This week Phil and Steve look at cost-plus inflation, driven by rising wages. Right now its being given as the reason that services inflation is remaining sticky and that’s why many central banks are reluctant to reduce interest rates. Steve says it’s a far more sensible assumption than the neoclassical belief, promulgated by Milton Friedman, that inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.

It's not just workers who can put prices up, of course. Companies can increase their margins, and we saw a fair bit of that post-COVID. Burt what of the tech-driven future, where wage negotiations will be harder. Basically, we’ll be lucky if we have a job. Does that mean the tech bros call the shots and wage driven inflation will be a thing of the past?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Before he was the UK Prime Minister at war with the Nazis, Winston Churchill ws the UK’s Chancellor. He played it very straight, with a preoccupation with balancing the budget. He also took the Uk back onto the Gold Exchange, despite warnings from Keynes that the move would be deflationary.

In 1928 he reinforced his neoclassical credentials, saying very little additional employment and no permanent employment can be created by state borrowing and state expenditure. That is, of course, the exact opposite of the idea of a job guarantee, but is Churchill partially right? Can a job guarantee ever create jobs that will enhance productivity?

This week Phil and Steve look into job creation and Churchill’s fear of using government spending to protect the labour market. It was a time when even Joh Maynard Keynes didn’t get everything right. For example, he argued that the multiplier effect would add new money and new employment from government cash injections. But how can you multiple the injection if no new money is created? And it ignores the real benefits jobs can create, behind the money gained from those directly employed, whether by the government or the private sector. 

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

You would assume that government spending is largely designed to help those on lower incomes. The NHS was designed to ensure free healthcare for all. The same for public education. And for welfare payments. So, I theory, the more the government spends, the more wealth is transferred to lower incomes.

This week Phil and Steve explore the idea that rising government deficits actually help the rich. That’s because the so-called debt is financed by the issuance of bonds, much of which is nought on the secondary market to add to the wealth funds of the richer end of society. They receive dividend payments funded from the government. That’s a case of government money supporting the wealthy.

So, is there a way of government money being used to support the less well-off, without helping the rich to get richer?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Copyright and IP rights has always been notoriously difficult to protect. Does it become impossible with the rise of AI? The ideas presented to you through your favourite AI engine come from somewhere whose ideas are being used to support an argument. Or, if you create an artwork that is analysed and used to create other artworks, has copyright been infringed, or is what we would have traditionally called inspiration? Phil asks, is it time to just admit defeat and accept that copyright is an outdated notion and find other ways of compensating the artist and creator?

Then there’s the social cost of intellectual property rights. A question that existed before. If Statins had been available as cheaply as they are now before their patent lapsed thousands - possibly hundreds of thousands -of lives would have been saved. Does the same apply to Mounjaro? How do you balance the commercial imperative from big pharma against the social benefits?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.