People keep asking: “When are we going to do MMT?”

That question is built on a misunderstanding.

Modern monetary theory is not a manifesto, and it’s not a magic “print money” promise. It is an explanation of how the monetary system already works, in the UK and elsewhere. It describes what government spending really is, why taxation does not fund spending, and what “borrowing” really means in a sovereign currency system.

In this video, I explain:

- That the UK government creates the pound.

- Why government spending must come before tax.

- What tax is actually for (inflation control, demand management, and resource shifting).

- Why government bonds are a savings product, not borrowing.

- Why deficits create private sector net financial assets.

- What the real constraints on the economy are.

- Why austerity is always a political choice

MMT doesn’t tell you what to do; it tells you what’s true. And once we understand that truth, we can finally have an honest debate about policy, democracy, and the society we want.

We’re constantly told that people in rich countries live longer and that GDP growth is therefore the route to health, well-being, and social progress.

But the evidence is far less simple than the slogans.

In this video, I use 2022 data to show four versions of the same relationship between GDP per person and life expectancy, and explain how the way economists present that data can create a misleading story.

The key point is this: the link between income and life expectancy is non-linear. Once basic needs are met, the curve flattens. Beyond that point, what matters most is not GDP but inequality, housing, healthcare access, stability, and social care, or, in other words, the politics of care.

This is why GDP fetishism is not only intellectually empty. It becomes politically dangerous.

AI is happening. We are not going to stop it, and we shouldn’t pretend we can.

But we can manage the economy that AI will reshape. And we must.

In this video, I explain what it means to manage the AI economy through regulation that makes AI pay its full resource costs and through an investment-led programme to cut inflation structurally while creating the jobs AI cannot replace, most especially in energy, housing, skills, transport, and care.

This is not about surrendering to market forces. It is all about the government staying in charge.

Is the US dollar losing the trust required of a global reserve currency? The dollar isn’t just America’s currency. It is the plumbing of global trade—the world’s settlement mechanism, safe haven, and store of value. But Trump’s tariff agenda, political interference in the Federal Reserve, and broader institutional instability are changing how the rest of the world assesses US credibility. This video explains: - Why reserve currencies depend on trust, not “strength” - Why the US deficit is not an accident but a structural feature of the system - Why one-currency global trade has become fragile - What Keynes proposed instead: the bancor - Why the BRICS alternatives don’t solve the core design problem - Why the IMF / World Bank have failed to lead reform - Why we now need a neutral clearing system for global trade The question is not “does the dollar collapse tomorrow?” It’s whether the world should keep accepting a reserve system built around one national currency—and one increasingly erratic politics.

Westminster’s new “common sense” says defence spending must rise and that the price must be paid in cuts to care, public services, and social security.

But that isn’t realism. It is ideology dressed up as prudence because if we hollow out the state to fund missiles and weapon systems, we don’t strengthen national security, we undermine it. A society built on insecurity, collapsing services, and rising poverty is not a society people will defend.

In this video, I ask the most important question in the entire debate: what exactly are we defending, and for whom?

Universal basic income (UBI) is often dismissed as unaffordable, unrealistic, or politically impossible. But the conversation I had recently with Howard Reed and Elliott Johnson of the Common Sense Policy Group at Northumbria University left me less sure of that.

The Group's research challenges the Treasury orthodoxy in two important ways:

• Public investment multipliers are far bigger than assumed, and

• Even current spending has a strong multiplier effect, meaning it can pay for itself

And if the economic case for investment is stronger than we’ve been told, then the political question changes too: why aren’t we investing in that case?

We also discussed the Group’s three-tier UBI transition proposal, how it interacts with Universal Credit, and why the security it could supply might be the missing foundation of a functioning economy.

Politics is being recast as dominance: strength, winning, threats, hierarchy. Donald Trump may be the loudest advocate of this worldview, but he is not alone.

In this video, I explain what I call the politics of might — rule by threat, the rejection of restraint, and the treatment of institutions, law and truth as optional. It shapes taxation, welfare, international relations and democracy itself. It legitimises inequality and makes insecurity a tool of control.

I contrast that with the politics of care — not as sentiment, but as the practical recognition of vulnerability and interdependence. Care builds productivity, stability, trust and long-term resilience. It requires accountable democratic government acting to reduce fear, not amplify it.

Ultimately, this is the choice: fear or care, dominance or cooperation, exclusion or inclusion.

And look at our poll, and let us know what you think.

Artificial intelligence is often presented as a growth driver. I argue the opposite risk is emerging.

AI-driven cost-cutting threatens jobs and demand, with the risk of a GDP decline, while shortages of chips, energy, water, and grid capacity threaten higher prices and inflation across the whole economy. Exciting economic policy tools can't resolve either problem.

This video shows why relying on central banks to solve our crises won't work this time, while ignoring unemployment, inequality, and infrastructure will deepen recessionary pressures rather than prevent them.