RugbyRebels

I really have no sense of what'll happen if Labour do win and really go for it as regards Corbyn's view that what he labels liberalism has failed and socialism is the way forwards. We've never had anything like it, nor is there much in terms of a model to look to for an example. I hope if the Glorious Leader™ does go for it that they're at least honest when setting that out in their manifesto, if people are then stupid enough to vote for it then it's just a continuation of Brexit with thick people turning out in droves to vote but nonetheless it's democracy in action (ignoring the deselection of more moderate Labour candidates)

I'm assuming if we get the full Corbyn the reality will alarm one or two people who think him worth more than derision. Whether any of the moderates in the Labour party manage to show any gumption remains open to question, Blair is speaking out again but he's just going to be ignored by a huge percentage. Certainly the middle ground seems empty for now

fivepointer wrote:in one poll. In another this weekend it was neck and neck. Recent trends show Labour 1-3 pts ahead.

Fact is Labour SHOULD be at least 8 pts ahead of this appalling government.

In the only reliable poll. Survation was the only poll to predict the outcome of the election correctly.

Digby wrote:I really have no sense of what'll happen if Labour do win and really go for it as regards Corbyn's view that what he labels liberalism has failed and socialism is the way forwards. We've never had anything like it, nor is there much in terms of a model to look to for an example. I hope if the Glorious Leader™ does go for it that they're at least honest when setting that out in their manifesto, if people are then stupid enough to vote for it then it's just a continuation of Brexit with thick people turning out in droves to vote but nonetheless it's democracy in action (ignoring the deselection of more moderate Labour candidates)

I'm assuming if we get the full Corbyn the reality will alarm one or two people who think him worth more than derision. Whether any of the moderates in the Labour party manage to show any gumption remains open to question, Blair is speaking out again but he's just going to be ignored by a huge percentage. Certainly the middle ground seems empty for now

It is a bit of a leap in the dark, the main issue of uncertainty is the reaction of capital, and how a Labour government would counter that.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:I really have no sense of what'll happen if Labour do win and really go for it as regards Corbyn's view that what he labels liberalism has failed and socialism is the way forwards. We've never had anything like it, nor is there much in terms of a model to look to for an example. I hope if the Glorious Leader™ does go for it that they're at least honest when setting that out in their manifesto, if people are then stupid enough to vote for it then it's just a continuation of Brexit with thick people turning out in droves to vote but nonetheless it's democracy in action (ignoring the deselection of more moderate Labour candidates)

I'm assuming if we get the full Corbyn the reality will alarm one or two people who think him worth more than derision. Whether any of the moderates in the Labour party manage to show any gumption remains open to question, Blair is speaking out again but he's just going to be ignored by a huge percentage. Certainly the middle ground seems empty for now

It is a bit of a leap in the dark, the main issue of uncertainty is the reaction of capital, and how a Labour government would counter that.

My main issue would stem around their intent to spend money no matter taxation receipts alongside exploding debt levels and/or printing money. Hearing McDonnell ramble on about how debt would pay for itself just again puts one in mind of Trump and his boys, barking mad the lot of them

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:I really have no sense of what'll happen if Labour do win and really go for it as regards Corbyn's view that what he labels liberalism has failed and socialism is the way forwards. We've never had anything like it, nor is there much in terms of a model to look to for an example. I hope if the Glorious Leader™ does go for it that they're at least honest when setting that out in their manifesto, if people are then stupid enough to vote for it then it's just a continuation of Brexit with thick people turning out in droves to vote but nonetheless it's democracy in action (ignoring the deselection of more moderate Labour candidates)

I'm assuming if we get the full Corbyn the reality will alarm one or two people who think him worth more than derision. Whether any of the moderates in the Labour party manage to show any gumption remains open to question, Blair is speaking out again but he's just going to be ignored by a huge percentage. Certainly the middle ground seems empty for now

It is a bit of a leap in the dark, the main issue of uncertainty is the reaction of capital, and how a Labour government would counter that.

My main issue would stem around their intent to spend money no matter taxation receipts alongside exploding debt levels and/or printing money. Hearing McDonnell ramble on about how debt would pay for itself just again puts one in mind of Trump and his boys, barking mad the lot of them

You haven't a clue. The rates are at a historic low, it is precisely the time to borrow, and if you borrow for investment in infrastructure, then yes, that will generate a higher return than the interest on the bonds. Only the economically illiterate would disagree.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
It is a bit of a leap in the dark, the main issue of uncertainty is the reaction of capital, and how a Labour government would counter that.

My main issue would stem around their intent to spend money no matter taxation receipts alongside exploding debt levels and/or printing money. Hearing McDonnell ramble on about how debt would pay for itself just again puts one in mind of Trump and his boys, barking mad the lot of them

You haven't a clue. The rates are at a historic low, it is precisely the time to borrow, and if you borrow for investment in infrastructure, then yes, that will generate a higher return than the interest on the bonds. Only the economically illiterate would disagree.

Economists can disagree on almost anything, other than Brexit is a daft idea from an economic standpoint. You will get a return on investment, but not all (extra) borrowing is going to end up in investment, politicians are too weak and would never hold to that, and you might not generate the returns you're after, and you might crowd private economic activity, and so on and so on. Many economically literate folk aren't going to agree with McDonnell's take on what to do, especially when he can't (perhaps will not) even answer questions on how much his plans will cost.

Again the current Labour leadership's view on seems worryingly in line with Trumps take on his tax cuts. They only see the sunlit uplands, and they have no heed that all mayn't be made by glorious by the Glorious Leader™, and thus ignore they might simply be saddling the country with massive extra debt.

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
My main issue would stem around their intent to spend money no matter taxation receipts alongside exploding debt levels and/or printing money. Hearing McDonnell ramble on about how debt would pay for itself just again puts one in mind of Trump and his boys, barking mad the lot of them

You haven't a clue. The rates are at a historic low, it is precisely the time to borrow, and if you borrow for investment in infrastructure, then yes, that will generate a higher return than the interest on the bonds. Only the economically illiterate would disagree.

Economists can disagree on almost anything, other than Brexit is a daft idea from an economic standpoint. You will get a return on investment, but not all (extra) borrowing is going to end up in investment, politicians are too weak and would never hold to that, and you might not generate the returns you're after, and you might crowd private economic activity, and so on and so on. Many economically literate folk aren't going to agree with McDonnell's take on what to do, especially when he can't (perhaps will not) even answer questions on how much his plans will cost.

Again the current Labour leadership's view on seems worryingly in line with Trumps take on his tax cuts. They only see the sunlit uplands, and they have no heed that all mayn't be made by glorious by the Glorious Leader™, and thus ignore they might simply be saddling the country with massive extra debt.

And in addition, it is likely that McDonnell would rapidly increase interest rates in an attempt to prevent the pound crashing in post-brexit socialist utopia, and as part of his attempts at stemming capital outflow.

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
You haven't a clue. The rates are at a historic low, it is precisely the time to borrow, and if you borrow for investment in infrastructure, then yes, that will generate a higher return than the interest on the bonds. Only the economically illiterate would disagree.

Economists can disagree on almost anything, other than Brexit is a daft idea from an economic standpoint. You will get a return on investment, but not all (extra) borrowing is going to end up in investment, politicians are too weak and would never hold to that, and you might not generate the returns you're after, and you might crowd private economic activity, and so on and so on. Many economically literate folk aren't going to agree with McDonnell's take on what to do, especially when he can't (perhaps will not) even answer questions on how much his plans will cost.

Again the current Labour leadership's view on seems worryingly in line with Trumps take on his tax cuts. They only see the sunlit uplands, and they have no heed that all mayn't be made by glorious by the Glorious Leader™, and thus ignore they might simply be saddling the country with massive extra debt.

And in addition, it is likely that McDonnell would rapidly increase interest rates in an attempt to prevent the pound crashing in post-brexit socialist utopia, and as part of his attempts at stemming capital outflow.

How would he get the BoE to do that? I suppose they could take back the powers, or have Momentum position supporters of the Glorious Leader™ across the entire MPC?

As it happens I think interest rates should be increased, by another 1.5 or so, but I'd phase that in just 'cause any rapid changes tend to cause problems

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:
Economists can disagree on almost anything, other than Brexit is a daft idea from an economic standpoint. You will get a return on investment, but not all (extra) borrowing is going to end up in investment, politicians are too weak and would never hold to that, and you might not generate the returns you're after, and you might crowd private economic activity, and so on and so on. Many economically literate folk aren't going to agree with McDonnell's take on what to do, especially when he can't (perhaps will not) even answer questions on how much his plans will cost.

Again the current Labour leadership's view on seems worryingly in line with Trumps take on his tax cuts. They only see the sunlit uplands, and they have no heed that all mayn't be made by glorious by the Glorious Leader™, and thus ignore they might simply be saddling the country with massive extra debt.

And in addition, it is likely that McDonnell would rapidly increase interest rates in an attempt to prevent the pound crashing in post-brexit socialist utopia, and as part of his attempts at stemming capital outflow.

How would he get the BoE to do that? I suppose they could take back the powers, or have Momentum position supporters of the Glorious Leader™ across the entire MPC?

As it happens I think interest rates should be increased, by another 1.5 or so, but I'd phase that in just 'cause any rapid changes tend to cause problems

I think taking control of the BoE is a given. How else is he going to control the evil capitalists?

This has taken on a more civil tone again.

I do think Labour are making the right chpice by mainly shutting up right now. They just need to highlight and underline any obvious feck ups better.

On the crowding of private economic activity, I would imagine/hope they would target sectors with very low/non-existant competition...where government intervention has the highest chance to actually improve things.

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: And in addition, it is likely that McDonnell would rapidly increase interest rates in an attempt to prevent the pound crashing in post-brexit socialist utopia, and as part of his attempts at stemming capital outflow.

How would he get the BoE to do that? I suppose they could take back the powers, or have Momentum position supporters of the Glorious Leader™ across the entire MPC?

As it happens I think interest rates should be increased, by another 1.5 or so, but I'd phase that in just 'cause any rapid changes tend to cause problems

I think taking control of the BoE is a given. How else is he going to control the evil capitalists?

Governor is appointed by the executive anyway so there's no need to have direct control. They can just appoint someone in line with their economic plans.

Stom wrote:This has taken on a more civil tone again.

I do think Labour are making the right chpice by mainly shutting up right now. They just need to highlight and underline any obvious feck ups better.

On the crowding of private economic activity, I would imagine/hope they would target sectors with very low/non-existant competition...where government intervention has the highest chance to actually improve things.

Natural monopolies.

I do hope their economic plans are more ambitious than just raising rates. Helicopter money for example, or allowing people to deposit directly in the central bank, or some form of sovereign money system...

Zhivago wrote:

Stom wrote:This has taken on a more civil tone again.

I do think Labour are making the right chpice by mainly shutting up right now. They just need to highlight and underline any obvious feck ups better.

On the crowding of private economic activity, I would imagine/hope they would target sectors with very low/non-existant competition...where government intervention has the highest chance to actually improve things.

Natural monopolies.

Well of course...But I would want to take it a little further than that. Just make sure that decisions are robust and fair about who to invest in/compete with.

Zhivago wrote:

Stom wrote:This has taken on a more civil tone again.

I do think Labour are making the right chpice by mainly shutting up right now. They just need to highlight and underline any obvious feck ups better.

On the crowding of private economic activity, I would imagine/hope they would target sectors with very low/non-existant competition...where government intervention has the highest chance to actually improve things.

Natural monopolies.

I don't happen to think areas such as water, power and trains should ever have been privatised in the first instance, but now they are it's not easy to unwind. I wouldn't want to try and privatise them as we did with Railtrak which is to say on the cheap, I think we need to recognise they're private companies with assets and if we want them back we should pay for them, partly that's about protecting future private investment, partly its about behaving better than Mugabe and simply seizing property in the name of the greater good. That gives a big problem 'cause the kind of money need to take back a good number of companies into national ownership is nearly always going to be the kind of money we can't afford or at least would do better spending elsewhere. Further I don't want to nationalise 1 major company in 6 and then in essence force all the other companies from the market via state control, and I don't want to fund a major buying spree by printing money.

However in advance I don't have ideological problems with bringing some companies back under state ownership, though not ones like BT, British Airways which for me sit much better alongside other private companies, but I would want to know how it's going to be done, how it's going to be respectful of private assets and future investment, and how it's going to be paid for, and if they can't sensibly show all that I'd much rather they didn't get invovled. The areas I would like to see targeted for state control would initially be Air Traffic Control and National Forensic Services, and then if it can be shown how to sensibly pay for it down the line move onto some Rail Franchises, and then water and then power. And certainly I've no interest in hiving off large chunks of the NHS so private firms can dip their fingers into public funds.

But there are lots of steps I'd be taking well ahead of getting anywhere near mass privatisation, for instance it's insane that the National Gird is barred from generating power when at various stages in their network we're basically missing out on free chances to do so as it'd be deemed competition between the National Grid and the energy suppliers and thus it's barred, but in the big picture it makes no sense.

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Stom wrote:This has taken on a more civil tone again.

I do think Labour are making the right chpice by mainly shutting up right now. They just need to highlight and underline any obvious feck ups better.

On the crowding of private economic activity, I would imagine/hope they would target sectors with very low/non-existant competition...where government intervention has the highest chance to actually improve things.

Natural monopolies.

I don't happen to think areas such as water, power and trains should ever have been privatised in the first instance, but now they are it's not easy to unwind. I wouldn't want to try and privatise them as we did with Railtrak which is to say on the cheap, I think we need to recognise they're private companies with assets and if we want them back we should pay for them, partly that's about protecting future private investment, partly its about behaving better than Mugabe and simply seizing property in the name of the greater good. That gives a big problem 'cause the kind of money need to take back a good number of companies into national ownership is nearly always going to be the kind of money we can't afford or at least would do better spending elsewhere. Further I don't want to nationalise 1 major company in 6 and then in essence force all the other companies from the market via state control, and I don't want to fund a major buying spree by printing money.

However in advance I don't have ideological problems with bringing some companies back under state ownership, though not ones like BT, British Airways which for me sit much better alongside other private companies, but I would want to know how it's going to be done, how it's going to be respectful of private assets and future investment, and how it's going to be paid for, and if they can't sensibly show all that I'd much rather they didn't get invovled. The areas I would like to see targeted for state control would initially be Air Traffic Control and National Forensic Services, and then if it can be shown how to sensibly pay for it down the line move onto some Rail Franchises, and then water and then power. And certainly I've no interest in hiving off large chunks of the NHS so private firms can dip their fingers into public funds.

But there are lots of steps I'd be taking well ahead of getting anywhere near mass privatisation, for instance it's insane that the National Gird is barred from generating power when at various stages in their network we're basically missing out on free chances to do so as it'd be deemed competition between the National Grid and the energy suppliers and thus it's barred, but in the big picture it makes no sense.

For me there are two broad cases where nationalisation makes sense.

The first is natural monopolies. For example the francise system simply regulates the monopoly of a rail company over a piece of track, here you can either find ways to break this natural monopoly or return it to national ownership.

Personally my view is that trying to make this work as a truly competitive market has so many problems, it's much simpler to revert to national ownership. With energy it is less clear, although the high barriers to entry seem to reduce competition, so there is a case here too.

Some privatisations have worked, such as the airlines. Here there is clearly a competitive market.

The second case is public interest. For example the profit motive is contrary to the public interest in the case of healthcare, so the NHS should clearly stay in public ownership. Public interest argument can also apply to other services that everyone needs too to some extent.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Natural monopolies.

I don't happen to think areas such as water, power and trains should ever have been privatised in the first instance, but now they are it's not easy to unwind. I wouldn't want to try and privatise them as we did with Railtrak which is to say on the cheap, I think we need to recognise they're private companies with assets and if we want them back we should pay for them, partly that's about protecting future private investment, partly its about behaving better than Mugabe and simply seizing property in the name of the greater good. That gives a big problem 'cause the kind of money need to take back a good number of companies into national ownership is nearly always going to be the kind of money we can't afford or at least would do better spending elsewhere. Further I don't want to nationalise 1 major company in 6 and then in essence force all the other companies from the market via state control, and I don't want to fund a major buying spree by printing money.

However in advance I don't have ideological problems with bringing some companies back under state ownership, though not ones like BT, British Airways which for me sit much better alongside other private companies, but I would want to know how it's going to be done, how it's going to be respectful of private assets and future investment, and how it's going to be paid for, and if they can't sensibly show all that I'd much rather they didn't get invovled. The areas I would like to see targeted for state control would initially be Air Traffic Control and National Forensic Services, and then if it can be shown how to sensibly pay for it down the line move onto some Rail Franchises, and then water and then power. And certainly I've no interest in hiving off large chunks of the NHS so private firms can dip their fingers into public funds.

But there are lots of steps I'd be taking well ahead of getting anywhere near mass privatisation, for instance it's insane that the National Gird is barred from generating power when at various stages in their network we're basically missing out on free chances to do so as it'd be deemed competition between the National Grid and the energy suppliers and thus it's barred, but in the big picture it makes no sense.

For me there are two broad cases where nationalisation makes sense.

The first is natural monopolies. For example the francise system simply regulates the monopoly of a rail company over a piece of track, here you can either find ways to break this natural monopoly or return it to national ownership.

Personally my view is that trying to make this work as a truly competitive market has so many problems, it's much simpler to revert to national ownership. With energy it is less clear, although the high barriers to entry seem to reduce competition, so there is a case here too.

Some privatisations have worked, such as the airlines. Here there is clearly a competitive market.

The second case is public interest. For example the profit motive is contrary to the public interest in the case of healthcare, so the NHS should clearly stay in public ownership. Public interest argument can also apply to other services that everyone needs too to some extent.

The question remains of how would one pay to privatise such as the rail franchises

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
I don't happen to think areas such as water, power and trains should ever have been privatised in the first instance, but now they are it's not easy to unwind. I wouldn't want to try and privatise them as we did with Railtrak which is to say on the cheap, I think we need to recognise they're private companies with assets and if we want them back we should pay for them, partly that's about protecting future private investment, partly its about behaving better than Mugabe and simply seizing property in the name of the greater good. That gives a big problem 'cause the kind of money need to take back a good number of companies into national ownership is nearly always going to be the kind of money we can't afford or at least would do better spending elsewhere. Further I don't want to nationalise 1 major company in 6 and then in essence force all the other companies from the market via state control, and I don't want to fund a major buying spree by printing money.

However in advance I don't have ideological problems with bringing some companies back under state ownership, though not ones like BT, British Airways which for me sit much better alongside other private companies, but I would want to know how it's going to be done, how it's going to be respectful of private assets and future investment, and how it's going to be paid for, and if they can't sensibly show all that I'd much rather they didn't get invovled. The areas I would like to see targeted for state control would initially be Air Traffic Control and National Forensic Services, and then if it can be shown how to sensibly pay for it down the line move onto some Rail Franchises, and then water and then power. And certainly I've no interest in hiving off large chunks of the NHS so private firms can dip their fingers into public funds.

But there are lots of steps I'd be taking well ahead of getting anywhere near mass privatisation, for instance it's insane that the National Gird is barred from generating power when at various stages in their network we're basically missing out on free chances to do so as it'd be deemed competition between the National Grid and the energy suppliers and thus it's barred, but in the big picture it makes no sense.

For me there are two broad cases where nationalisation makes sense.

The first is natural monopolies. For example the francise system simply regulates the monopoly of a rail company over a piece of track, here you can either find ways to break this natural monopoly or return it to national ownership.

Personally my view is that trying to make this work as a truly competitive market has so many problems, it's much simpler to revert to national ownership. With energy it is less clear, although the high barriers to entry seem to reduce competition, so there is a case here too.

Some privatisations have worked, such as the airlines. Here there is clearly a competitive market.

The second case is public interest. For example the profit motive is contrary to the public interest in the case of healthcare, so the NHS should clearly stay in public ownership. Public interest argument can also apply to other services that everyone needs too to some extent.

The question remains of how would one pay to privatise such as the rail franchises

BoE could fund it. Just wait for the franchise to run out, then simply create the money like QE was created. Just for the initial investment, i.e the rolling stock. After the initial investment fund running and maintenance from ticket sales.

Zhivago wrote:
BoE could fund it. Just wait for the franchise to run out, then simply create the money like QE was created. Just for the initial investment, i.e the rolling stock. After the initial investment fund running and maintenance from ticket sales.

Printing money is as above specifically one of the areas I'd want to see them avoid. Also you want to fund running and maintenance from 'just' ticket sales? And is that 'just' running and maintenance of the rolling stock or of the track too?

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
BoE could fund it. Just wait for the franchise to run out, then simply create the money like QE was created. Just for the initial investment, i.e the rolling stock. After the initial investment fund running and maintenance from ticket sales.

Printing money is as above specifically one of the areas I'd want to see them avoid. Also you want to fund running and maintenance from 'just' ticket sales? And is that 'just' running and maintenance of the rolling stock or of the track too?

Were you also against QE?

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
BoE could fund it. Just wait for the franchise to run out, then simply create the money like QE was created. Just for the initial investment, i.e the rolling stock. After the initial investment fund running and maintenance from ticket sales.

Printing money is as above specifically one of the areas I'd want to see them avoid. Also you want to fund running and maintenance from 'just' ticket sales? And is that 'just' running and maintenance of the rolling stock or of the track too?

Were you also against QE?

Yes and no. I don't exactly like the idea, but I understand it given the mess we were in.

But just because we did a stupid thing before out of desperation doesn't mean we should plan for the future by aiming for rank stupidity.

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
Printing money is as above specifically one of the areas I'd want to see them avoid. Also you want to fund running and maintenance from 'just' ticket sales? And is that 'just' running and maintenance of the rolling stock or of the track too?

Were you also against QE?

Yes and no. I don't exactly like the idea, but I understand it given the mess we were in.

But just because we did a stupid thing before out of desperation doesn't mean we should plan for the future by aiming for rank stupidity.

Banks create money as credit into the economy all the time. Have you seen the growth of M4 over the last 20 years?

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Were you also against QE?

Yes and no. I don't exactly like the idea, but I understand it given the mess we were in.

But just because we did a stupid thing before out of desperation doesn't mean we should plan for the future by aiming for rank stupidity.

Banks create money as credit into the economy all the time. Have you seen the growth of M4 over the last 20 years?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say banks create money, is this purely about central banks or crossing over into retail and investment banking? If the latter we're more into gearing than creating. Any which way if anyone wants to pay for a major nationalistion project by printing money then it seems to me beyond stupid, but we've just seen Brexit, we've just seen Trump elected, so maybe stupid is the future.

Just to be clear again I'm not saying certain industries wouldn't perhaps better suited to being run as public services, but there needs to be a coherent narrative around how that would happen, and there's no point trying to do it in a way that'd be aborted/unwound in the next 5 year cycle of government.

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
Yes and no. I don't exactly like the idea, but I understand it given the mess we were in.

But just because we did a stupid thing before out of desperation doesn't mean we should plan for the future by aiming for rank stupidity.

Banks create money as credit into the economy all the time. Have you seen the growth of M4 over the last 20 years?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say banks create money, is this purely about central banks or crossing over into retail and investment banking? If the latter we're more into gearing than creating. Any which way if anyone wants to pay for a major nationalistion project by printing money then it seems to me beyond stupid, but we've just seen Brexit, we've just seen Trump elected, so maybe stupid is the future.

Just to be clear again I'm not saying certain industries wouldn't perhaps better suited to being run as public services, but there needs to be a coherent narrative around how that would happen, and there's no point trying to do it in a way that'd be aborted/unwound in the next 5 year cycle of government.

Money supply is endogenous, not exogenous. Mainstream economics is only just waking up to this reality.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Banks create money as credit into the economy all the time. Have you seen the growth of M4 over the last 20 years?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say banks create money, is this purely about central banks or crossing over into retail and investment banking? If the latter we're more into gearing than creating. Any which way if anyone wants to pay for a major nationalistion project by printing money then it seems to me beyond stupid, but we've just seen Brexit, we've just seen Trump elected, so maybe stupid is the future.

Just to be clear again I'm not saying certain industries wouldn't perhaps better suited to being run as public services, but there needs to be a coherent narrative around how that would happen, and there's no point trying to do it in a way that'd be aborted/unwound in the next 5 year cycle of government.

Money supply is endogenous, not exogenous. Mainstream economics is only just waking up to this reality.

What do yo think that means as regards financing policy with a magic money tree?