider world of heterodox economics. Personally I would recommend Modern Money Theory #MMT. Good luck
The point on nationalisation being made here is ignoring the inevitable and very significant loss of operating efficiency that will arise under a nationalised structure. I am not attempting to make a simple case for privatised ownership of key assets here, however, we cannot ignore the very significant empirical dataset that underpins this statement. If industries that are currently under private ownership become nationalised they will eventually (and maybe very quickly under a Labour administration, with the inevitable leverage the unions have) become operational ‘dogs’. The terms and conditions of employees will balloon to something unsustainable and the investment required to continue necessary gains in productivity will disappear (it is likely that productivity will indeed actually start to fall in nominal and real terms as we have across almost all public services). All this points to an overall economic loss in anything beyond the short term even when considering the financing benefits that are alluded to in the video. Hence the issue is far more complex than the oversimplified and rather naive position set out here.
Democracy allows the economy to be like a short term leasehold not freehold
Chancellor Rachel Reeves earns around £160,000 a year as a Government Minister. I survive on a state pension of £12,000 a year ... and she says SHE had to make difficult decisions. Well, now I have difficult decisions to make: FEED and FREEZE or keep the heating on and STARVE this WINTER! I am really NOT looking forward to the next few months ... if I make it.
I SHALL NEVER VOTE FOR LABOUR AGAIN!
For your info: was served an ad.
…and you think sunak and hunt were competent?
Let’s borrow more money when interest rates have been the highest they’ve been for decades, excellent idea NOT, we’re going to get saddled with a bucket load of fixed interest borrowing that as a country we will have to pay for decades beyond this Labour term.
This sounds as good as Gordon Brown selling gold stocks at a low. Labour like to spend as much as they like free gifts, just look at how many local authorities are bankrupt and still spending cash on unnecessary projects
I find these vlogs interesting in the sense they over simplify the obvious things govts can do, but don't! In this particular vlog, there is one statement that, in my lifetime, has not proven to be true, and that is that State run industries are better run. I just remember Unions in state run institutions milking it for what it's worth. Productivity was poor. Not that much has changed even today as I think RMT and ASLEF.
"They oversimplify what governments can do, but don't!" - eh?
RMT and ASLEF? Why? Rail workers' pay has fallen behind just like everyone else.
She’s so incompetent that she’s got a 180 seat majority and is still playing to the opposition’s rules
Spitting images thacter when asked what they were going to do with there majority said whatever we like.reeves hasn't had the memo.
I live mine in negative equity and still balance the books 😂 incomings well you know that ..out goings all exspences ..expected borrowing and intrest that entails
Nothing wrong with marxism.....
Why trail off with dotted ellipsis? what's wrong with a full stop?
OK, I'll issue my own bonds. Where do I start?
You can do it. Indeed, many companies do. The yield may be rather high, though...
@@Tensquaremetreworkshop sorry,what! 🤪
@@bearsbreeches Which bit are you having difficulty with? Anyone can issue paper (as it is called). It will have a face value, an interest rate, and a redemption date. What price you get for it will depend on these, but more on the risk it carries.
I understand this guy works at a University. I'm guessing he is the night Watchman.
Talking rubbish the new labour qill do better with no corruption, no filling of pockets, no ridiculus schemes for the poor. It all comrs down to a labour government is unacceptable!!!
You say we don' know why Labour is adopting these policies. But we do know: they"re not working to serve the needs of the population but those of our corporate overlords, the billionaires and trans-national corporations for whom the political class actually works. We all know this, so why not say it.
Richard has said this many times on his blog, in his videos.
At some point perhaps- but for the moment they are paying their Union masters. Lots.
You have changed your tune quite a bit on second hand investments. Investors now have your endorsement to the extent that they would be "mad" not to borrow money to buy assets that give a positive return (which is what I do).
She aint in charge of family finances,she is in charge of a huge problem in UK finances left by a Tory Govt.
2015, Reeves was one of nineteen MPs to have her official credit card suspended by IPSA after racking up £4,033.63 in invalid expense spending - the third-highest sum of all nineteen listed.
She is another Thatcher. In fact, she reminds me of her.
@@stephfoxwell4620 Oh Stephen! If you're serious, that's the laugh of the day. If you're not, you need a /s after your comment.
Let’s not forget that this is, in Starmers words, the ‘most diverse cabinet ever assembled’
I would say it’s the most diversely incompetent cabinet ever assembled and has already proven itself to be just that in a few weeks.
Yeah bring back Liz Truss, VIP lanes, water board share holders bonuses, track and trace (32 £Bn), no benefit Brexit, Rwanda Scheme, highest taxation since WW2. Ahh, those were the days.
Blair Brown connect for Health £23 billion write off NHS pfi debt and that too
@@paultraynorbsc627 We’ve never had such an incompetent government, it was a real clown show. Brown had the highest NHS approval rating in history 85%. Tories wrecked that, they left government with record waiting list for operations that’s over 7m. Same day GP appointments have gone also.
ah, another safe pair of hands - how fortunate we are that this, and the next generations to come, are being landed with the debt - don't bother having kids as they will have a future less worth living than the one we have now..............
Ha ha ha ho ho ho ho take a look at what the brilliant mathematiciancarol vordamen has to say about Uk finances ! National debt hamper person has gone up bye thousands while the amount of £ billionairs has skyrocketed rocketed ! Baroness Mone etc etc
Very condescending video. And doesn't really look at these decisions in the round. One might ask why if Murphy is so smart why he isn't Chancellor or in another major position of influence.
'Better managed under state control'. If history teaches us anything, it is that this is not true. Not even close. Private companies are focused on efficiency to give returns. Civil servants are focused on not being visible until they collect their pension. There is a great deal of difference between owning something and running it. Even then- Post Office anyone? Success or not?
Water companies, success or not? Railways, success or not? Private companies only work in a truly competitive market. The fake markets (like water and the other utilities, rail, prisons etc.) do not deliver the benefits of which you speak.
So all the European state run businesses are a failure? History hasn't taught you anything.
Private companies like Capita, Lehmann Bros, Worldcom? Yes they did really well didn't they!
@@helenheenan3447 The system worked perfectly- it is called creative destruction. You fail, you die. Government departments do not- failure just means we all pay more. And more.
Are you seriously suggesting that this country is going to bring back the Tories in 5 years .... Laughable 😅🤣😂
Precisely.
That's very similar to what people were saying about Labour in 1919 and Labour's vote actually decreased in 2024, as did the Liberal Democrats'. The way they are currently going about government, they will certainly be even less popular in 5 years time and get an even lower vote, losing even more seats to independents and Greens. Most of the Labour and Lib Dem gains from the Conservatives were by very small margins and, because of the silly arithmetic of FPTP, it will only take a relatively small Tory recovery to reverse the current situation.
Tories are here 5 years ahead of schedule
You must be missing the Tory's and its only 6 weeks. not enough hungry children in the county for you. Pleas keep you self opiniated comments to your self and let the rest of us get on with our life's tory free.
The thought that nationalised industries would remain profitable when every business decision is rendered political through state ownership is highly questionable - I remember the 70s
If you remember the 70s, you weren't there...
But I remember that wonderful construct, the leading edge car company BL. What wonderful products. If it had only been propped up longer, we could have had Trebant level quality to savour.
Your analogy with the options on the Thames Crossing is just daft. Private finance do it for £9 billion it cost £9 billion and arrives on time. If we use a valid example to show how governments try to run projects we look at Concorde, It was estimated to cost £1.7 billion (in 2023 prices) and ended up costing us the taxpayer £16 billion! She is sensibly option for a fixed price and then letting the private sector run it and deliver it on time.
But then you probably want to ignore the Private financed Channel tunnel that was built in just 6 years.
The Thames Link project is a tiny element in the whole budget, I am not sure why you are so obsessed with it.
Basically you do not understand anything other than the government running everything and running up debt buying up everything into state ownership. Sorry but that view went with the Berlin Wall. But there are still believers in magic money trees and I guess your little fantasy trips appeal to them.
Yeah! Cos, after privatising everything in sight, the UK is doing SO much better than France, Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Norway etc where they didn't. No?
The Channel Tunnel came in at twice its original cost, by the way. In Edinburgh, the private sector built a tram system which cost twice the original estimate for half the project and it was delivered two years late. You're the one living in a fantasy world, chum. PFI is just a way of cooking the books to look as if we're not spending money when we are.
@@charliemoore2551 Nothing is perfect but I would note-
Concorde which was government run and financed was estimated at under £2bn but then the tax payer had to stump up an extra £14bn.
With Private run stuff, we do the deal at X price and if it costs £14bn more (as the channel tunnel did) then the private sector is the one putting their hands in their pockets not the taxpayer.
So it seems to me to be the other way round to Murphy's analogy in that Reeves is doing a set deal now at £9bn rather than basically writing a blank cheque of government commitment at whatever cost for later governments to cover (as has happened with so many government grand projects.
The key thing is governments are rubbish at running things. The private sector tends to be able to deliver at a lower cost overall even with a profit margin.
With your example of France, you seem to have overlooked the fact that France has sold off state assets like their motorways to the private sector.
There are difficulties in privately run monopolies like openreach or water companies that I do accept are difficult.
@@grolfe3210 On the contrary. The state is very good at running things. It was the total failure of the private sector to run procurement in the Crimean War which led to the establishment of the UK's Civil Service - which supercharged the running of the British Empire and, in due course, the welfare state. It was the state which resued the railways from chaos and inefficiency - which has since been returned by privatisation, gave us clean water and effective sewage disposal (ditto), standardised electricity and gas production, gave us a universal postal service, telephone coverage, universal schooling and so on. Public Transport was much better when it was municipally run. The NHS, before it was "reformed" by Kenneth Clark and his successors was one of the world's most efficient and effective health care providers. Compare it with the top heavy US system. Private sector efficiency is largely myth based on ideology.
Is it your claim that all PFI buildings are always on budget and on time - if so I like to see the evidence for this. It's not £9 billion, did you forget that you pay for maintenance as well plus their margin?
@@ONeill01 I claim neither point! BUT if it is over budget then we the tax payer do not cover the extra, the private company does (so we dont care) And if they run late then the contract usually and should have a penalty clause in it.
Their margin is in the quote.
If they quote £9 billion, it costs us £9 billion. We do not get the next minister come along and it rack up to £18 billion as seems to always happen with government spending.
Very amusing when an academic bean counter offers opinions.
Yes, and a lot of his pontificating is rather flawed. He takes a contrarian view, no doubt for clicks. Sadly, many take him at his word.
I CAN create my own money (0:38) - I do it every time I use my credit card. It springs into existence as a credit on the shopkeeper's account, and a debit on mine. New. Not a transfer from elsewhere.
Your card is denominated in Sterling so no, you don't create your own money. You just give someone a promise to pay later.
@@clementattlee6984 Yes! I have created more money out of thin air. Which currency it is in is irrelevant. And all money is a promise to pay later. Read your banknotes! Most money is created by commercial banks, and they do it in exactly the same way that I do when using a credit card. I have expanded the money supply.
Criticism of not handling the economy like a household is nonsense because the two operate on fundamentally different principles.
Households manage a fixed budget and aim to balance income with expenses, while national economies involve complex interactions, including monetary policy, fiscal policy, and macroeconomic factors like inflation and unemployment.
Unlike households, governments can influence money supply and borrow at lower interest rates, allowing them to invest in growth even when running deficits.
Therefore, applying household economic models to national economies oversimplifies the complexities involved.
If you watched the video, then you will have noticed this is exactly what Murphy was saying. "I make it clear, I don't believe in the household analogy. But if she's going to use it, she should at least follow it. And she's not even doing that."
Why did people vote them in..I cannot get my head round it..well..they've got what they deserve..just keep taking the money off the pensioners and all those people on the edge at the moment..🤢😡
Hmm... maybe it was the 14 years of managed decline, falling living standards, endless scandal corruption and sleaze inflicted by the Tories?
DONT YOU THINK SHE HAS A VERY DIFFICULT JOB IN AFTER WHAT THE CORRUPT USELESS TORIES LEFT HER TO SORT OUT ??? COME IN ANSWER THAT,4 WEEKS SHE'S HAD AND YOUR COMPLAINING, GET A PROPER JOB AND STOP TELLING GUFF AND LIES AND STOP USING THE EASY WAY PUT WITH GETTING PEOPLE TO CLICK SUCH RUBBISH
5000 extra illegal migrants to pay for since she has been in charge,& still no deportations.How many migrants in her household?
She hasn't presented a budget yet somehow she's incompetent. Why didn't you complain about Jeremy Hunt and the Tories making an absolute clusterfuck of the economy?
He did, for years.
I like these analogies, however, previously when the govt ran state industries, they showed conclusively that they were unable to operate them properly, and they became a loss to the public purse, so it would not make sense to put them in public ownership in the first place. We will find out the truth of this once the rail network falls into public ownership.
Did they? CEGB was in profit for the exchequer when privatised
And of course the water industry has been a roaring success
Meanwhile our energy and rail are run very well by governments, just not ours
OP is a troll spouting misinformation.
Sorry chum did you not think that the tories made a complete mess of the economy?
Chum? Oh dear.
Reeves claimed almost £1,300 pounds for utilities for her Home including almost £1,200 for Energy .The parliamentary standards suspended her Credit card when she was unable to Show that more than £4000 of her spending was valid expenditure @50sBornWomen
@@paultraynorbsc627 seems that this has been sorted
You have clearly not lived through and been employed by a nationalised industry I have (British Steel) and under Labour the company was brought to its knees. It a shame educated people like you do not read the history of Nationalisation. Learn lessons from history Professor?
What you are missing from your view on nationalisation (and yes I remember the 70's, I was there), is that nationalised industries don't work well in a globally competitive market. They are necessary in non-competitive areas like water, utilities etc. where there can be no true competition (whatever the Tories might say). Look at our water companies, wholly foreign owned, indebted up to the hilt and yet paying vast dividends to foreign investors. The trouble is that people view nationalisation in a binary way, exclusively good or bad. I say good for public services and utilities, bad for international competition.
For ANY industry to work no matter who owns it, it has to have GOOD managers and in the main as far as I can gather MOST UK industry had BAD managers. In my nearly 50 years of work I only worked for 1 UK owned company it was not badly managed but nowhere near as well managed as the "foreign" owned multinationals I worked for, the exception was "Carilion" it was very badly managed hence went bust.
British Steel was brought to its knees by chronic underfunding, much like every other nationalised industry was, and like the NHS is currently experiencing.
@@scottyfive4319 Couldn't agree more. Management in the UK is hopelessly amateur.
@@richardc513 It is not the dividends that are the problem- it is that they borrowed to pay them. This is a regulation issue- it should not have been permitted. Shareholder value can disappear, debt cannot (without the company failing). And who ran the regulator? That would be the government. The answer for water is to let the companies fail, do NOT compensate the creditors, and take them back for zero (their true value).
well compared to the last half dozen Tory chancellors she's a genius,,,
Ending with three commas. Why?
Granny freezer reeves