Jo Michell
@jomichell.bsky.social
7.8K followers 890 following 3.6K posts
Professor of economics at UWE Bristol. Chair of Post-Keynesian Economics Society. Interested in macro, finance, banking, climate change, inequality, demographics. https://people.uwe.ac.uk/Person/JoMichell
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
jomichell.bsky.social
Look, it's good that we can finally say the B-word, but for the love of god please stop saying that other B-word.
jomichell.bsky.social
There is no plausible counter-argument to the claim that monetary policy and fiscal policy are irreversibly interwined. It is a question of when, and after how much incoherent debate, not if we get some form of coordination.
jomichell.bsky.social
The director of NIESR calling for monetary-fiscal coordination: "The current monetary-fiscal framework for big economies was devised for a world of low inflation, small central bank balance sheets and modest public debt... This is no longer the world we live in." www.ft.com/content/3640...
We need a new monetary-fiscal settlement
A fresh regime is required for a world of high debt and large central bank balance sheets
www.ft.com
Reposted by Jo Michell
chrisgiles.ft.com
There is no need for a moral panic about the UK's welfare system.

Far from perfect but recent discourse is nuts

Spending is controlled, not spiralling

Worklessness is near record lows

My column www.ft.com/content/ee67...
jomichell.bsky.social
yep just noticed i'm duplicating discussion!
jomichell.bsky.social
'you can't actually put the salami back in the donkey', as no wise person said ever.
jomichell.bsky.social
It's a bit more direct than Weller perhaps.
jomichell.bsky.social
Smithers-Jones was Foxton I think.
jomichell.bsky.social
This is a crucial point. I fear that Number 11 thinks that what the bond market cares about is the trajectory of the primary deficit over the next five years, and doesn't care about the underlying details. That's exactly the wrong way to think about it.
brokenbanker.bsky.social
am I wrong to think Reeves cannot possibly build in a meaningful buffer for future deficits without touching one of the big 3 taxes ? because if it does become just spending cuts and salami-slicing tax increases, Gilts are not going to be impressed. surely they have learnt this lesson at least ?
jomichell.bsky.social
I can't see a way of doing it without touching one of those. You can just about get to say £30bn through incoherent salami slicing, but ...

And, no I really don't think they have learned the lesson. I think they have a very basic and basically wrong understanding of the bond market.
jomichell.bsky.social
You know what's a big factor in the perpetuation of the #doomloop? Journalists who are determined to prevent any prospect of an sober and coherent public discussion of fiscal policy and public finances.
Shadow chancellor Mel Stride claims UK in 'tax doom loop' and Reeves to blame
In his Sky News interview with the chancellor, Sam Coates put it to her that the UK was in a “doom loop” where the government needed to come back every year with higher taxes to fill a black hole in the public finances. Rachel Reeves replied: “Nobody wants that cycle to end more than I do, Sam.”
jomichell.bsky.social
Spending cuts, or a collection of incoherent salami-slicing tax increases selected only because of the nominal price tag with no consideration of the implications for incentives, distribution etc.
jomichell.bsky.social
Yep. The danger here is Reeves does something silly at the budget, bond yields fall for entirely unrelated reasons, and once again the wrong lessons are learned.
jomichell.bsky.social
Yep going to have to add some more Mokyr to my reading list.
Reposted by Jo Michell
calebalthorpe.bsky.social
The next Visions speaker series event is approaching!

On Oct 17 I'll be talking with @christinejberry.bsky.social about her book project: 'Ours: Reclaiming Ownership of What Matters'

Join us for a conversation about what a democratic economy might mean & how we might go about building it together
jomichell.bsky.social
The determination of the discipline to exclude almost any other method of analysis from the realms of acceptable theory -- and the refusal to even discuss, let alone justify, this -- is at the heart of why so much goes wrong in academic economics.
jomichell.bsky.social
Interesting post. If this is indeed an award for method, then what's rewarded, in terms of theoretical method, is 'try and say something interesting while sticking to the accepted -- indeed required -- method of representative agent inter-temporal optimisation'.
undercoverhist.bsky.social
What does a Nobel Prize on ‘innovation-driven economic growth’ actually reward?

A historian’s perspective on how to deal with the Nobel frenzy

beatricecherrier.wordpress.com/2025/10/13/w...