Cameron’s ‘Predator State’ vs Junior Doctors

Quote

RK on social media wrote (with a little editing):

An item on the news, said that teacher assistants were increasingly being used to teach full classes, some up to 30+ hours. PCSO staff are taking over much more of the standard police work and someone I know has just left a job taking bloods on wards, after little training, left alone to do the job on her own… and paid the same wage as a hospital porter.

I believe that by stealth, fully trained, higher waged professionals and semi professionals are being weeded out of many working environments.

Perhaps (just as nurses are taking over some doctor tasks) we will eventually only find the fully qualified in executive positions and barely trained, poorly paid staff will be undertaking most of the work.

Is this part of Hunt’s plans for the NHS, with doctors supervising a collection of underpaid individuals to deliver our health service?

We are fast heading to a worker bee situation, where cost cutting determines a very basic Health Care, Education and security for the masses except for those that can afford to pay. The rich will have the very best of care, education and security… further dividing an already horrendously divided nation.

This constant undermining of skills has been happening in industry for decades, where apprenticeships have ended and Mickey Mouse schemes qualify someone in a trade, after a six week course in a tech college.

It’s the bottom line that always matters most under capitalism. Skill, pride in workmanship, ethical standards of delivery, knowledge of the tasks, are all obstacles in the way of maximising profit. Perhaps that’s why we have so little of our industrial base left.

The argument is always: ” If we can’t be competitive, then we will take our manufacturing abroad to the third world”.

They can’t do that with health, welfare and education, so it has to be de-skilled to make it competitive. It’s also an attack on organised Labour, good pension schemes and secure employment. We all have to live in fear of the sack, or a wage freeze or as Public sector workers have long known, the gradual drip of outside tendering, ripping up of service agreements and eventual wage cuts and overtime payments.

While the working population is under increasing attack, there is a mirror image… one of unbridled growth in profits, bonuses and executive pay, for those that are ruining our nation.

 

I fully recognize the point RK is making and I think most of us could add even more examples of de-skilling of the workforce, whether in the public or private sector. However, he specifically puts the question:

Is this part of Hunt’s plans for the NHS, with doctors supervising a collection of underpaid individuals to deliver our health service?

Dr Bob Gill provides an answer:

The reality is that more qualified staff are being driven out in preparation for the de-skilling that is always part of healthcare privatisation and corporate takeover. For the UK, this is mapped out in the Five Year Forward View by Simon Stevens, the head of NHS England. Stevens used to be an executive of the US based private health care company, UnitedHealth.

http://koshh.org/the-connection-between-the-junior-doctors-contract-and-the-american-corporate-takeover-of-the-nhs

Motions at the BMA conference raised similar concerns that the future training plans could reduce the standards of patient care and safety; that by de-skilling doctors, de facto ‘sub-consultants’ would be introduced who could be paid less, and be subject to more rigid terms and conditions of service; that unacceptable power would be given to local hospital managers to determine training and workforce planning; and limit the career aspirations of many hospital doctors to a sub-consultant grade.

So how does this fit with ‘The Predator State’ of the title?

It is the term used by economist James Galbraith (2008 book) to describe this phase of capitalism in which politicians have colluded with the corporate and financial sectors to privatize public services, using …

‘The state as monopoly collector of taxes and corrupt distributor of the spoils to the private sector.’

This is certainly what is happening to the NHS. Only this week, Richard Branson took over the NHS Children’s Services in Wiltshire. He will be paid by the state for that provision and will doubtless introduce the usual cost-cutting measures to increase its profitability ie reducing the wages bill, weakening union representation and paring the service back as much as possible. Using under or unskilled labour to do the work of a highly trained professional is the obvious way to reduce the wages bill – wages will be the biggest drain on his profits. The UK government will pay Branson for taking on the service (probably with a huge subsidy) and in return, we will get an impoverished service.

So what, where, why?

Aren’t we told that the Tories are all about ‘free-markets’ and competition … but that sounds just like a rigged ‘market’.  How can Richard Branson possibly lose? Just as with the banks and care homes for the elderly, if the private company goes bust or gets fed up, the government will have to step in to pick up the pieces.  In other words, it is yet again …

‘Privatisation of profits and socialization of losses.’

 As Max Keiser pointed out, privatizing health, education and other public services provide great investment opportunities to hedge against more risky speculative ventures. And with another banking crisis predicted for the near future….

So why are the politicians going along with this rip-off of the nation?

Historically, we need to go back to Margaret Thatcher’s election in 1979, and even further back to Hayek on Mount Perelin in 1947.  Put simply, Margaret Thatcher couldn’t bear the Welfare State and wanted Britain to resemble Churchill’s wartime fantasy of pre-WW2…   The Austrian economist Hayek and his book ‘The Road to Serfdom’, offered her a political philosophy and economics that was an intellectual vehicle for her dreams.  The fact that his ideas were so diametrically the opposite of the Welfare State and a mixed economy meant that there were limits to how fast radical dismantling/restructuring could occur without provoking riots.  The ‘Boiling frogs’ strategy was adopted (put frogs in saucepan of cold water and gradually increase the heat – the frogs don’t notice until it’s too late).

The annual release of Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet papers after the 30y rule confirms all this, and it is notable that this year, Cameron has stopped the release of a majority of the minutes from 1986.

But Margaret Thatcher was egged on and undoubtably manipulated by much bigger vested interests than her dreams of an England fit for Miss Marples and Agatha Christie. The City of London provided experts and consultants who saw the opportunity to return wealth and power to its ‘rightful heirs’ (and themselves) – those who we now call the 1% but more properly should be called the 0.1% or even the 0.001%.

It is highly significant that after the Great Depression, and in that short window of 1945-1979, the rich were not so rich and that has now been reversed back to ‘normal’.

Screen Shot 2016-02-15 at 01.49.36

http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/SaezZucman2014Slides.pdf

 

Sadly, the LP lost its way in the 80s and bought into the idea that there was no alternative (TINA). Many actually believed in The Third Way. However as Tony Blair said recently, he had seen his role as to build on Margaret Thatcher’s achievements, and ironically, it seems that New Labour politicians continue to believe in ‘the wisdom of the markets’ when it is quite clear that George Osborne and the Republicans in the US do not.

James Galbraith insists that the original Monetarists like Milton Friedman were serious economists but after deregulation, market solutions were abandoned in favour of Crony Capitalism ‘in all important areas of policy-making’.

 For them, [a market solution] now serves as nothing more than an enabling myth, used to hide the true nature of our world. Ironically, only the progressive still takes the call for “market solutions”

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/05/the-predator-st.html

In other words, we’re being spun a load of economic lies (like austerity, the deficit drama and competitive efficiency) which are intended to persuade us that the impoverishment of the next generation, to benefit the global over-class of super-rich, is unavoidable. And as it happens, we have a government of Old Etonians and aristocrats who belong to that over-class, as do their cronies, friends, relatives and future employers.

‘Cameron himself went to Eton, and the many Old Etonians in his inner circle include Oliver Letwin, minister for government policy; Jo Johnson, head of his policy unit; Ed Llewellyn, chief of staff; and Rupert Harrison, George Osborne’s chief economic adviser.’

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/14/gove-attacks-preposterous-number-old-etonians-cameron-cabinet

“What did the new class… set out to do in political terms? The experience of the past decade permits a very simple summary explanation: they set out to take over the state and to run it — not for any ideological project but simply in the way that would bring to them, individually and as a group, the most money, the least disturbed power, and the greatest chance of rescue should something go wrong. That is, they set out to prey on the existing institutions of the [ ] regulatory and welfare system.”

http://forensicstatistician.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/a-predator-state-the-worst-bits-of-capitalism-communism-and-feudalism/

So where does this leads us with regards to the junior doctors’ contract and Jeremy Hunt?

Jeremy Hunt’s behaviour really doesn’t make any sense if he wants a ‘seven day’ NHS. No-one can imagine that it is feasible, not without more doctors, more hospital porters, nurses, radiographers etc… and expecting 20bn worth of cuts to the NHS budget at the same time? The old adage is that if something doesn’t make sense, ‘Follow the Money’.

After the last 5y of Lansley’s Health and Social Care Bill reorganization and cuts, it is no surprise that hospital doctors feel demoralized, undervalued, over worked and now they are being threatened with a substantial pay cut. Hunt’s imposition of the new contract on the Junior doctors is particularly criticized for driving doctors to work abroad.

Thousands are set to quit the NHS in protest over plans to shake up hours… more than 6,000 requests have been made for the paperwork needed to practise medicine outside the UK.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/junior-doctors-fleeing-country-after-7367186#ICID=sharebar_facebook

 

Well, the resulting shortage from a mass exodus of doctors would be a perfect reason for using under-skilled staff … and it could be even be spun as unreasonable doctors, disloyally abandoning the NHS.  Hence, the conditions of the NHS could be harmonized with the expectations of private health care providers.  And all who could afford it, would be tempted to go for private treatment… as in the two tier system of the US.

Hunt has good reason to want to upset and alienate the Junior doctors.  It seems all too likely that he would love the awkward squad to go.  Then he can move on to the consultants…

As James Galbraith writes:

There is no common good, no public purpose, no shareholder’s interest; we are the prey and governments as well as corporations are run by and for predators. The “failures” enrich the proper beneficiaries even as they “prove” government is no solution.

 

Fortunately, we’re not told the truth about how the economy really works… and there is no economic reason why a new courageous state could not (in time) restore the NHS to being an improved, truly nationalised service….  And it just so happens that Jeremy Corbyn supports full re-instatement of the NHS.  Fingers crossed.

http://www.nhsbill2015.org/jeremy-corbyn-supports-the-nhs-reinstatement-bill/

 

 

 

https://think-left.org/2012/02/16/the-nhs-and-tina-mrs-thatchers-ideological-anti-democratic-political-legacy/

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/05/23/this-mornings-political-landscape-is-a-victory-for-the-cowardly-state/

 

Economic Inequality explained

Quote

Animation from the US but can you spot the differences between the US and George Osborne’s economic ‘strategy’ in the UK?

 


An Animated Video Explains Economic Inequality.

The riddle of the deficit (or deficits for Dummies)

Quote

Riddle: When is a ‘deficit’ not actually a deficit?

Answer: When it’s a Government budget deficit.

 

 Dear [insert name of virtually any Journalist or Politician]

It seems that you’re still having a bit if a struggle to understand what a budget deficit is, and what it does.

Let me try and explain.

Imagine that I’m the ‘Government’ and you are the ‘Private Sector’.  I give you a bar of chocolate.  Now, I (the ‘Government’) am in deficit to the tune of one bar of chocolate… but you (the ‘Private Sector’) are in surplus to the sum of one bar of chocolate.

Are you with me so far?  The government sector and the private sector or non-governmental sector, are opposite sides of the same coin.  A deficit for the government means a gain in the private sector and vice versa.  (The private sector means everything in the domestic economy, which is not government – I’m leaving out exports/imports to keep it simple).

One way or another, Government spending all goes into the private sector … payments for the NHS, Education, the military, unemployment benefits, working tax credits, child benefit, the Police, the judiciary, pensions, motorways, new infrastructure, grant to local governments and much more, are each paid for out of government spending.

OK?   So government doesn’t just spend, it also taxes.

So I’ll be the ‘Government’ again, and I’ll give you (the ‘Private Sector’) a bar of chocolate and then take back half of it, as a tax.   Now both the ‘Government’ and the ‘Private sector’ have half a bar of chocolate each but the government has a budget deficit of half a bar of chocolate whilst the private sector is increased by half a bar of chocolate.

With that extra half a bar of chocolate you have a lot of options.  For example, you could eat it (i.e. consume goods and keep someone in a job replacing them); give it to someone to mend your bike (i.e. create employment); put it in the cupboard for another day (i.e. save) or repay your friend the chocolate you owe him (i.e. pay off debts).

The way to work out if the government has a budget deficit, a balanced budget or a surplus is simply to subtract the total amount collected in tax from the total amount that government spends.   At the moment, the UK has a budget deficit, which means that the amount spent is greater than the amount of tax collected.

However, George Osborne says this is absolutely ‘frightful’ and that under his new policies, the UK will be in surplus by 2020 (!)

So what does a surplus mean for those of us in the private or non-governmental sector?

Well, if I pretend to be the ‘Government’ again, and I give you (the ‘Private Sector’) a bar of chocolate and then take it all back again … the budget will be balanced. Government spent a bar of chocolate and collected a bar back again… but you in the private sector have nothing more than you had before the ‘Government’ started spending!   (How great does a balanced budget sound now?)

To be in surplus, I as the ‘Government’ would give you a bar of chocolate and then demand a bar and a half of chocolate back from you (the ‘private sector’).  Now you have the problem of how you are going to get me that additional half a bar of chocolate?  Maybe you have some saved bars of chocolate which you can use for a year or two but eventually you may have to go into debt or even sell your house to give me, the Government, that extra half bar of chocolate!

As J.D. Alt writes in his excellent US post:

 If [government] runs a “budget surplus” for long, the Private Sector will either have to diminish its economic activity in general (go into recession)—or plunge hopelessly into debt (borrowing bank money it can’t repay, possibly causing a banking crisis)—or both.

 

Instead of creating jobs by spending, paying off debts or saving, a surplus budget eventually leads to redundancies, greater household indebtedness and greater precariousness of the workforce.

Obvious questions are raised by this simple story, like where did I (the ‘Government’) get the money to buy the chocolate in the first place?   Answer: I created it – that’s what Governments do if they’re the sovereign issuer of its own currency!   This is an incontrovertible fact – only the UK government can create Pounds Sterling – anyone else is committing the criminal act of counterfeiting.

If sovereign governments can create as much money as they want, why does the UK government need to collect tax to fund public spending?   Answer: It doesn’t – there are many essential reasons* for the government to collect tax but taxes do not pay for anything.

Think about it, if government kept on spending into the private sector without having a means of also draining the economy, we would have rampant inflation. (Literally, if it was all in bars of chocolate!)  So tax is one of the means of keeping the amount government spends into the private sector equivalent to the number of goods and services available for people to buy… thus preventing price inflation.

That is probably enough for now. I would recommend this and this for more information but please don’t hesitate to contact me if you need further explanation as to how the economy really operates.

Kind regards

Yours sincerely

Syzygysue

* Tax is important for lots of reasons including giving value to the currency but it does not fund government spending.

PS.  We’re constantly told that the deficit means that future generations will have to pay off our debts. This is simply rubbish.  Which would your children really benefit** from?   Half a chocolate bar (deficit budget), no chocolate bar (a balanced budget) or increased household debt and a potential recession (a surplus budget)?  It would be no contest in my family!

(** Obviously, caveats re: inflation apply)

 

DIAGRAMS & DOLLARS: modern money illustrated (Part 1) 

DIAGRAMS & DOLLARS: modern money illustrated (Part 2)

 

Austerity is a Political Choice not Economic Necessity

Quote

By Prue Plumridge

Last week Matthew Lyn (a columnist for Bloomberg) wrote in an article published in Money Week that, “the policies on offer under Corbynomics would quickly ruin the economy”. This was followed shortly afterwards with another written by no less than a Labour councillor and published on Labour List which assured us that Cutting the deficit, healthy public finances, running a budget surplus, fiscal responsibility, and prudence [..] are not Tory ideological dictums but sound economic strategies that had served Labour well in the past. Embracing these goals and persuading Britain that we can be trusted on economy is a key to winning power.”

However, if were to take the trouble to understand how our economic and money systems actually work we would soon learn that such statements are either born of economic illiteracy or wilful deceit in order to pursue specific political agendas. This can largely be attributed to the decades of ‘conditioning’ which has done its job and led to the belief amongst the general population that there is no alternative to austerity, that we have to live within our means, and pay back our debts in the best Micawber tradition. You would think listening to politicians, many mainstream economists and the media that there is only one economic model in town – the household budget one.

Jeremy Corbyn has set out a clear and achievable plan for the future, and yet, Lyn believes that his proposals are a recipe for disaster. In fact he calls it delusional and complains bitterly that the success of the Greens and the SNP is based on a crazy idea that we can wave away our economic problems by recklessly printing money, getting into more debt and increasing state intervention.  Matthew then exposes his ignorance on economic matters by confusing deficit with debt when he writes “by any historical standards the UK is running a huge budget deficit”. The reality is that whilst George Osborne has reduced the deficit he has also increased the debt significantly* so by any standards, if you accept the household model of state budget accounting and that the debt is debt in traditionally accepted terms, the Chancellor hasn’t been doing that well given that he promised to balance the books by 2015.  To  he is now promising a £23bn surplus by 2020 that he says will not only eliminate the deficit, allow us to pay back some of our debt but also reduce our taxes.

*2015         £1.36 trillion (forecast)

2014          £1.26 trillion

2013          £1.10 trillion

2012          £1.10 trillion

2011          £0.91 trillion

2010          £0.76 trillion

2009          £0.62 trillion

2008          £0.53 trillion

Most people readily understand the word budget in terms of their own income believing, quite rightly, that they go into the red when their spending exceeds their income and that saving is spending less than they earn. It is easy to be fooled into thinking that our economy and money system works in the same fashion.  The on-line UK national debt clock which is ticking at a mind-boggling speed is a good example of how we have been conditioned to believe that we have been profligate and it is time to get control of our expenditure, balance our books and pay down our debt. Our understanding is, in fact, back to front. Deficits in state terms represent our savings i.e money that is issued by a sovereign government and spent into the economy to increase the financial assets available to the private sector i.e. to make the economy go round. On the other hand, achieving a surplus, as economically ignorant politicians are promising with some pride, will simply have the opposite effect by removing those said assets from circulation and putting the private sector into deficit.   One man’s surplus is another man’s deficit as it were. And, furthermore, the idea that a government can ‘save’ money is simply wrong as Professor Bill Mitchell, the respected Australian economist explains:

“People get very confused about the concept of national saving. They assume that saving is spending less than you earn and then apply that to budget surpluses and conclude that the surpluses add to national saving. But this view is erroneous. A sovereign government does not save. What sense does it make to say that the government is saving in the currency that it issues? Households save to increase their capacity to spend in the future. How can this apply to the issuer of the currency who can spend at any time it chooses?”

The subject of the national debt is also one where there is public misunderstanding.  Television is awash with programmes which picture debt collectors carting away the assets of someone who has got into arrears with a loan or following the lives of people whose financial situations are so dire that they are forced into bankruptcy.  Most of us quite erroneously, think this applies to the State too.  Who wouldn’t when prominent politicians say things like ‘We have taken our country back from the brink of bankruptcy’ (George Osborne October 2010). We were told then that if the country didn’t rein in its expenditure the debt collectors would be knocking on the door of the Treasury demanding payment or threatening bankruptcy if it didn’t pay up.  A simplistic picture yes but one which would chime with many people’s personal experience these days.  Worse still, we were compared to Greece and next in line to be affected by a sovereign debt crisis. Both lies and about as far away from the truth as it could get.

Here is how Paul Segal described the reality in an article published in the Guardian in 2010:

“Cameron argues that within five years the national debt will rise to “some £22,000 for every man, woman and child in the country”. This may be true, but what he doesn’t tell us is that it is money the government owes to us – not money that we owe to anyone else. That’s right: 80% of our government debt is owed to the British people. What is called “national debt” is our own savings, looked at from the other side of the balance sheet.”

It seems extraordinary that the economic model advocated by mainstream, neoliberal economists is one that is promoted as if there had never been another and also denies the accounting realities which are the basis for how the economy and money system actually works. It’s as if Wynne Godley, Hyman Minsky, Abba Lerner, Michal Kalecki, and of course Keynes and Marx to mention a few, never existed.

So if the money system doesn’t work as we’ve been led to believe by deceitful or economically illiterate politicians and media hacks, how DOES it actually work? Quite simply:

“A sovereign, currency-issuing government is NOTHING like a currency-using household or firm. The sovereign government cannot become insolvent in its own currency; it can always make all payments as they come due in its own currency because it is the ISSUER of the currency, not simply the USER (as a household or private business is). This issuing capacity means that the government does not face the same kinds of constraints as a private sector user of money, which in turn exposes the fallacy of the household analogy, so beloved in popular economics discourse.

Indeed, if government spends currency into existence, it clearly does not need tax revenue before it can spend. Further, if taxpayers pay their taxes using currency, then government must first spend before taxes can be paid. Again, all of this was obvious two hundred years ago when kings literally stamped coins in order to spend, and then received their own coins in tax payment.

Another shocking truth is that a sovereign government does not need to “borrow” its own currency in order to spend. Indeed, it cannot borrow currency that it has not already spent!”

It is astonishing to learn that whilst most of us think that government has to raise money from the capital markets to finance the deficit and refinance maturing debt this is not how it works at all.  It is simply a convenient smokescreen behind which neoliberal politicians (Conservative and Labour alike) hide in their justification for pursuing austerity and public sector cuts. In fact, as Professor Mitchell points out “the continued issuance of public debt is a form of corporate welfare which makes the task of making profits through trading financial assets in private capital markets that much easier…… the Treasury [issues] securities not because it needs cash, but because market participants need securities.” 

The truth of the matter is that in 1971 when the Bretton Woods system collapsed (which tied currency to a gold standard) and fiat currencies were introduced governments were freed from those revenue constraints.  We have been led to believe that raising cash from the market is to fund government spending when tax revenue is insufficient.  But in a fiat monetary system even tax revenue is unnecessary.  The constraints on government spending are not financial but those linked to productivity and available resources and this is what puts the brakes on government spending not being in debt.

So how can we make sense of the motivation of our politicians to justify austerity and cuts on the back of what is not only plainly untrue but has also proved so destructive during the last five years? Jeremy Seabrook wrote in the Guardian in 2010.

Today’s detestation of “big government” stems from this same source, and the affection of Cameron and his colleagues for the “big society” is a euphemism for the reduction of public funds in assisting the poor: rolling back the state, leaving the market to distribute its rewards in accordance with the natural order of things … the market mechanism is as flawless a creation as the earth, and should remain untouched by the hand of meddlers, whose only effect is to upset its power to enrich us all … Once more, the state shrinkers, the advocates of vanishing government, the cutters of red tape and regulation, the liberators of a humanity constricted by statist straitjackets, believe they have a mandate for freedom. But it is freedom under the law of an imagined jungle; by a savage irony, at a time when the smoke from the stumps of felled trees in the real jungle darken the horizon of a used-up future.”

We are not as neoliberal politicians want us to believe  ‘living beyond our means’ and the austerity drive which manifests itself as the necessity for draconian cuts in the public sector and the privatisation of publically funded services is really about reducing the size of government and restoring the ‘primacy of the market” as Professor Mitchell has remarked.

Deficits and debt are, in truth, the biggest red herrings of all in this debate.  In fact as Lord Macaulay wrote in ‘The History of England’ published in 1849:

‘At every stage in the growth of that (national) debt it has been seriously asserted by wise men that bankruptcy and ruin were at hand. Yet still the debt kept on growing; and still bankruptcy and ruin were as remote as ever’

The real issue is how we plan for the future.  How productive can we be, will there be sufficient resources at our disposal to meet demand? These questions have to be debated in the context of climate change and the devastation which we are seeing all around us, both human and in nature, whose roots lie in the capitalist desire for untrammelled growth and the search for profit.  Equally we are not the ‘machine men’ of Charlie Chaplin’s speech in The Dictator and as such we need to give those that want it and are able the dignity of employment which meets their financial and physical needs.

It is time to reassess the capitalist pursuit of profit through the downward spiral of a low paid economy and the maintenance of unemployment as a neoliberal necessity. It is time to challenge the neoliberal agenda which successive governments have embraced over decades. Such blind adherence or maybe not so blind has led to increasing inequality, a wealth gap of extraordinary proportions, an unstoppable drive for unsustainable growth and a situation where corporate power is replacing the democratic framework as it subverts democracy through politicians and trade deals.

So what sort of society do we want to live in and how might we achieve it? The entry of Jeremy Corbyn into the leadership race has revitalised that political debate in a very public way.  Do we want to continue with a political framework where there is not much to tell between the parties and a status quo future or do we strike out for a completely new paradigm? That debate must be held in terms of an economic model that will best deliver our aims.  Professor Bill Mitchell has set out some broad principles which could serve as the basis for that discussion.

 

1. The Government is Us!

2. The government is our agent and like all agents we cede resources and discretion to it because we trust that it can create benefits for all of us that each one of us individually cannot achieve. We understand scale.

3.  Governments invest in our immediate well-being by providing essential services without the need for profit.

4.  Governments invest in the next generation’s well-being through building productive infrastructure that delivers services for decades.

5.  We empower governments with unique characteristics so that it can pursue our interests without the constraints we face ourselves.

6.  We understand that a deficit for us means we have to find funds to cover it, whereas a deficit for our agent, the currency-issuing government means it is funding our spending and saving choices.

7.  A government deficit enhances our freedom because it boosts our income and allows us more options.

What next?  The choice is most definitely ours.

 

Sources:

http://ineteconomics.org/ideas-papers/interviews-talks/demystifying-modern-monetary-theory

How to discuss Modern Monetary Theory: Bill Mitchell.

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=25961

Deficits are our savings: Bill Mitchell http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=10384

Budget Surpluses are not savings: Bill Mitchell http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=961

The National Debt is money the government owes us Paul Segal

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jun/17/fiscal-deficit-threat

Market participants need public debt: Bill Mitchell http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=10404

Jeremy Seabrook: The specter of laissez faire haunts Britain.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jun/20/spectre-laissez-faire-haunts-britain

The Debt Delusion: Exposing Ten Tory Myths about Debts, Deficits and Spending Cuts: Mehdi Hasan.