"Unless you have a money printing press in your house, your household budget is almost entirely unlike a national economy" ... Another comparison one can make: The government being in debt to its own citizens is analogous to one household member owing money to another household member, say, the children owing money to the parents. Which is totally different to credit card debt.
Another thing one can say: Government debt is citizen wealth. More generally, whether debt is good or bad depends (not only but also) on who is the creditor.
So pertinent and so necessary. Why do we allow politicians and the MSM to gaslight us over how the economy works? Why aren’t we asking where growth is going to come from if the government isn’t going to spend more into the economy? Why isn’t MSM pointing out that the biggest and surest generator of private investment is government investment in new technology and new infrastructure? Major leaps forward in technological change (mobile phone networks, the internet for example) are facilitated by major government investment. That’s simply a fact. And why isn’t every schoolchild taught that a government with its own sovereign currency can never run short of spending power? If the government doesn’t spend, we fail to mobilise the resources the economy has available to it, and if we fail to do that, our collective standard of living will be lower. Why isn’t the discussion framed around how our resources can best be employed to create a better life for everyone? Because it breaks the basic tenet of capitalism, which is that wealth should become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, while the many get poorer.
Anti-Socialist and Liberal policies appeal to the centre ground. More importantly, they appeal to the press and the BBC. Compare Starmer's reception in the Guardian and ton the BBC with the mauling given to Corbyn and Mcdonald. Startmer has lost the left (apart fro a few "Labour at all costs" die-hards. He needs the cnrte ground and a positive representation in the press and on the box. He has broken every promise he made when he stood for party leadership but Animal Farm Benjamins are few and far between. It is now safe for him to recycle Cameron's slogans because we lack the critical press which should be pointing this out.
So who issues the government’s credit card? The Bank of England? Which is wholly owned by the government? The Treasury? Which is also the government. So the government itself issues its metaphorical credit card. And who sets the credit limit? Again, the government itself. Who else?
Clearly all main political parties are influenced more by their dubious donors and sponsors than the people they are employed to represent. Politics is bland by design, the more apathy the better. Most Western nations are suffering the same. As anyone thought why major movie studios all produce distopian futuristic stories? To get us used to the future we face. Watch They Live and instead of aliens think mega corporations and welcome to your kids / grandkids futures. Aren't you proud?
It's a fucking metaphor Tom, it's not a literal comparison as well you know. Just as JFK was not from Berlin and King was not retelling his dream from the previous night - they are metaphors. You don't think "maxed out credit card" is a accurate metaphor for government finance, fine nor do I, but accuracy not the point, it's simply painting a picture.
And no using the phrase dose not show "economic illiterate" or trying to "dupe people they believe to be gullible". This is a 'fauls dilemma' logical fallacy, where you put in a entirely bogus choice that limits the choices to make a point. It's logical bollocks of course, because you have not added the far more likely option that it is simply a poor analogy. You use 'fasule dilemmas' all the time in you writing, I think it's sweet, like my 14 year old daughter in her school essays. I am sure she will not be using them in a year or two. Either you use them because you are stupid and don't know any better or you think we are gullible and will not see them, witch is it? (before you point you that the last sentence is a false dilemma, I know, I am being ironic).
Anyway, I hope you are Tom and got over the illness and are in a good place. All the best Sam
What an idiotic response frankly. Metaphors are to illustrate a point. All this does is mislead. Question is, why are they misleading? Either it's intentional (and so it's duping) or it's unintentional (so they are economically illiterate). Those are the only two options, yes.
I went into a lot more detail in another post (I'd provide a link, but I'm not sure how to on Substack, sorry). I'm more than happy to defend my position, but rather than rewriting it, perhaps you could have a read through it (if you can find it). If you're unable to locate it, let me know, and I'll dig it out and copy it below.
Lol. So you think that household analogies are not misleading? And if there are more than 2 options, what is another option? And "both" is not possible because it's impossible to both knowingly and unknowingly mislead at once.
I gave a couple of options, see below. Personally, I think the phrase is oversimplified, and I wouldn’t use it. However, it’s difficult to describe government finances in the short sound bites required by modern media, and I think the use of the phrase is defensible. It's use certainly dose not prove incomitance or dishonesty and its utility is a judgment call.
All the best
Sam
"The phrase of yours I quoted was this: 'either because they’re too dumb to realize they’re spreading economic lies, or because they’re cynically lying on purpose to dupe the gullible.' In relation to the use of 'Maxed out the country Credit Card.' This is a false dilemma because there are lots and lots of logical and reasonable reasons why he used the phrase that do not require stupidity or incompetence. I will write in the first person because it's clearer, I hope it works.
1. Intelligent audience – 'I understand fully the limitations with the phrase and all the differences between a personal credit card and government debt. I used the phrase because I believe the audience is intelligent, understands the differences, and is perfectly capable of understanding it is a metaphor and not literal.'
So now we have three options for why he used the phrase: Stupid, liar, or a belief that the audience can understand that it’s a metaphor.
2. Utility – 'I understand fully the limitations with the phrase and all the differences between a personal credit card and government debt. However, given the constraints of time in an interview and the simplicity and brevity the phrase provides, I think the advantages of using the phrase outweigh the risks of misleading the listener.'
So now we have four options for why he used the phrase: Stupid, liar, a belief that the audience can understand that it’s a metaphor, and the utility of the phrase outweighing the risk of misleading the listener.
Obviously, I can go on and on with perfectly defensible, logical reasons for using the phrase that do not require the person to be incompetent or a liar. I am sure you can think of dozens more as well. To make it a binary choice of stupidity or incompetence is therefore clearly a False Dilemma Logical Fallacy."
"Unless you have a money printing press in your house, your household budget is almost entirely unlike a national economy" ... Another comparison one can make: The government being in debt to its own citizens is analogous to one household member owing money to another household member, say, the children owing money to the parents. Which is totally different to credit card debt.
Another thing one can say: Government debt is citizen wealth. More generally, whether debt is good or bad depends (not only but also) on who is the creditor.
I just found https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2024/02/10/uk-politicians-credit-card-con-trick-on-the-people-of-this-country/ Richard Murphy is always a good source for this kind of stuff ...
So pertinent and so necessary. Why do we allow politicians and the MSM to gaslight us over how the economy works? Why aren’t we asking where growth is going to come from if the government isn’t going to spend more into the economy? Why isn’t MSM pointing out that the biggest and surest generator of private investment is government investment in new technology and new infrastructure? Major leaps forward in technological change (mobile phone networks, the internet for example) are facilitated by major government investment. That’s simply a fact. And why isn’t every schoolchild taught that a government with its own sovereign currency can never run short of spending power? If the government doesn’t spend, we fail to mobilise the resources the economy has available to it, and if we fail to do that, our collective standard of living will be lower. Why isn’t the discussion framed around how our resources can best be employed to create a better life for everyone? Because it breaks the basic tenet of capitalism, which is that wealth should become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, while the many get poorer.
All part of the plan towards 'building back better'...
The cause of the problem is also the solution to the problem is quite the political argument
Right on man. Will share.
Anti-Socialist and Liberal policies appeal to the centre ground. More importantly, they appeal to the press and the BBC. Compare Starmer's reception in the Guardian and ton the BBC with the mauling given to Corbyn and Mcdonald. Startmer has lost the left (apart fro a few "Labour at all costs" die-hards. He needs the cnrte ground and a positive representation in the press and on the box. He has broken every promise he made when he stood for party leadership but Animal Farm Benjamins are few and far between. It is now safe for him to recycle Cameron's slogans because we lack the critical press which should be pointing this out.
So who issues the government’s credit card? The Bank of England? Which is wholly owned by the government? The Treasury? Which is also the government. So the government itself issues its metaphorical credit card. And who sets the credit limit? Again, the government itself. Who else?
Clearly all main political parties are influenced more by their dubious donors and sponsors than the people they are employed to represent. Politics is bland by design, the more apathy the better. Most Western nations are suffering the same. As anyone thought why major movie studios all produce distopian futuristic stories? To get us used to the future we face. Watch They Live and instead of aliens think mega corporations and welcome to your kids / grandkids futures. Aren't you proud?
It's a fucking metaphor Tom, it's not a literal comparison as well you know. Just as JFK was not from Berlin and King was not retelling his dream from the previous night - they are metaphors. You don't think "maxed out credit card" is a accurate metaphor for government finance, fine nor do I, but accuracy not the point, it's simply painting a picture.
And no using the phrase dose not show "economic illiterate" or trying to "dupe people they believe to be gullible". This is a 'fauls dilemma' logical fallacy, where you put in a entirely bogus choice that limits the choices to make a point. It's logical bollocks of course, because you have not added the far more likely option that it is simply a poor analogy. You use 'fasule dilemmas' all the time in you writing, I think it's sweet, like my 14 year old daughter in her school essays. I am sure she will not be using them in a year or two. Either you use them because you are stupid and don't know any better or you think we are gullible and will not see them, witch is it? (before you point you that the last sentence is a false dilemma, I know, I am being ironic).
Anyway, I hope you are Tom and got over the illness and are in a good place. All the best Sam
Sorry couple of typos - I hope you are 'well'
What an idiotic response frankly. Metaphors are to illustrate a point. All this does is mislead. Question is, why are they misleading? Either it's intentional (and so it's duping) or it's unintentional (so they are economically illiterate). Those are the only two options, yes.
Hi Tom,
I went into a lot more detail in another post (I'd provide a link, but I'm not sure how to on Substack, sorry). I'm more than happy to defend my position, but rather than rewriting it, perhaps you could have a read through it (if you can find it). If you're unable to locate it, let me know, and I'll dig it out and copy it below.
All the best,
Sam
Afternoon Tom,
Did find and get a chance to read my other post on this matter? I am interested in your thoughts.
Happy Friday,
Sam
I don't know how to check your comments. If you tell me what article I can find it.
Hey Tom, I think “Where do we find the truth amongst all the lies?” Hope this works for you. Thanks sam
Lol. So you think that household analogies are not misleading? And if there are more than 2 options, what is another option? And "both" is not possible because it's impossible to both knowingly and unknowingly mislead at once.
Hi Tom,
I gave a couple of options, see below. Personally, I think the phrase is oversimplified, and I wouldn’t use it. However, it’s difficult to describe government finances in the short sound bites required by modern media, and I think the use of the phrase is defensible. It's use certainly dose not prove incomitance or dishonesty and its utility is a judgment call.
All the best
Sam
"The phrase of yours I quoted was this: 'either because they’re too dumb to realize they’re spreading economic lies, or because they’re cynically lying on purpose to dupe the gullible.' In relation to the use of 'Maxed out the country Credit Card.' This is a false dilemma because there are lots and lots of logical and reasonable reasons why he used the phrase that do not require stupidity or incompetence. I will write in the first person because it's clearer, I hope it works.
1. Intelligent audience – 'I understand fully the limitations with the phrase and all the differences between a personal credit card and government debt. I used the phrase because I believe the audience is intelligent, understands the differences, and is perfectly capable of understanding it is a metaphor and not literal.'
So now we have three options for why he used the phrase: Stupid, liar, or a belief that the audience can understand that it’s a metaphor.
2. Utility – 'I understand fully the limitations with the phrase and all the differences between a personal credit card and government debt. However, given the constraints of time in an interview and the simplicity and brevity the phrase provides, I think the advantages of using the phrase outweigh the risks of misleading the listener.'
So now we have four options for why he used the phrase: Stupid, liar, a belief that the audience can understand that it’s a metaphor, and the utility of the phrase outweighing the risk of misleading the listener.
Obviously, I can go on and on with perfectly defensible, logical reasons for using the phrase that do not require the person to be incompetent or a liar. I am sure you can think of dozens more as well. To make it a binary choice of stupidity or incompetence is therefore clearly a False Dilemma Logical Fallacy."
https://new-wayland.com/blog/how-the-governments-super-platinum-credit-card-works/