I haven’t put up a blog post for some time (though the podcasts are as regular as clockwork, thanks to Phil Dobbie), and there’s a good reason: a post on the economic policies of the new UK Labour Government has turned into a book.
One of the reasons I support Steve's Substack is because he 'does the maths' whereas a great many do not. I realise this is important although I'm personally not mathematically literate beyond high-school level. Notwithstanding, I know I am far more literate in maths than the huge majority of people I know, because I can do algebra and trig, whereas they peak at + - x /. I already feel like I can explain enough to my "friends and colleagues" in purely narrative terms, the hardest part being to get their attention for a few minutes. The big issue when talking to the majority- and they're the ones that have the vote- is maintaining simplicity, not elucidating complexity.
I appreciate that there are several stories that interact at the margins. The 'loanable funds' fallacy, the 'government finance is like a household' fallacy. The 'saving up for the next rainy day (pandemic or natural disaster) fallacy seems to be the latest iteration of the notion that government should endeavour to run a surplus. In talking to ordinary people it's good enough to deal with these discretely rather than in a unified fashion. Recently I have found 'Sectoral Balances' to be an easily understood tool to help explain to the layman.
Politically, the most important thing is for ordinary people to know that politicians are either lying to them, or have themselves been duped into false narratives by lying or deluded mainstream economists and ideologically motivated think-tanks. If they then have the intellectual capacity and will to delve deeper, and especially if they are in a position to influence public policy, that's a good reason for this book.
One of the reasons I support Steve's Substack is because he 'does the maths' whereas a great many do not. I realise this is important although I'm personally not mathematically literate beyond high-school level. Notwithstanding, I know I am far more literate in maths than the huge majority of people I know, because I can do algebra and trig, whereas they peak at + - x /. I already feel like I can explain enough to my "friends and colleagues" in purely narrative terms, the hardest part being to get their attention for a few minutes. The big issue when talking to the majority- and they're the ones that have the vote- is maintaining simplicity, not elucidating complexity.
I appreciate that there are several stories that interact at the margins. The 'loanable funds' fallacy, the 'government finance is like a household' fallacy. The 'saving up for the next rainy day (pandemic or natural disaster) fallacy seems to be the latest iteration of the notion that government should endeavour to run a surplus. In talking to ordinary people it's good enough to deal with these discretely rather than in a unified fashion. Recently I have found 'Sectoral Balances' to be an easily understood tool to help explain to the layman.
Politically, the most important thing is for ordinary people to know that politicians are either lying to them, or have themselves been duped into false narratives by lying or deluded mainstream economists and ideologically motivated think-tanks. If they then have the intellectual capacity and will to delve deeper, and especially if they are in a position to influence public policy, that's a good reason for this book.
Looking forward to your new book!
Government reserves at private banks make the lending sector stronger and the economy better.
There it is, Steve, in one sentence.