I stand corrected, duff chart I think.0

The Bank of England disagrees with you.
Plus you seem to completely misunderstand how the economy actually works. You seem to think £s circulate around the economy forever; they don't.
UK govt instructs the BoE to create new £s every time govt spends. The BoE must comply. There's no debate.
There are a couple of assumptions in your question:
1. Govt wants to solve all your problems
2. Govt giving everyone a million quid would 'solve all our problems'
The only way govt could give us all a million pounds each would be to have parliament authorise that spending. Theoretically they could do that any year. They haven't done it yet and I wouldn't hold your breath.
So either 1 or 2 are incorrect assumptions or both 1 and 2 are incorrect. I'd go for both.
I assume you would simply want to inject the extra million each without considering any offsets, that right?
The country's problems are caused by a shortage of money? Eh?Most of that is beside the point. I am asking, if the govt can create money from nothing, why don't they, when the country's problems are all caused by a shortage of money?
No, just answer my question!The country's problems are caused by a shortage of money? Eh?
Care to explain?
Calm down, no need to give yourself an aneurysm.No, just answer my question!

Its UtopiaNo, just answer my question!
More deflective waffle from the waffle champ.UK govt instructs the BoE to create new £s every time govt spends. The BoE must comply. There's no debate.
There are a couple of assumptions in your question:
1. Govt wants to solve all your problems
2. Govt giving everyone a million quid would 'solve all our problems'
The only way govt could give us all a million pounds each would be to have parliament authorise that spending. Theoretically they could do that any year. They haven't done it yet and I wouldn't hold your breath.
So either 1 or 2 are incorrect assumptions or both 1 and 2 are incorrect. I'd go for both.
I assume you would simply want to inject the extra million each without considering any offsets, that right?
Instead of waffling about waffle, here's my challenge to you:More deflective waffle from the waffle champ.
You’ve disappeared down a MMT rabbit hole.Instead of waffling about waffle, here's my challenge to you:
. Point out what you think is incorrect about anything I've said
. Put forward your refutation and set out your understanding of how govt injects and drains
Here's what I predict you will do:
. Shout something irrelevant from the sidelines
. Run away when challenged
Here's your chance to prove me wrong.
The floor is yours. Go!
Same challenge (and same prediction) to you:You’ve disappeared down a MMT rabbit hole.
MMT does not address the opportunity costs and distributional consequences of the monetisation of deficits by the central bank.
I think it's a version of Utopia which can be called 'The Golgafrincham Paradigm'; where an unlimited supply of leaves can be used for currency - when fishy says "The reality is the UK govt. is not fiscally constrained in any way; whatever parliament approves, regardless of size or purpose, cannot legally be stopped."Its Utopia
Same challenge (and same prediction) to you:I think it's a version of Utopia which can be called 'The Golgafrincham Paradigm'; where an unlimited supply of leaves can be used for currency - when fishy says "The reality is the UK govt. is not fiscally constrained in any way; whatever parliament approves, regardless of size or purpose, cannot legally be stopped."
It sounds like "if you print it, they will spend it."
![]()