jimob1.bsky.social
All opinions are other people's passed off as my own.
1,305 posts
76 followers
146 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Wood for trees? The public's gut is right, at the macro level it amounts to deckchair shifting and robbing Peter to pay Paul in order to plug gaps.
Can't blame the public for hearing beatings will continue till morale improves (which is not to advocate abstention or voting Reform).
comment in response to
post
You're right, but consider it from another viewpoint. If you're struggling to put food on the table and the main parties offer more of the same, the rest is for the birds. In other words 'nihilistic' technocracy has led to despair.
Who's offering a vision to give people hope?
comment in response to
post
As a wise man once said, when a thrice potato gangles worzlenuts, remember to banjo telephone parsnips.
comment in response to
post
In a nutshell: "the government is almost always spending ‘record amounts’, on everything" And, "R&D spending is actually planned to fall as a share of national income"
comment in response to
post
Banks 'always' lend if you are deemed a good risk (unless borrowing a gazillion pounds) regardless of reserves as capital requirements are calculated post facto (why monetarism failed).
Yes, banks alter lending criteria depending on material conditions, but did, say, ZIRP increase lending?
comment in response to
post
Yes, disillusioned people wanting change? But to what and how, well that's another question.
comment in response to
post
If Reeves is continually chasing her tail to balance budgets, debt which rises and falls with interest rates? And if cheaper lending brings more projects online kickstarting growth, great.
comment in response to
post
In aggregate banks swap them as they can't 'spend them,' but it's true that they would be incentivised to make up lost income via issuing riskier loans (not funded by reserves), but it's a weak mechanism. QE, if no one's borrowing, no one's borrowing.
comment in response to
post
Absolutely, unless you're a mind reader you can never 'know' people's motivations, but if this is an exercise of reading through the tea leaves, I would infer that people are upset with the status quo which consists of both 'major' parties.
comment in response to
post
True, but as GDP is only a rough guesstimate anyway, should both monthly and quarterly figures be taken with a pinch of salt?
comment in response to
post
Interestingly a lot of the Labour vote went to Reform so not a simple story of left v right.
comment in response to
post
As far as I understand it as reserves exist on a BoE computer they're just not a bank's to lend. In other words reserves don't decrease when lending takes place (unless lending to gov. by purchasing gilts).
comment in response to
post
Whilst Tice is indeed an egit, it's illegal for banks to lend out reserves (unless to the government -
gilts). The purpose of interest on reserves is to set the short term interest rate.
comment in response to
post
😅 Shocked her statement that she 'doesn't believe in low fat cooking.' isn't no 1.
comment in response to
post
As states have grown (in last 100 yrs) decision making is now more complex, but are the UK's/Ireland's over-centralised systems particularly unwieldy with under-resourcing the executive exacerbating this problem?
Has the deliberate hollowing out of state capacity come back to bite us on the arse?
comment in response to
post
Are they promoting beatable idiots as the opposition so as to diminish the real opposition, the Tories? A dangerous game to play and yes ignoring progressive governing for permanent reactionary campaigning is not good to say the least.
comment in response to
post
Too centralised? But as you suggest if the Treasury didn't make decisions would fewer decisions be made as more placed in the too difficult box?
Unthinking technocracy/apolitical decision making, assumes away the fact that for me to have more you must have less – decisions are dynamic.
comment in response to
post
Juxtaposing an elderly priest quietly calling for peace and tolerance against the mayhem in the background was powerful stuff. Hope I'm like that when I'm 90!
comment in response to
post
I don't think it's too controversial to say that until recently reducing state capacity has been a policy objective, which is not to say there isn't low hanging fruit/easy wins out there for a willing state.
comment in response to
post
I'll have to look up Drezner, thank you. Would also add that imo Tooze's substack is the best one going.
comment in response to
post
If gov. wants to create growth it must think like a VC (successes pay for failures) rather than like an accountant. A difficult sell politically but them's the breaks. And if the private sector has gone missing what's the alternative?
3) The system is set-up to prioritize stability/hinder change?
comment in response to
post
An excellent piece!
A few observations 1) 'politics free decisions' As all decisions are dynamic, an oxymoron?
2) Complexity - You can't do cost/benefit for an unknowable future (a complex system) – the wrong maths. If Jobs did a cost/benefit analysis for the iPad it never would have happened.
comment in response to
post
Sometimes the obvious take is correct, the Spanish love company.
comment in response to
post
Neoliberalism? Money steered from wages to profits to assets, ergo exchange value of assets outpaces average earnings? Also, if credit rather than savings sets house prices, they've been pumped in lieu of wages rises (and to keep money supply from collapsing)? Thank you Mrs T!
comment in response to
post
Bang on! The thread that links all right wing ideologies is that there are superior persons who should be catered for and then the rest.
comment in response to
post
Regardless of whether you like her policies or not, Clinton is more a small c Burkean style conservative interested in preserving the status quo, rather than the progressive as you would have her. That said her over Trump every day of the week.
comment in response to
post
The 'right' has fought on two fronts: 1. make the rich richer - neoliberalism and 2. reactionary social change - a return to the '50s where women and brown people knew their place. Neoliberalism was a revolution which they won and belatedly they're having gradual success with 2. So half correct?
comment in response to
post
CBs aren't politically neutral technocratic institutions after all? Say it ain't so Joe!
comment in response to
post
Bravo. Yes, people in Bristol complained for decades about this monstrosity, but nothing was done because the powers that be didn't want to upset the 'merchant venturers'.
comment in response to
post
The Thames Water of football?
comment in response to
post
Reactionaries don't do self-reflection because someone else is always to blame, EU, foreigners etc.
Similarly, all the post-Cameron PMs put clear blue water between themselves and their predecessors - 'they failed because of 'X', but I'm the new broom (that rehashes old ideas)!' Plus ca change.
comment in response to
post
'Screamingly obvious takes are always best'. Received wisdom as gospel whilst ignoring second order consequences? How have your pre-2008 columns aged?
comment in response to
post
Rising house prices (against wages) as a policy objective is the original sin. Everything follows from that.
comment in response to
post
The *independent* BoE will be admitting QT is fiscal policy next.
comment in response to
post
You might have come across this already: www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2QR...
comment in response to
post
Maybe she overemphasised to make her point? Tbf, her whole thesis rests on emphasising the symbiotic relationship between public and private sectors – they don't exist in mutually exclusive silos. What would Apple be without VC or the PT Barnum that was Jobs?
comment in response to
post
2 + 2 ≠ 4. 😳
comment in response to
post
Yes, Mazzucato makes a similar point.
comment in response to
post
Gold-plating military tech in UK c.2025.
comment in response to
post
Likewise don't disagree.
Closer to home, if a cautious private sector is also struggling to achieve even modest levels of productivity (and ROI), then simply replaying the old technocratic hits is hard to justify. So what do you do? Labour playing a dud hand badly?