Is Gransnet leaning more to the left?

There may well be more people supporting a left wing ideology at the moment, but we shouldn’t be surprised given the poor show of the more traditional conservatives which I think would attract votes.

Whitewavemark2

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.

"Fascism is rising from frustration, born out of a crisis of livelihoods ..." (Isabella Weber).

That's always been the case. We've seen it time after time - but we need to remember it can work as the opposite extreme.

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

Statements like this make me despair. Taxation isn't necessary for increased spending on public services. Nor is 'borrowing'.

1) Sheer logic tells us that increased spending will lead to increased tax receipts.

2) The 'deficit' is the money that is available to individuals and businesses for spending, saving, investing etc. Without the deficit we'd have no money..

3)'Borrowing' is the government getting back money from the 'deficit' which it has previously spent into the economy and hasn't got back via taxation. That it actually pays interest on money it handed out in the first place is a bit odd, but there you go...

Banks create money by making loans, the government creates money (via the Bank of England) primarily by spending into the economy, but in a crisis it can create extra money to put into bank reserves to enable continuing economic activity (2008 GFC and 2020 Covid). Commercial banks get back more than they lend via interest. The government doesn't charge interest on the 'loan it makes to the public.

This fact, not deranged fantasy.

The conversation with Dd about local economy schemes set me thinking about an analogy. LETS tokens don't exist before a scheme is set up. They have to be created and issued somehow before they can be spent. This is how any monetary system developed and is perpetuated.

Whitewavemark2

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

🤞thanks, I've been away for 5 days, and off again on Wednesday, so that saved me time searching.
(I think I fit around 4 - 3, not that I'm totally immovable to the other side on several issues).

Oreo

Of course I won’t give examples or name posters, that would be entirely wrong.
If anyone wishes to trawl through every political discussion in the last few years then good luck to them.
I stand by what I say.

I did not recognise the behaviours you listed above, or the habits of any regular posters.

as in " person who will brook no criticism (of anything LP) ....can be very strident ... come over as holier than thou.... if they don’t like a (RW poster ) comment go after them full tilt.

Next time you see what you consider such behaviour, I'd be grateful if you would draw attention to it, so that I can think on.

I don’t think that me or anyone else ‘drawing attention’ to posts of that nature on the political threads would go down well or were you asking for pms? Either way I won’t be doing it.

MaizieD

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

Statements like this make me despair. Taxation isn't necessary for increased spending on public services. Nor is 'borrowing'.

1) Sheer logic tells us that increased spending will lead to increased tax receipts.

2) The 'deficit' is the money that is available to individuals and businesses for spending, saving, investing etc. Without the deficit we'd have no money..

3)'Borrowing' is the government getting back money from the 'deficit' which it has previously spent into the economy and hasn't got back via taxation. That it actually pays interest on money it handed out in the first place is a bit odd, but there you go...

Banks create money by making loans, the government creates money (via the Bank of England) primarily by spending into the economy, but in a crisis it can create extra money to put into bank reserves to enable continuing economic activity (2008 GFC and 2020 Covid). Commercial banks get back more than they lend via interest. The government doesn't charge interest on the 'loan it makes to the public.

This fact, not deranged fantasy.

The conversation with Dd about local economy schemes set me thinking about an analogy. LETS tokens don't exist before a scheme is set up. They have to be created and issued somehow before they can be spent. This is how any monetary system developed and is perpetuated.

You never mention inflation?

[I hesitate to even write this to you, but I will give it a go].

But isn’t debate all about pointing out what we see as the errors in others’ arguments?

I think that pointing out where we disagree (and expecting to get the same in return) is far more honest than policing threads and finding sneaky ways to point the finger at those we don’t like.

MaizieD

^In my view, those who can work, should work.^

Why do you think that, Cossy when it is patently obvious that 'work' isn't something that the very wealthy really do?

Work, like taxes, seems to be only for the 'little people'. Especially galling when the 'little people' are mostly working to maintain their wealth and their lifestyles...

" 'work' isn't something that the very wealthy really do" is a generalisation , way off the mark.

Many of the extremely wealthy really DO work; long hours, huge responsibilities, and sometimes, big risks. Just like many poorly paid people work extremely hard with huge responsibilities and sometimes, big risks.

1) Sheer logic tells us that increased spending will lead to increased tax receipts.

That depends what it's spent on, a lot of spending does not attract significant tax.

Food, Takeaways, Housing, children clothes , particularly at lower income range tax return on spending is quite low, a high proportion of income is sent on those costs. Higher income groups mortgage will be highest cost

Doodledog

But isn’t debate all about pointing out what we see as the errors in others’ arguments?

I think that pointing out where we disagree (and expecting to get the same in return) is far more honest than policing threads and finding sneaky ways to point the finger at those we don’t like.

Who’s policing a thread? Who is pointing a finger at posters we don’t like?
You are quite obviously having a sneaky go at me Doodledog
But you’re quite wrong as I’m not backwards in coming forwards on threads and some pages ago was simply saying what I have seen on political discussions in the last four years.
It’s my opinion which I stand by.

David49

1) Sheer logic tells us that increased spending will lead to increased tax receipts.

That depends what it's spent on, a lot of spending does not attract significant tax.

Food, Takeaways, Housing, children clothes , particularly at lower income range tax return on spending is quite low, a high proportion of income is sent on those costs. Higher income groups mortgage will be highest cost

Taxes will have to go up there’s no other way of doing it other than more borrowing, and that’s at record levels or printing tons of money.

Or decrease spending in many areas
[Nope I wont be drawn into on what. But personally, I would make radical cuts in several areas[the right ones!]].
Many people know there is wastage, and worse.

Oreo

David49

1) Sheer logic tells us that increased spending will lead to increased tax receipts.

That depends what it's spent on, a lot of spending does not attract significant tax.

Food, Takeaways, Housing, children clothes , particularly at lower income range tax return on spending is quite low, a high proportion of income is sent on those costs. Higher income groups mortgage will be highest cost

Taxes will have to go up there’s no other way of doing it other than more borrowing, and that’s at record levels or printing tons of money.

The policy of the previous and current government is for public spending to equal revenue, so if we want better public services taxation will increase.
We are a wealthy country and can well afford to pay more.

Well, David, I'm a Champagne Socialist.
I want champagne to be achievable for everyone, not just the Elect.
If this can be managed only by everyone having Cava instead, that's fine with me.

Dear god. Cava. There is a limit you know

I prefer cava

Can someone explain what left leaning/far left actually means? I read that the BBC for example is left leaning but I have found the opposite.

“Many of the extremely wealthy really DO work; long hours, huge responsibilities, and sometimes, big risks. Just like many poorly paid people work extremely hard with huge responsibilities and sometimes, big risks”

Exactly this.

We have two sets of friends in the super league of wealth.

Truly they never stop, one couple have a family foundation to help young people who have not had easy starts, this is run on top of multiple businesses, the money they put into the local economy is huge, they use so many local companies, tradespersons etc.
They could sell up tomorrow and the family would be financially sound for generations but they want a true legacy for family and employees.

The second couple may do charitable works and keep quiet about it but they work so diligently for the sake of the hundreds of people they employ.

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.

Barter, exchange, and recycling has never gone away! We've done all three , all our married life, from being hard up in urban Glasgow , to rural then island life and back to urban life. We have always bartered skills, labour, goods, produce, and services and still do.

The internet makes it so easy and accessible these days, with Freecycle and Next Door . DH belongs to Mens Shed ( operates nationwide; an endless source of tools, advice and materials). Teen GD trawls charity shops and trades on Vinted. There are online Toolshare sites, and community " libraries of things " .... free sharing anything from baby equipment to toys, DIY tools , unused materials etc. "New Start" charity provides household items to people in need.

Oreo

I don’t think that me or anyone else ‘drawing attention’ to posts of that nature on the political threads would go down well or were you asking for pms? Either way I won’t be doing it.

I'm not asking for PM's.

I genuinely don't understand your claims, or reluctance to show examples.

That’s fine by me.

Bartering isn’t going to make a comeback anytime soon.
Recycling yes, am all for it.

Bartering isn’t going to make a comeback anytime soon.

No.

I looked into it once.
Our household would be a good example of how it could work.
Only, it wouldnt. Well not much. In relality.

Only would work nowadays I think, for those people who live off grid.

I do apologise for the length of this post. People are welcome to scroll past it. But I was challenged.

You never mention inflation?

I have mentioned inflation many times.

Funnily enough, if you look at individual inflated sectors an interesting picture emerges.

Basically, what is called 'money printing' is the creation of money through credit. House price inflation is an area of concern to many, especially the young who can't afford to purchase houses.

House price inflation can be traced to the entry of commercial banks into the mortgage market. Remember, bank loans are pure money creation done by banks 'crediting' the accounts of those they lend to.

In the past, loans for house purchase were transacted through Building Societies. Building societies couldn't create new money, they had to make loans backed by deposits from their savers. Once the banks realised that mortgage loans were highly profitable for them they entered the mortgage market in a big way. And many Building societies became banks so that they could compete with the banks in creating new money when they made loans. The availability of all this credit (new money) pushed house prices higher and higher. The Global Financial crisis was a consequence of banks extending so much credit to all and sundry, even people who couldn't really repay what they owed plus the inevitable interest, that the system was almost collapsed as banks didn't have enough reserves to cover the bad debts. At this point governments bailed the banks out (because the failure of big banks would have wiped out many people's deposits with them) and so the banks went on extending credit and house prices continued to rise to levels which are unaffordable for many.

Of course, the shortage of housing in the UK doesn't help as that leads to another cause of inflation. When there is too much 'money' wanting to purchase a commodity in short supply the price rises and the commodity is sold to those who are willing to pay the most for it.

House prices aren't actually included in the 'basket' of items used to calculate inflation figures, but nonetheless, it exists and has adverse effects. What you do have to note is that state money creation plays no part in this.

So, inflation can be caused by too much money chasing commodities in short supply, but an allied cause is the sellers of commodities in short supply deliberately increasing prices to increase their profits. As we see with oil prices following the war with Iran.

The standard response of central banks to any sort of inflation is to raise interest rates with the aim of cutting consumer spending, the theory being that it is consumer spending which causes inflation and less consumer demand will lead to lower prices. Unfortunately, increased interest rates tend to lead to increased prices in some sectors, oil being again the prime example today. The increases in oil prices feed into increased energy costs and eventually increased costs for businesses which lead to them increasing their prices to cover the costs. But the increased interest rates meant to lower inflation actually add to inflation by increasing the cost of credit for everyone who uses it, that'll be businesses and consumers alike...

Once again, this inflation has nothing to do with state money creation...

State money creation causes a inflation problem if there are not enough resources within the state available for it to purchase. If you look at the often quoted countries which experienced hyperinflation you will see that it was caused either by lack of resources within the state ( Zimbabwe) or a very high level of foreign debt (Weimar Germany and Venezuela) often exacerbated by a shortage of resources.

Inflation is measured by price increases over time. If a price increases once, then stabilises, the inflation measure will diminish over time. This is generally the case with external supply shock prices. Increased money supply will actually help to accommodate the price increase. Increasing the money supply to accommodate internal resource shortages will only make the price inflation worse (e.g housing in the UK) Using interest rates to suppress inflation caused by resource shortages tends to increase it and it affects the poorest people the most. The wealthy can absorb the price increases, the poor can't.

The fairer way to control inflation, IMO, is to increase taxes to destroy the excess money, but to increase them on those best placed to absorb the increases. So, although a government might be increasing the money supply by spending new money, it can more equitably mitigate the increase if need be by targeting its taxation.

It's all a bit of a balancing act, but running an economy is just that. It has to refine its instruments with regard to the welfare of all the population.

I can assure you that MMT proponents care a great deal about inflation. They just propose different ways of dealing with it.

I'd say again that we have experienced two very significant episodes of overt state money creation in the last 20 years. The first caused asset price inflation, mostly for the wealthy but not for the 'ordinary' populace; the second paid for Covid and kept the economy going. That didn't cause any notable general inflation.

And with so many of our public services running down and a high level of unemployment (over 1 million) we can hardly say that the UK is short of resources to purchase to improve this.