Picking at the thread of our current "economic model"

Tax payers assemble - it's time to go digging

I put a post on our Telegram channel today as follows:

“I think they are lying to us about the national debt. And I think this is because modern monetary theory, (MMT), is correct in how money should be created. However, the theory ignores the layers that have been put between money creation and the people, and I will cover this in a Substack. But for now, I'm of the opinion that the national debt is being used as a weapon that then allows taxation to be used as a subjugation tool, along with austerity measures. They all keep people down and people poor. That makes people easily controllable. We are in a mess guys. And we need to understand these rather dry points about the national debt and taxation before we can even think about raising valid points about the mess, or coming up with personal solutions”

Below I will begin examining the rationale behind this statement, so that you can decide where you stand on it. I am happy for people to disagree with it, if they can provide evidence to back up their position. I am always happy to hear conflicting arguments that are put across in a polite manner, because they open the discussion around topics. In turn, we can all learn from such discussions and adjust our positions accordingly. That is how we grow.

Before I go on, I need to again make clear that I am not an economist, a financial expert, nor a financial advisor. I am just a person asking questions and coming to conclusions based on reading and evidence that I have come across, and such conclusions may or may not be correct. Nothing I say should be taken as ultimate truth, but rather just the gospel according to me at this time. However, that gospel, of course, comes through my own subjective filter and my understanding, and on the latter, I am happy to admit it may be limited in some cases. So please, as always, take what resonates and discard anything that does not. I am not the arbiter of truth. Just someone sharing posts and opinions. And those opinions change over time as I learn more.

This is part 1 of at least a 2-part article looking at the issues highlighted in the Telegram post. I have not written part 2 yet, and as such my musings may even run to 3 parts. I am warning you of this now, merely so that you can get adequate tea and biscuits, as eventually you might want to re-read everything together.

At this early juncture, let’s circle back to Richard Murphy who I have mentioned before. I appreciate that some people have issues with Mr Murphy’s alleged (mis)representation of MMT, and I accept that. However, I found an article from him in which I think there are several blatant truths, given what we are told to accept about the Bank of England (BOE). Having said this, if we dig into the BOE a bit further, then we could equally say that Richard Murphy is completely wrong in his article. In this strange world I think both positions hold validity, but only because they represent the contradictions between what we are told is true, and what is actually true, and the nexus between what should be happening, and what is actually happening. I will explain more on this when I expand on the BOE in part 2 of this series, but at this stage I should make clear that far better people than me have tackled the truth about the structure of the BOE, so rather than reinvent the wheel on this subject, I will simply share some articles I have found to clarify my position, along with some commentary.