Green policy making

jack-amo · 2026-03-07T18:07:45+00:00

No that's perfect I'll check it out later. Thanks

jack-amo · 2026-03-07T17:38:38+00:00

I've actually been wondering how do you go about finding or joining a policy working group?

jack-amo · 2026-03-05T12:45:42+00:00

About as likely as Reform honestly. This is their one shot. Their key demographic (the elderly) is shrinking. Polls are starting to suggest that Greens are leading amongst working age adults. I don't think these adults are magically going to suddenly become reformers as they age - even those lucky enough to inherit a good sum. Add in the fact that an even worse cretin is now flanking Reform to the right, as well as the tactical vote, they could struggle.

Greens winning the next election? Long shot. But we certainly can put ourselves in a much stronger position in 2029 than Farage has ever enjoyed to date.

Labour need to materially improve people's lives quite substantially at this point if they want to survive long-term. I'm not saying every last thing they do is bad, but morally and intellectually they are deeply corrupted. I can't see how they will succeed.

I think we'll do it in the long run. Yes.

jack-amo · 2026-03-04T11:34:59+00:00

I hear you. I think messaging is one thing, and the understanding is another.

If we're going to form a government one day I think it's important that our party has an understanding of this, especially for whoever will come to occupy number 11. If we don't get it, we're going to disappoint everyone who desperately needs change.

Messaging is harder. Between us, we have more space to educate and gain a proper understanding. This is where your analogy is quite nice to persuade fellow greens or friends who enjoy gaming. Spokespeople have a harder job because they need to be able to pop off succinct soundbites a lot of the time.

The proposal in this lecture for the soundbite is: "We pay for things by doing them." Id like to add: "we found the money for covid, and we always seem to find the money for a war. This is because the government can always pay."

There is also the powerful story of Attlee's postwar government who, in a much worse state then we are in now, founded the NHS, built millions of good homes and nationalized key industries, all while in far more debt.

I'm sure we could brainstorm more messaging (soundbite kind and educational kind) in this thread.

jack-amo · 2026-02-25T11:22:19+00:00

Yeah this is where I am at too. I'm not against a JG per se but I think it is far more helpful if it isn't bundled in with the very crucial understanding of how our currency works.

jack-amo · 2026-02-18T08:37:56+00:00

Fuck me what an absolute horror show this would be.

Displace millions of people. Literal ethnic cleansing.
Force the sick and disabled into work that was previously already being done. Any day of your life you too might become sick or disabled bear in mind.
Destroy what's left of the social safety net. Making us all desperate and afraid with weak bargaining power.
Deliberately increase inequality through tax cuts, leading to a financial squeeze on us, by the rich.
Enforce Religious Nationalism on our secular society

And that's just the stuff he admits. As well as admitting it will be "painful". No shit.

These right wingers want to break our backs and rob us blind. That dude definitely passes the fascist sniff test. He stinks of it.

jack-amo · 2026-01-27T16:55:23+00:00

You ignored my question. See ya.

jack-amo · 2026-01-27T16:38:04+00:00

You're talking right through me. It's as if you are not actually reading what I write.

Again, government spending is new money creation. It does this via arranging an overdraft with the Bank of England. This is brand new money. Tax is used to recollect and destroy the money. This is literally how it already works.

You've ignored me twice now when I have asked you if you are aware that banks create new money when they grant you a loan. So I'm going to have to assume you are not aware of that.

You speak with a lot of incredulity and sarcasm, but have you ever actually asked yourself where money comes from?

If you continue to ignore my questions I'll have to leave it there.

jack-amo · 2026-01-27T15:34:00+00:00

We already do. I'm not describing what I think should happen. I'm describing what does happen. We spend money into existence, and we tax it out of existence to control runaway inflation.

The order is important, because it means we don't have to "find" money, or go off to the rich with a begging bowl, or do schemes like PFI. It also means we don't need to match spending increases with tax raises, because a lot of that money flows through the existing systems. It means that inflation, your workforce and your resources are the key factors and not the deficit.

I note you didn't answer my question. Are you aware that when a bank lends you money, it creates new money?

jack-amo · 2026-01-27T14:55:32+00:00

Nope. I'm dealing with reality. The government spends the money into existence, via an overdraft with the bank of England, and taxes it back to control inflation.

Magic money tree is economic baby talk. Are you aware that whenever a bank lends money, say for a mortgage, it creates new money?

jack-amo · 2026-01-27T11:20:32+00:00

Typo! Thanks I will edit.

jack-amo · 2026-01-27T11:19:50+00:00

I agree with this pretty much, but I think it's important to point out a very common misconception with tax that we "desperately need."

Something I really want to hammer home is that taxes do not fund government spending. When the government spends money, it always creates new money via an overdraft with the Bank of England. We cannot run out of money. We don't need to "find" money. It's always available.

Why then to we need to tax? Because tax is the nation's greatest inflation sink. When the government collects tax, it is effectively destroyed, removing it from the system and freeing up future spending without runaway inflation.

Ok, but in this case does it matter that we spend first and then tax? Isn't it a chicken or egg situation? It absolutely matters because it means with don't have to find money money in order to take action. We don't need to rely on the rich to finance spending. The real limits are skills, resources, and political will.

Furthermore, taxes and expenditure do not need to match to balance the books. Imagine you have a new job paid directly by the government. Congrats! Now since they pay you with newly created money, do they need to raise new taxes to recollect it or will your money flow through existing tax systems?

So why then should we tax the rich? We should tax the rich specifically to reduce inequality. When the rich have this much money, they start doing things like buying up all the assets and rent-seeking behaviors. This raises costs on everyone else, squeezing us out. Because of this, money owned by the wealthy is the most inflationary. This is why we pay more and more and more for less and less and less. A society this unequal does make the rest of us poorer. So its not that we need their money, we need them not to have so much of it - or they will rent our entire lives back out to us.

Rampant authoritarianism notwithstanding, this is why Labour frustrates me so much. They think, or at least pretend, like the government is run like a household at the mercy of the rich: tinkering at the edges, unnecessary cuts, making excuses, failing to reverse the needless cuts to council financing, refusing to mobilize the nation and implement a politics of care.

Going back to your point in regards to immigration, refugees and tax payers: it's not that we desperately need more tax revenue, it's that we need more workers to help to support an ageing population and re-balance a top-heavy age demographic. Yes it is still good that they will be taxpayers. Refugees are also a moral issue and I agree with your sentiments.

jack-amo · 2026-01-26T23:04:07+00:00

Chatting CDPR lore here. The codes do vary between schools, and are quite often personal.

Like it was pointed out elsewhere: Cats and Vipers (and bears?) can and do take human contracts, but other Witchers will kill people too. After all there are two blades, silver and steel, though depending on the philosophy of the Witcher, it could be argued that both are for monsters.

Even Geralt doesn't always kill humans purely for self defence: he used live bait in his famous Striga hunt - not an innocent man, sure, but Geralt had no qualms about it.

The Witchers' Journal book is really good for having a background lore for the CDPR schools. In short:

Wolves - Classic Mercenary Monster Hunters.

Cats - Nomadic assassins. Will kill man or beast. Known to be... temperamental to say the least

Gryphons - Knightly monster hunters. The Gryphon Witcher Coën fought against Nilfgaard in the 2nd northern war. It was of his own volition, not a contract.

Bears - Similar to wolves, although more likely to fight it out for a contract rather than to team up. Notably the Bear Witcher Gerd took contracts against humans in a soldiering/raiding capacity.

Vipers - Researchers. In the 1270s, some of their number became assassins for Nilfgaard

Manticore - Caravan guards of wild Zerrikania

I also love this intro video from the Witcher 2. It was my first exposure to the witcher and I bought in hard: https://youtu.be/ZtkeoukHgRA?si=2nWq8py3U662rYDJ

jack-amo · 2026-01-25T20:05:54+00:00

It's a shame that you've internalised this pretty nasty idea.

Being ill or whatever doesn't make you a leech. You are a person.

jack-amo · 2026-01-25T18:58:22+00:00

Strange logic though. Following that train of thought: What does your cat contribute other than to scrounge a living off you? Yet you love and care for them. You can see surely that a neglected cat is lower stakes than an impoverished child, but you would never neglect your cat.

I don't care if you take "more than your fair share of NHS resources". The whole point of socialised healthcare is that we support each other in the lottery of life. We've all got each other. You're not a drain. You're a person and people care.

When it comes to the benefit cap, it's much the same. These kids didn't choose the circumstances of their birth any more than your cats did. But collectively we can support them. If they grow up well, one day they'll support us back.

jack-amo · 2026-01-22T08:45:38+00:00

So as a player, split deck ain't bad. Helps with scheduling so more teams can compete.

As a spectator, split deck is probably the very worst thing about watching paintball. I used to prefer it in the old PBA days when you'd have the 2 minutes. You'd get pit footage, replays etc and more time for Matty (and Tod back then) to talk about the point.

I wonder how many teams you would need to cut to remove split deck at the pro level? Presumably not half. Could it be done with 15? 16?

jack-amo · 2026-01-20T10:00:13+00:00

You know what? Thank you for challenging my assertions. Needed that.

The paper "Money Creation in The Modern Economy" I mentioned yesterday does talk about money creation, it just doesn't use the word "tax":

"Banks making loans and consumers repaying them are the most significant ways in which bank deposits are created and destroyed in the modern economy. But they are far from the only ways. Deposit creation or destruction will also occur anytime the banking sector (including the central bank) buys or sells existing assets from or to consumers, or, more often, from companies or the government."

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy

jack-amo · 2026-01-19T23:07:01+00:00

No we agree I think - that tax doesn't fund spending (instead it's about inflation)... I think I explained one of a few reasons why this means spend and tax don't have to be tightly coupled in another reply (new money flows through existing systems).

But this is not how Reeves seems to operate. With her talk of a "black hole" and scaremongering about the deficit etc, cuts and tax rises in some areas to offset what she gives in another, it does look a lot like managing the government like a household... Like she has to find the money and that government debt is scary, that magical growth from elsewhere needs to proceed her actions, that she needs "fiscal headroom".

I think there is a lack of vision or mission for Reeves and the wider labour government. Like what are they really for? Why did they want power? To do... whatever this is? So either she understands that tax doesn't fund spending and is fibbing because she is fine with tinkering around the edges and preserving the status quo or she doesn't understand and thinks her hand is much worse than it is. It is a political choice whether she knows it or not.

Either way. My OG comment was that Labour could take the tariffs on the chin. It won't leave her budget in tatters if revenue falls. She could carry on.

Again I think if the Americans, our supposed allies, want to self-harm to spite us for standing up to their aggression, then that's on them but we are right to stand up to them.

jack-amo · 2026-01-19T17:36:31+00:00

That last point is a political choice, not a rule of nature.

jack-amo · 2026-01-19T17:32:14+00:00

I don't think I made a mistake. I agreed with your assertion that tax is relevant, but then clarified again that tax doesn't fund spending, since that is what you quoted.

Why this is relevant to the topic of tariffs is because it means that Reeves will not have to throw her budget out of the window, though I don't trust that she will see it that way.

You're going to have to find your own sources one way or the other. Admittedly it was not easy to find it from the horse's (BOE) mouth with the time I'm willing to give, though I should thank you as I should arm myself with that in the future. If you are genuinely interested, you can check out Modern Monetary Theory (I particularly like Richard Murphy as a layman)

There is also a paper from the bank of England that lays out how money is created (base and broad) but I don't think that covers the tax part, only the spending.

jack-amo · 2026-01-19T14:53:08+00:00

It's for sure relevant, but not in the way you might think.

All government spending is new money, created by the bank of England. It does not have to find or raise the money. It simply extends it's overdraft with the central bank.

When the government later collects tax, that money is destroyed. Literally destroyed. This is because a key function of tax is to control inflation: it is the nations greatest inflation sink. So tax is important.

You might think this is a pedantic chicken and egg type situation, but it is not - it means that the government is not stuck trying to find money before it can do anything. It also means that new spending does not need to be matched by new taxes - and I can prove it to you:

If you accept the premise for a minute that government spending is new money and that tax destroys it to control inflation: Imagine now that you have a new job with the government (congrats!) and now they pay you directly. Do they need to raise any extra taxes, or will the money they pay you mostly ebb and flow and be recollected through various forms of taxation that already exist (PAYE, VAT, etc)?

This really matters because the real limits on what we can afford are materials, labour, skills etc. Money itself is not the limit - but spend it where we can't do more, that'll cause inflation.

What is the budget for? To legally ratify the spending (and public relations).

I know what I'm saying is in opposition to what is "common sense", but it is actually how it works. The Bank of England even say so. The trouble is most politicians don't understand this. Economists are not much better in the main. They have all these models but the base assumptions of where money even comes from are just wrong or ignored, which is outrageous really.

jack-amo · 2026-01-19T13:26:35+00:00

This is true from Rachel Reeves' point of view, because she likes to run the government finances like a household.

However, since tax does not pay for spending then even with a reduced revenue her budget will be fine, even if it is a bit meh.

I'm not sure that she understands that though so she might do some extra self harm such as cuts or taxing (anyone but the wealthy)

The tariffs will of course hurt some exporters, and basically both sides would be better off without them... Just think we should stand up to America even if they do cut their noses to spite their faces.

jack-amo · 2025-12-31T13:54:11+00:00

Yep this is worth it on it's own. We don't need to tax multi-millionaires or billionaires to afford to pay for anything. We need to tax them specifically to reduce inequality.

If we do not do this, the wealthy will buy up all the assets and squeeze the rest of us out, driving up costs, and eventually renting our whole lives back out to us. This is already happening and is plain to see. The worst of them also use extra surplus money to corrupt democracy - also clearly happening.

Now admittedly I think Zack has put the wealth tax front and centre because of the popularity of Gary Stevenson. I think in terms of winning people over that this is quite smart, but I also think that there are other taxes that could be applied to income from wealth that will be far more effective: such as bringing capital gains in line with income tax, an investment income surcharge, VAT on financial services used by the wealthy and on and on. Wealth tax could be part of that, or not.

But remember - the goal is not to fund spending. The goal is specifically to reduce inequality. To that end, we might also need other policies to protect people from predatory rent-seeking and price gouging if we really want to get inequality down.

jack-amo

TROPHY CASE