Nobody can realistically be a breadwinner as an OPG now

[Edward Hunter]

The far left havent got a solution. They think money grows on trees and seem far happier calling anybody with concerns about stupid amounts of people coming into our small country racist. Let alone the ones chucking their papers into the channel and strolling in unvetted to do whatever they please. Also if you think its good for social cohesion to have enclaves of people with a very different culture dotted round the country you are deluded. All islamists and foreign criminals should be deported. All this aging population rubbish has been spouted for years. Immigrants get old too.Oh but dont worry, just let another 2.5 million come in every five years. What could possibly go wrong?

[borders]

Money creation
In a fiat currency system , which system is now used by almost all money-creating jurisdictions in the world (including the UK, USA and eurozone) all that money represents is a promise to pay, which is otherwise called debt. All money creation must, as a result, recognise the creation of new debt between the parties who give rise to that new money creation.

This process is not as complicated as it sounds. Only two types of organisation can be involved in transactions that create money.

One is the government of a jurisdiction that creates a fiat currency. A government can create new money at will by demanding that its central bank make a loan to it to finance its expenditure. This is the source of all new government-created money, otherwise known as base money, which is used to enable the banking system of a jurisdiction to function by providing the liquidity required so that the jurisdiction's commercial banks can settle their liabilities to each other.

Government-created money is injected into the economy via the central bank reserve accounts that commercial banks maintain with a jurisdiction's central bank.

Government-created money is destroyed through the payment of tax. This is important. It explains why tax does not fund government spending. Money creation by the government funds government spending. Taxation takes the money the government creates to fund its spending out of circulation as a mechanism to control inflation. That money is then destroyed. Tax as a result never funds government spending: it cancels money creation.

Government-created money can also be effectively neutered by the issue of government bonds: these effectively lock away government-created money from use in the economy for significant periods of time. They do not have the same impact of destroying money as taxation does, but the impact is not far short of that: the money, or debt, is locked out of use.

Commercial banks also take part in the money-creation process. They do so by lending, The money that they create is destroyed by loan repayment. This was acknowledged as a fact by the Bank of England in 2014.

There is no fixed stock of money. The amount of money in circulation depends on the amount of money created by both the government and the commercial banks of a jurisdiction, and the amount of money destroyed by taxation and loan repayment. In that case, the control of inflation necessarily requires the integration of tax policy and monetary policy. The fact that this rarely happens is a major weakness within modern macroeconomics.

Money creation by banks is pro-cyclical. That means when the economy is booming the banks lend more and so create more money. When an economy is sluggish borrowing is reduced and loan repayments tend to increase. The result is that if money supply is to be maintained across an economic cycle a government has to spend more money into existence during economic downturns. This is a major reason why austerity economics has been so counter-productive because it reinforces the pro-cyclical swings created by commercial bank lending policies and exaggerates the economic cycle as a result.

[Jefferson Starfish]

Money creation
In a fiat currency system , which system is now used by almost all money-creating jurisdictions in the world (including the UK, USA and eurozone) all that money represents is a promise to pay, which is otherwise called debt. All money creation must, as a result, recognise the creation of new debt between the parties who give rise to that new money creation.

This process is not as complicated as it sounds. Only two types of organisation can be involved in transactions that create money.

One is the government of a jurisdiction that creates a fiat currency. A government can create new money at will by demanding that its central bank make a loan to it to finance its expenditure. This is the source of all new government-created money, otherwise known as base money, which is used to enable the banking system of a jurisdiction to function by providing the liquidity required so that the jurisdiction's commercial banks can settle their liabilities to each other.

Government-created money is injected into the economy via the central bank reserve accounts that commercial banks maintain with a jurisdiction's central bank.

Government-created money is destroyed through the payment of tax. This is important. It explains why tax does not fund government spending. Money creation by the government funds government spending. Taxation takes the money the government creates to fund its spending out of circulation as a mechanism to control inflation. That money is then destroyed. Tax as a result never funds government spending: it cancels money creation.

Government-created money can also be effectively neutered by the issue of government bonds: these effectively lock away government-created money from use in the economy for significant periods of time. They do not have the same impact of destroying money as taxation does, but the impact is not far short of that: the money, or debt, is locked out of use.

Commercial banks also take part in the money-creation process. They do so by lending, The money that they create is destroyed by loan repayment. This was acknowledged as a fact by the Bank of England in 2014.

There is no fixed stock of money. The amount of money in circulation depends on the amount of money created by both the government and the commercial banks of a jurisdiction, and the amount of money destroyed by taxation and loan repayment. In that case, the control of inflation necessarily requires the integration of tax policy and monetary policy. The fact that this rarely happens is a major weakness within modern macroeconomics.

Money creation by banks is pro-cyclical. That means when the economy is booming the banks lend more and so create more money. When an economy is sluggish borrowing is reduced and loan repayments tend to increase. The result is that if money supply is to be maintained across an economic cycle a government has to spend more money into existence during economic downturns. This is a major reason why austerity economics has been so counter-productive because it reinforces the pro-cyclical swings created by commercial bank lending policies and exaggerates the economic cycle as a result.

You've just copied and pasted that from https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/202 ... -creation/

[borders]

Have a read of that Edward ! Money creation , Tax does not fund Spending it is a Political Choice how the Government create and then spend the money. Immigrants are not the problem for the Economical state of this Country . Of course there is problems in Inner Cities and Towns , we all dont along all of the time and you forgot to mention the White people that are rogues and criminals ....

[borders]

Money creation
In a fiat currency system , which system is now used by almost all money-creating jurisdictions in the world (including the UK, USA and eurozone) all that money represents is a promise to pay, which is otherwise called debt. All money creation must, as a result, recognise the creation of new debt between the parties who give rise to that new money creation.

This process is not as complicated as it sounds. Only two types of organisation can be involved in transactions that create money.

One is the government of a jurisdiction that creates a fiat currency. A government can create new money at will by demanding that its central bank make a loan to it to finance its expenditure. This is the source of all new government-created money, otherwise known as base money, which is used to enable the banking system of a jurisdiction to function by providing the liquidity required so that the jurisdiction's commercial banks can settle their liabilities to each other.

Government-created money is injected into the economy via the central bank reserve accounts that commercial banks maintain with a jurisdiction's central bank.

Government-created money is destroyed through the payment of tax. This is important. It explains why tax does not fund government spending. Money creation by the government funds government spending. Taxation takes the money the government creates to fund its spending out of circulation as a mechanism to control inflation. That money is then destroyed. Tax as a result never funds government spending: it cancels money creation.

Government-created money can also be effectively neutered by the issue of government bonds: these effectively lock away government-created money from use in the economy for significant periods of time. They do not have the same impact of destroying money as taxation does, but the impact is not far short of that: the money, or debt, is locked out of use.

Commercial banks also take part in the money-creation process. They do so by lending, The money that they create is destroyed by loan repayment. This was acknowledged as a fact by the Bank of England in 2014.

There is no fixed stock of money. The amount of money in circulation depends on the amount of money created by both the government and the commercial banks of a jurisdiction, and the amount of money destroyed by taxation and loan repayment. In that case, the control of inflation necessarily requires the integration of tax policy and monetary policy. The fact that this rarely happens is a major weakness within modern macroeconomics.

Money creation by banks is pro-cyclical. That means when the economy is booming the banks lend more and so create more money. When an economy is sluggish borrowing is reduced and loan repayments tend to increase. The result is that if money supply is to be maintained across an economic cycle a government has to spend more money into existence during economic downturns. This is a major reason why austerity economics has been so counter-productive because it reinforces the pro-cyclical swings created by commercial bank lending policies and exaggerates the economic cycle as a result.

You've just copied and pasted that from https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/202 ... -creation/

[borders]

I did Jefferson Starfish and ???? It is a great article explaining MMT, something many people have little knowledge of , indeed something i was unaware of . Knowledge is King , Malcolm !!

[Mr Rush]

The far left havent got a solution. They think money grows on trees and seem far happier calling anybody with concerns about stupid amounts of people coming into our small country racist. Let alone the ones chucking their papers into the channel and strolling in unvetted to do whatever they please. Also if you think its good for social cohesion to have enclaves of people with a very different culture dotted round the country you are deluded. All islamists and foreign criminals should be deported. All this aging population rubbish has been spouted for years. Immigrants get old too.Oh but dont worry, just let another 2.5 million come in every five years. What could possibly go wrong?

As the job becomes a revolving door of transients, so too does the country. It's the end of the nation-state. Nothing means anything, and everything and everyone is disposable. The future is 'Global Brazil': shanty towns and glittering skyscrapers with nothing in between.

[Dingo99]

Well said. All the "immigrants" coming to our shores, well at least the majority, are young fighting age males. They pay these people smugglers suming like 5 grand a pop to come over. Now let's think about this for a second. Is it safe to live amongst "refugees" in say Sangatte with 5 - 10 grand or whatnot? No it isn't, they would get their throats cut for the money, so it seems to me that someone (out communist and traiterous gov) is paying these people to invade the UK, well why? I would like to think those coming over are well meaning and hard workers etc, but come on, let's face it most are savages with no plans to assimilate and are members of the "reiligion of peace" (which is only a religion of peace until all bow to their moon god; Allah), they come over (not all,I know but just look at Rotherham for e.g) to rape and stab one another, we need to realise that diversity is not our strength and that their is NO enrichment. I mean come one poeple1, it comes out every year that the most popular male baby name in the UK is Mohammed. I won't even go to London for e.g which is closer to my neck of the woods than Birmingham, England's second city, the last time a few years ago, I ventured into London, I thought I was in Africa or Morocco!n You have places up North that want to change the road signs into Urdu or some other language I forget which, seriously when are we going to realise that our country has been raped. Well, I know damn well that the boys in WW1 and WW2 would not have risked and lost their lvies if they knew that the UK was to become some third world shittehole, rape and stabbings on a daily basis! And don't gimme that old shitte about immigration is neccessary, if whitey had more babies, then there wouldn't be an issue, also look up Barbara Lerner Spectre to unserstand the culprits behind the rape of Europe, the British Isles and NI Ireland and the ROI Ireland! Always the same people that love mass imiigration yet you need a DNA test to reside in that certain nation!

[LouBarlow]

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/ ... on-389985/

Immigration isn't the problem
It never has been.

"Writing for the Guardian he said.."
Yeah, he would be unbiased then.
If immigrants are so valuable financially why doesn't every country in Europe (if not the West) cry out for more of them, and why do those same countries warehouse those immigrants often far away from all that work they could be doing?

The country does cry out for them. Ignore your copy of the mail engage your brain and research birth rates for this country. They are at record low levels. We have managed to allow the wealthy to plunder this country to such a degree that working poor folks can’t afford to have children any more.

We have also managed to make it impossible for the kids actually being born here to get an education due to the crippling finances involved. So the population is getting older, we have no trained people coming in because immigration = bad and nobody capable of filling vital roles in society.

Do you see the problem?

Well said. All the "immigrants" coming to our shores, well at least the majority, are young fighting age males. They pay these people smugglers suming like 5 grand a pop to come over. Now let's think about this for a second. Is it safe to live amongst "refugees" in say Sangatte with 5 - 10 grand or whatnot? No it isn't, they would get their throats cut for the money, so it seems to me that someone (out communist and traiterous gov) is paying these people to invade the UK, well why? I would like to think those coming over are well meaning and hard workers etc, but come on, let's face it most are savages with no plans to assimilate and are members of the "reiligion of peace" (which is only a religion of peace until all bow to their moon god; Allah), they come over (not all,I know but just look at Rotherham for e.g) to rape and stab one another, we need to realise that diversity is not our strength and that their is NO enrichment. I mean come one poeple1, it comes out every year that the most popular male baby name in the UK is Mohammed. I won't even go to London for e.g which is closer to my neck of the woods than Birmingham, England's second city, the last time a few years ago, I ventured into London, I thought I was in Africa or Morocco!n You have places up North that want to change the road signs into Urdu or some other language I forget which, seriously when are we going to realise that our country has been raped. Well, I know damn well that the boys in WW1 and WW2 would not have risked and lost their lvies if they knew that the UK was to become some third world shittehole, rape and stabbings on a daily basis! And don't gimme that old shitte about immigration is neccessary, if whitey had more babies, then there wouldn't be an issue, also look up Barbara Lerner Spectre to unserstand the culprits behind the rape of Europe, the British Isles and NI Ireland and the ROI Ireland! Always the same people that love mass imiigration yet you need a DNA test to reside in that certain nation!

If you are going to copy and paste this toss from the far right manifesto at least correct the grammar and spelling mistakes.

[borders]

Hello MJD24 , I hope you are referring to NWpostie and Tman ! They have history just read their many previous posts .

Go on then, post a link.
I can wait.

"Writing for the Guardian he said.."
Yeah, he would be unbiased then.
If immigrants are so valuable financially why doesn't every country in Europe (if not the West) cry out for more of them, and why do those same countries warehouse those immigrants often far away from all that work they could be doing?

Didnt take long !!

[NWpostie]

The Conservatives spent 14 years in government pledging to reduce the number of people coming to the UK but net migration - the difference between those entering and leaving - hit a record of 745,000 in 2022 before dropping last year to 685,000.

Labour said it welcomed the Conservatives "finally accepting that immigration spiralled out of control on their watch".

Lets not let the facts get in the way of your argument

Tony Blair (Labour) in 1997 opened up the borders to everyone and the floodgates is opened up, Left have shut down any sensible debate about it by using "Racist" to enforce their views on others (sounds familiar)

It always does seem to be about racism with people like you, unfortunately. You can try to kid yourself about that but us sensible people should no longer give you the benefit of the doubt.

Didn't take long for you to use the race card like all Lefties do to try and shut down a discussion about immigration, it's been used so often that it's getting worn out and discredited.

I never once said anything about race, it was always about numbers, not enough available housing and facilities is the problem causing increase in prices and rent.

Unskilled illegal immigrants contribute nothing to the country and this is after going through several safe countries to get here.

[clashcityrocker]

Unskilled illegal immigrants contribute nothing to the country and this is after going through several safe countries to get here.

"Illegal" (nobody is illegal) immigrants account for a very small percentage of the overall immigration figures.
Or maybe you don't distinguish between refugees and immigrants?

The numbers of illegal immigrants is dwarfed by the numbers that come to study (and finance the universities).
Some stay and use their qualifications to get jobs. Others don't.
Then there are the large numbers of Ukrainians and people from Hong Kong who have been given safe have visas.

I sometimes wonder what country some people live in. The NHS is staffed by immigrants - from the doctors and nurses to the cleaning staff.

You say it is discredited to call out racism? Since when?
Calling a racist a racist has never been discredited in my eyes.

[NWpostie]

Unskilled illegal immigrants contribute nothing to the country and this is after going through several safe countries to get here.

"Illegal" (nobody is illegal) immigrants account for a very small percentage of the overall immigration figures.
Or maybe you don't distinguish between refugees and immigrants?

The numbers of illegal immigrants is dwarfed by the numbers that come to study (and finance the universities).
Some stay and use their qualifications to get jobs. Others don't.
Then there are the large numbers of Ukrainians and people from Hong Kong who have been given safe have visas.

I sometimes wonder what country some people live in. The NHS is staffed by immigrants - from the doctors and nurses to the cleaning staff.

You say it is discredited to call out racism? Since when?
Calling a racist a racist has never been discredited in my eyes.

Are you calling me a racist ? That makes you an idiot.

Economic migrants illegally bypassing the visa process, it's not racist in any shape or form to say so, it's a,weak and lazy point.

It says everything about you.

I still come back to my original point, not enough housing to sustain the numbers, that's not a racist point isn't it ?

[mjd24]

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/ ... on-389985/

Immigration isn't the problem
It never has been.

"Writing for the Guardian he said.."
Yeah, he would be unbiased then.
If immigrants are so valuable financially why doesn't every country in Europe (if not the West) cry out for more of them, and why do those same countries warehouse those immigrants often far away from all that work they could be doing?

Having an opinion or dealing in facts and figures rather than thoughts and feelings does not make someone biased.

Again you seem to be conflating the small percentage of our immigration that come across in boats, with the vast majority who come here fully legally and to work in our care homes and hospitals and countless other jobs where they are desperately needed. Its the fault of moronic media organisations like the Mail and GBNews that politicians feel they have to lie and insist we need lower immigration whilst simultaneously inviting people here to fill job vacancies.

[mjd24]

Well said. All the "immigrants" coming to our shores, well at least the majority, are young fighting age males. They pay these people smugglers suming like 5 grand a pop to come over. Now let's think about this for a second. Is it safe to live amongst "refugees" in say Sangatte with 5 - 10 grand or whatnot? No it isn't, they would get their throats cut for the money, so it seems to me that someone (out communist and traiterous gov) is paying these people to invade the UK, well why? I would like to think those coming over are well meaning and hard workers etc, but come on, let's face it most are savages with no plans to assimilate and are members of the "reiligion of peace" (which is only a religion of peace until all bow to their moon god; Allah), they come over (not all,I know but just look at Rotherham for e.g) to rape and stab one another, we need to realise that diversity is not our strength and that their is NO enrichment. I mean come one poeple1, it comes out every year that the most popular male baby name in the UK is Mohammed. I won't even go to London for e.g which is closer to my neck of the woods than Birmingham, England's second city, the last time a few years ago, I ventured into London, I thought I was in Africa or Morocco!n You have places up North that want to change the road signs into Urdu or some other language I forget which, seriously when are we going to realise that our country has been raped. Well, I know damn well that the boys in WW1 and WW2 would not have risked and lost their lvies if they knew that the UK was to become some third world shittehole, rape and stabbings on a daily basis! And don't gimme that old shitte about immigration is neccessary, if whitey had more babies, then there wouldn't be an issue, also look up Barbara Lerner Spectre to unserstand the culprits behind the rape of Europe, the British Isles and NI Ireland and the ROI Ireland! Always the same people that love mass imiigration yet you need a DNA test to reside in that certain nation!

“Fighting age males”
“Savages”
“No plans to assimilate”

I feel for you. So clearly directly influenced by the hate and lies you get bombarded with. Would love to live a day in your life to see what news you consume. Its really just so sad.