Is Gransnet leaning more to the left?

MaizieD

Whitewavemark2

Looking at what has been alluded to as an interventionist state - I am very persuaded by Isabella Weber and her arguments about inflation and market intervention. I do believe that given the potential ahead of the world of food and energy insecurity her arguments are important.

I'm glad you mentioned Isabella Weber. Here is her recent Guardian interview, people might be interested to read it

‘People’s dignity, and democracy, is at stake’: meet the economist ditching ideology for reality

www.theguardian.com/business/2026/oct/16/isabella-weber-anti-fascist-economics

Thanks for that I will read it, I remember seeing it but the paper got thrown out before I’d read it and then I forgot about it.

Yes, that is really worth a read for a starting point, and gives a good overall idea of her arguments.

As an anti-dote to the rise of fascism it is convincing.

MaizieD

Doodledog

I wonder if there will be a return to some sort of barter system? In the 80s they seemed to have a resurgence, but maybe the prosperity of the 90s killed them off? I remember signing up to one here, but it never really got off the ground. It seems like a good idea to bypass money and trade time and skills - not as the basis for the economy, but on a local level.

What makes you think that?

Of course, it would not be a 'return' because a bartering system has never been the basis of an economy.

The problem with those attempts at local 'currencies' ( and from what I recall they always seemed to involve some form of 'currency', points or tokens which could be 'earned' and were used to 'value' tasks) and with any attempt to explain a 'barter system', is that they need a 'coincidence of needs'. What happens to people who need something which can't be supplied by anyone in the system or if people only have something to offer which no-one needs?

As I said, it wouldn't be a basis for the economy as a whole, but was just wondering if it could work in small ways in local settings as an additional layer. If someone has nothing to offer they won't join in, but I don't see why 'I will fix your car if you will paper my ceiling' sorts of arrangements wouldn't work.

I suppose you could have a sort of classified ads system, with people posting wants and offerings, so if you want someone to do your garden you could offer to babysit or make a Sunday lunch or something.

Some people would no doubt set up continuing arrangements that work for them, and others need 'one-offs'. The trade-offs could be negotiated, possibly based on time spent, so 2 hours gardening a week could equate to 2 hours babysitting or a driving lesson, or whatever people can offer.

I was just musing.

Doodledog

MaizieD

Doodledog

I wonder if there will be a return to some sort of barter system? In the 80s they seemed to have a resurgence, but maybe the prosperity of the 90s killed them off? I remember signing up to one here, but it never really got off the ground. It seems like a good idea to bypass money and trade time and skills - not as the basis for the economy, but on a local level.

What makes you think that?

Of course, it would not be a 'return' because a bartering system has never been the basis of an economy.

The problem with those attempts at local 'currencies' ( and from what I recall they always seemed to involve some form of 'currency', points or tokens which could be 'earned' and were used to 'value' tasks) and with any attempt to explain a 'barter system', is that they need a 'coincidence of needs'. What happens to people who need something which can't be supplied by anyone in the system or if people only have something to offer which no-one needs?

As I said, it wouldn't be a basis for the economy as a whole, but was just wondering if it could work in small ways in local settings as an additional layer. If someone has nothing to offer they won't join in, but I don't see why 'I will fix your car if you will paper my ceiling' sorts of arrangements wouldn't work.

I suppose you could have a sort of classified ads system, with people posting wants and offerings, so if you want someone to do your garden you could offer to babysit or make a Sunday lunch or something.

Some people would no doubt set up continuing arrangements that work for them, and others need 'one-offs'. The trade-offs could be negotiated, possibly based on time spent, so 2 hours gardening a week could equate to 2 hours babysitting or a driving lesson, or whatever people can offer.

I was just musing.

And I was saying that it has happened before and has never really taken off. It is, however, a pointer to how big economies develop.

MaizieD

^How though does placing constraints on capital help the workers?^

I believe you are thinking about 'capital' as money, whereas I am using it mostly as a short hand for businesses and their activities. Though it will include money to a certain extent. We do, after all talk of wealthy people looking to 'invest their capital'.

The most obvious constraints are those imposed over the past 2 hundred years or so as the more charitable and philanthropic members of elite society (because they were the only ones who sat in Parliament, both in the Commons and the Lords) became concerned about the working conditions in manufactories and mines and tried to legislate to improve them. If you have read social history and contemporary accounts of parliamentary debates you'll find that the owners of the businesses they were trying to legislate for generally fought tooth and nail to against improvements to hours of work and safety standards. Not to mention limits on the ages at which children could be employed. Now we have a huge range of legislation which supposedly regulates health and safety at work, working hours, employment ages and minimum wages. All these put a financial constraint on the business owner which lessens their profits. there could also be requirements for training of some workers to certain standards, such as the well known CORGI gas certification. Then there are standards for the safe production and sale of of foods and for for the safety of manufactured goods. the list is long, but they are all designed to ensure the safety of workers and consumers. There is much more than this which could fill pages... Business is not the free for all it could be if unregulated. Legislation protects workers and consumers in many ways.

Despite all this the acquisition and protection of wealth is relatively easy because it is protected by the economic policies governments practise, but really that asks different questions, such as why should the wealthy be able to acquire so much of the country's money while millions live in poverty, and is a different topic to explore.

Yes absolutely agree with you about protecting workers. The employers were forced through Acts of Parliament to improve conditions, at the loss of profits to themselves. Some of the stories of the poor that have come down to us are absolutely heartrending.

Maisie do tell us how you think money is created

Bartering or local currency has been used in small local communities even factories where workers were paid tokens to spend in factory shop.
Expecting alternative tokens to operate along side currency isnt going to work, we already know the value of £1 sterling, you can exchange it for cabbages apples or chicken, on minimum wage £12 or 13 buys an hours work.

And I was saying that it has happened before and has never really taken off. It is, however, a pointer to how big economies develop.
Which is why I used the phrase 'return to', which you questioned.

Honestly - I was musing. I am not, as you know, an economist, and in any case I spelled out that I was not talking about the economy as a whole. I was thinking about the economically excluded being able to set up an alternative way of getting things done. That's all.

nanna8

Just a matter of balance isn’t it? Anyone not permanently on the left cops it so it is only fair . Much better than all being echo chambers, at least .

I don't think "anyone not permanently on the left cops it".

People who offer unsubstantiated opinion as fact supporting a view are likely to be asked to explain what they mean, whatever politics they claim to support.

David49

Maisie do tell us how you think money is created

I don't think I know how money is created, I know. the Bank of England told us in 2014.

Firstly, it deals with creation of money by the commercial banks

Commercial banks create money, in the form of bank deposits, by making new loans. When a bank makes a loan, for example to someone taking out a mortgage to buy a house, it does not typically do so by giving them thousands of pounds worth of banknotes. Instead, it credits their bank account with a bank deposit of the size of the mortgage. At that moment, new money is created.

Banks making loans and consumers repaying them are the most significant ways in which bank deposits are created and destroyed in the modern economy.

It is rather more coy about central bank money creation but it gives the game away when talking about Quantitative Easing (QE)

One possible way of providing further monetary stimulus to the economy is through a programme of asset purchases (QE).

QE involves a shift in the focus of monetary policy to the quantity of money: the central bank purchases a quantity of assets, financed by the creation of broad money and a corresponding increase in the amount of central bank reserves.

I know that it doesn't admit to creating money when it is required to put money into the economy to pay for government spending. The Bank doesn't care to destroy the tax funds spending myth, it is far too convenient for governments which want to cut spending for ideological reasons. But empirical evidence shows that it does^

www.bankofengland.co.uk/%20quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy

There is an companion to this article in the same bulletin, Money in the modern economy. It's interesting in its own right, but it also illustrates what I said earlier to Doodledog about a local economy of the type she was musing on could serve as an indicator of how national economies developed.

Why money is special

In principle, there might be no need for a special financial asset such as money to keep track of who is owed goods and services. Everyone in the economy could instead create their own financial assets and liabilities by giving out IOUs every time they wanted to purchase something, and then mark down in a ledger whether they were in debt or credit in IOUs overall. Indeed, in medieval Europe merchants would often deal with one another by issuing IOUs. And merchant houses would periodically settle their claims on one another at fairs, largely by cancelling out debts. But such systems rely on everyone being confident that everyone else is completely trustworthy. Otherwise, people would worry that some of the IOUs they were holding might be from people who would not pay them back when they came to redeem them. Even if they trusted everyone who they had lent to directly, they may worry that those people held IOUs from untrustworthy people, and therefore would not be able to repay their own IOUs.

(Incidentally these IOUs (Promissory Notes) could be used as a form of money in transactions where they were passed from the holder to another person in payment for something. Bank notes developed from promissory notes)

www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-in-the-modern-economy-an-introduction.pdf

These are both long, but interesting reads.

I was thinking about the economically excluded being able to set up an alternative way of getting things done.

Aaah, I'm sorry. Either I was being thick or you didn't make it clear at the time. I see where you are coming from now. I think it would need to be rigorously controlled, for the reasons of 'trust' that the BoE set out above, but I can see it possibly being of some use.

On a local level, the rigorous control would be dealt with in a ‘traditional manner’ in many areas, and in others defaulters would simply be expelled from the system.

There would, potentially, be issues surrounding the purchase of materials, but the default could be that expenses are paid up front by the recipient, so if you decorate my sitting room I buy the materials (or pay for them in advance), and it is logged that I owe you two piano lessons or whatever. If I don’t deliver then my reputation would suffer (‘name in the window’ style), and I get no more jobs done until I honour my debt.

I’m sure this happens informally in friendship groups where money is tight. As an example, when my daughter was a student she got a tattoo done by an artist friend in return for boarding his dog when he was on holiday - that sort of thing. I suspect that the fabled ‘benefit claimants with fancy nails and highlights’ operate on the same basis, and why not?

Widening it out would need more controls and organisation, but a broader base would mean that more skills could be offered.

"On a local level, the rigorous control would be dealt with in a ‘traditional manner’ in many areas, and in others defaulters would simply be expelled from the system."

Which brings us back to the economically excluded, there has to be discipline in any financial system, whether it's a local credit union or a sovereign state. If others loose confidence they get devalued or excluded.

I've seen very poor economies in the third world where subsistence dominates life, the government provides a very small cash payment and very basic health care for the poorest. If you can't grow your own food you dont eat, the local market provides the chance to sell your surplus potatoes and buy tomatoes and cooking oil you need, the local currency provides the exchange token that enables it to happen.

The weakness is that food is that globally food is relatively expensive and local currency has a low value so major staples like Maize and Wheat are too expensive to import

Moving to the left!?
I don't think so! Some of the MAGA style comments make me shudder!

Moving to the left!?

I dont think so either.

The left leaning posters post more, and more often etc.
In my opinion.

And I suspect the many many more silent ones are in the middle, or right leaning.

A lot of people in rl for example, keep quiet.

There is no poster on GN that is further left than centre left, if you look at the chart I’ve posted provided by AI, but there are posters further to the right than centre right, in fact there are a few that are classed as radical right, which I find alarming.

The subject heading was "Is Gransnet leaning more to the left", which is what I was replying to.

Whitewavemark2

There is no poster on GN that is further left than centre left, if you look at the chart I’ve posted provided by AI, but there are posters further to the right than centre right, in fact there are a few that are classed as radical right, which I find alarming.

AI defined Liberals Democrats as Centrist I disagree with that their policies are quite socialist, their problem is that they are very close to the Labour policies.

On GN there are plenty of Champagne Socialists who virtue signal leftist ideas but when it comes to giving up some of their wealth no chance

Whitewavemark2

There is no poster on GN that is further left than centre left, if you look at the chart I’ve posted provided by AI, but there are posters further to the right than centre right, in fact there are a few that are classed as radical right, which I find alarming.

Maybe that is how you perceive it, according to your own position. Lefties perceive a threat from the right and visa versa. Others might spot far left posters more clearly, and maybe those you see as far right are magnified through your left wing lens.

PS: I haven't been able to follow the whole thread so where is this AI chart?

PS: I haven't been able to follow the whole thread so where is this AI chart?

Ditto please.

Whitewavemark2

There is no poster on GN that is further left than centre left, if you look at the chart I’ve posted provided by AI, but there are posters further to the right than centre right, in fact there are a few that are classed as radical right, which I find alarming.

I think you’re wrong there, there are several regular posters that are further left than centre!
Maybe they will come on here and say so.

I agree with WW2.

Almost entirely, though I believe that are some here who are more to the left than others.

I’ve not recognised anyone on here as “far left”, however there have been a few comments which might indicate we have some “radical rights”.

I guess in the spirit of democracy we must all accept that this is perfectly acceptable.

What I’d like to see is all of us enjoying open, honest, non-insulting conversations about why we have our particular views and beliefs.

I don’t subscribe to the “many” champagne socialists on this site.

I’m certainly not one as we are very average in our income and assets. Lucky to have a boost in modest inheritances and able to pay all our bills and have a modest holiday or two a year.

However, even we would accept rises in taxes if it was guaranteed it would result in better public services.

I don't like labelling anyone as either left or right without knowing them and I think many are centrist and veer to the left or right depending on the subject.
I haven't seen any 'champagne socialists' on here.

@Doodledog

I asked Chatgtp about these 'local economy' schemes, which I remember being popular in the 1980s. LETS (Local Exchange Trading Schemes) being one that was fairly widespread . It came up with a reply, far too long to post here, which included information about research studies of the schemes. The research conclusion was that they had little economic impact but were excellent for community cohesion.

The number of schemes has declined since than but some are still in existence.

Why did the movement decline?
The research points to several recurring difficulties:
- A limited range of offers and wants. Members may earn credits but struggle to find something they actually need.
- Scale. A small network cannot offer the variety of a conventional economy.
- Time and administration. Local schemes need people to maintain records, recruit members and encourage exchanges.
- The relationship with conventional money. Members still need sterling for rent, energy, taxes and many other essentials.
- The difficulty of sustaining participation. Enthusiasm for the idea does not always translate into frequent trading.

It's worth asking AI about if you're interested.

The outline of political/ideological position is on 22/10/26 8.25am