"High levels of borrowing cannot go on indefinitely"

Except, of course, they can.

"borrowing" is a misnomer in any case. There is no sense in which a monetarily sovereign govt should need to borrow back its own currency. Good article here from Stephanie Kelton that explains the whole borrowing illusion...
This bit is absolutely critical...
As the article notes, Japan has run massive deficits for years, leading to an ostensibly colossal "debt". Has it suffered penal interest rates? No. Has it suffered hyper-inflation? No. Has its economy imploded? No. Explanation: debt doesn't operate the way monetarists claim...
The big takeaway: there is no need to pay down the debt, and no need to cut public spending. Cuts, as ever, will be a *political* choice, not economic necessity.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Joe Sucksmith

Joe Sucksmith Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JoeSucksmith

21 Nov
Novara folk still use "Labour antisemitism crisis" as though it was an organic crisis, cynically used by the right to discredit the left, ie a chronology of crisis followed by weaponisation. This analysis is demonstrably wrong, but it's the price of admission to the Sunday papers
I shouldn't need to explain why it's wrong, but for the avoidance of doubt... Yes, some genuine cases of AS were "weaponised", but the important point is that the narrative of "crisis" was itself a *construction*...
... A fraud created and propagated by a network of individuals and groups united by their opposition to Corbyn and the emergence of a left, Palestine-supporting Labour Party. Zionist groups undeniably played a pre-eminent role - the BoD, JLC, JLM etc., but this is the "unsayable"
Read 4 tweets
26 Jul
Just been thinking a bit more about this Seymour excerpt. I think we need to be clear that this is really quite dishonest. The "wider radical left" wasn't simply silent on this. It *actively facilitated* the cancelling and reputational destruction of those who pushed back...
And embedded within this disingenuous accounting is a really quite problematic elitism that pits the "radical left" against the "Skwawkbox left". The "non-crank left" against the "crank left", basically.
So in this new, revisionist formulation, the "cranks" are accepted to have been substantively correct (de-crankification?), but nonetheless insufficiently skilled/educated to have not "made a hash of" addressing those "murky underlying political issues"...
Read 6 tweets
26 Jun
So I've finally left the Labour Party. Nail in the coffin wasn't the sacking of RLB per se, but rather the recognition (already there in the background) that the @socialistcam and the Labour left generally just doesn't have the tools or analysis to meaningfully resist the right.
Perhaps even more damning is that the Labour left just hasn't learnt the most basic lesson from the last 4 years. That if you want to win, you can't play by the standard rules of the game. That, sometimes, you have to fight ugly, maybe even take a risk.
The SCG has some good people in it, but I get the feeling that even they, when push comes to shove, will put their careers above principle. And that's a shame, because, despite being the minority within the PLP, they've always enjoyed preponderant support within the membership...
Read 5 tweets
18 Jul 19
Anyone have the low down on "Labour staff GMB branch"? How many members does it have? What is this in terms of density? Who are the branch's Secretary and Chair?
As noted elsewhere, the branch seems to be misunderstanding what whistlwblowing actually is. Whistlwblowing (generally) involves invoking an internal procedure and happens *before* signing a settlement agreement or NDA...
Once you sign that NDA (which, to note, would likely have been checked by union solicitors), you essentially forego the right to rip into your employer. That's the nature of the agreement. Employee gets their money, employee gets assurance of no legal claim/public criticism.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!