Seb Tallents
@sebtallents.bsky.social
Former physicist, relapsed public servant, recovering management consultant. Currently working in NHS England on digital & technology standards.
The sort of thing you used to get in Citadel Journal.
November 12, 2025 at 2:01 PM
The sort of thing you used to get in Citadel Journal.
Damnit, beaten to it.
November 11, 2025 at 11:23 PM
Damnit, beaten to it.
Not the response to the plaintiff in Arkell Vs Pressdram?
November 11, 2025 at 11:22 PM
Not the response to the plaintiff in Arkell Vs Pressdram?
So the question is how much more can we increase the rate before it becomes a problem.
The truss debacle suggests: not very much.
The truss debacle suggests: not very much.
November 11, 2025 at 11:16 PM
So the question is how much more can we increase the rate before it becomes a problem.
The truss debacle suggests: not very much.
The truss debacle suggests: not very much.
Right, but we already are increasing money supply.
It's not like right now we are running a balanced budget. Or even trying to. The target is just to have day-to-day spending balanced (all deficit as investment) by 2030.
It's not like right now we are running a balanced budget. Or even trying to. The target is just to have day-to-day spending balanced (all deficit as investment) by 2030.
November 11, 2025 at 11:16 PM
Right, but we already are increasing money supply.
It's not like right now we are running a balanced budget. Or even trying to. The target is just to have day-to-day spending balanced (all deficit as investment) by 2030.
It's not like right now we are running a balanced budget. Or even trying to. The target is just to have day-to-day spending balanced (all deficit as investment) by 2030.
And we can actually test what happens when we propose to just borrow or increase money supply with no credible plan for growth. In fact we recently did. It did not go well for us.
November 11, 2025 at 8:57 PM
And we can actually test what happens when we propose to just borrow or increase money supply with no credible plan for growth. In fact we recently did. It did not go well for us.
It's one thing to disagree. It's another to lazily straw-man (as you did). The state doesn't need to be a household for there to be real constraints. We can be uncertain at where those are, and exactly what happens if we hit them; but that's not subjective like "the best colour"...
November 11, 2025 at 8:57 PM
It's one thing to disagree. It's another to lazily straw-man (as you did). The state doesn't need to be a household for there to be real constraints. We can be uncertain at where those are, and exactly what happens if we hit them; but that's not subjective like "the best colour"...
I'm sorry, but "the state is not a household" is turning into the left wing version of "laffer curve means tax cuts pay for themselves"
November 11, 2025 at 8:07 PM
I'm sorry, but "the state is not a household" is turning into the left wing version of "laffer curve means tax cuts pay for themselves"
Rejoining the single market would likely help, as would abandoning the obsession with bringing absolute migration down (a narrowing dependency ratio is terrible news fiscally and economically).
November 11, 2025 at 7:49 PM
Rejoining the single market would likely help, as would abandoning the obsession with bringing absolute migration down (a narrowing dependency ratio is terrible news fiscally and economically).
Oh and a significant chunk of UK debt is index linked so high inflation hurts.
The way out of this bind is if markets think the borrowing will kickstart growth. Hence the fiscal rules etc.
The way out of this bind is if markets think the borrowing will kickstart growth. Hence the fiscal rules etc.
November 11, 2025 at 7:49 PM
Oh and a significant chunk of UK debt is index linked so high inflation hurts.
The way out of this bind is if markets think the borrowing will kickstart growth. Hence the fiscal rules etc.
The way out of this bind is if markets think the borrowing will kickstart growth. Hence the fiscal rules etc.
So, you get back to the same issue: given the budget deficit, given the current account deficit: raise taxes or cut spending. You can pay for foreign imports by just adding more £s in the UK economy.
November 11, 2025 at 7:42 PM
So, you get back to the same issue: given the budget deficit, given the current account deficit: raise taxes or cut spending. You can pay for foreign imports by just adding more £s in the UK economy.
They sell their gilts, increasing borrowing costs, forcing the govt to rely more on BoE, increasing supply.
It's also reduces the value of UK investments to foreign investors.
You don't go bankrupt like Greece, because you have a fiat currency.
You do get a balance of payments crisis instead.
It's also reduces the value of UK investments to foreign investors.
You don't go bankrupt like Greece, because you have a fiat currency.
You do get a balance of payments crisis instead.
November 11, 2025 at 7:42 PM
They sell their gilts, increasing borrowing costs, forcing the govt to rely more on BoE, increasing supply.
It's also reduces the value of UK investments to foreign investors.
You don't go bankrupt like Greece, because you have a fiat currency.
You do get a balance of payments crisis instead.
It's also reduces the value of UK investments to foreign investors.
You don't go bankrupt like Greece, because you have a fiat currency.
You do get a balance of payments crisis instead.
Increasing money supply to fund public services without removing it with taxation or interest over time faster than output grows lowers the value of the pound.
This exacerbates cost of living (imports are more expensive), and reduces the return to foreign holders of public debt.
This exacerbates cost of living (imports are more expensive), and reduces the return to foreign holders of public debt.
November 11, 2025 at 7:42 PM
Increasing money supply to fund public services without removing it with taxation or interest over time faster than output grows lowers the value of the pound.
This exacerbates cost of living (imports are more expensive), and reduces the return to foreign holders of public debt.
This exacerbates cost of living (imports are more expensive), and reduces the return to foreign holders of public debt.
25-30% of UK public debt is foreign owned.
We run a persistent current account deficit.
Standards of living rely heavily on imports.
Growth/productivity on foreign investment.
We run a persistent current account deficit.
Standards of living rely heavily on imports.
Growth/productivity on foreign investment.
November 11, 2025 at 7:42 PM
25-30% of UK public debt is foreign owned.
We run a persistent current account deficit.
Standards of living rely heavily on imports.
Growth/productivity on foreign investment.
We run a persistent current account deficit.
Standards of living rely heavily on imports.
Growth/productivity on foreign investment.
Nobody said it was. Very tired of this simplistic argument for unconstrained borrowing.
States, unlike households, can run persistent deficits to a limit, but not limitlessly.
Do you need me to explain why in the current context the current govt can't just use monetary policy?
States, unlike households, can run persistent deficits to a limit, but not limitlessly.
Do you need me to explain why in the current context the current govt can't just use monetary policy?
November 11, 2025 at 7:33 PM
Nobody said it was. Very tired of this simplistic argument for unconstrained borrowing.
States, unlike households, can run persistent deficits to a limit, but not limitlessly.
Do you need me to explain why in the current context the current govt can't just use monetary policy?
States, unlike households, can run persistent deficits to a limit, but not limitlessly.
Do you need me to explain why in the current context the current govt can't just use monetary policy?
On broader political strategy, there are options and maybe a new leader is needed there; but don't mix it up with the budget or the markets will assume the UK is ungovernable from fiscal policy perspective and react accordingly.
November 11, 2025 at 7:18 PM
On broader political strategy, there are options and maybe a new leader is needed there; but don't mix it up with the budget or the markets will assume the UK is ungovernable from fiscal policy perspective and react accordingly.
In terms of strategy and leadership and explaining and selling the choices, the govt haven't done a great job.
But I don't think you get anything by changing the leader now, because the new leader can't magic up a popular third option on fiscal policy. All it can do is defend the tax rises.
But I don't think you get anything by changing the leader now, because the new leader can't magic up a popular third option on fiscal policy. All it can do is defend the tax rises.
November 11, 2025 at 7:18 PM
In terms of strategy and leadership and explaining and selling the choices, the govt haven't done a great job.
But I don't think you get anything by changing the leader now, because the new leader can't magic up a popular third option on fiscal policy. All it can do is defend the tax rises.
But I don't think you get anything by changing the leader now, because the new leader can't magic up a popular third option on fiscal policy. All it can do is defend the tax rises.
Going over the budget would probably trigger a Truss like moment on the markets.
From a policy productive: they've tried cuts, now they are trying raising taxes. Both are unpopular, but there's no third option of just borrowing.
From a policy productive: they've tried cuts, now they are trying raising taxes. Both are unpopular, but there's no third option of just borrowing.
November 11, 2025 at 7:18 PM
Going over the budget would probably trigger a Truss like moment on the markets.
From a policy productive: they've tried cuts, now they are trying raising taxes. Both are unpopular, but there's no third option of just borrowing.
From a policy productive: they've tried cuts, now they are trying raising taxes. Both are unpopular, but there's no third option of just borrowing.
Especially not a sitcom where part of the humour relies on playing with and subverting viewers expectations.
November 11, 2025 at 6:31 AM
Especially not a sitcom where part of the humour relies on playing with and subverting viewers expectations.
Sounds about right. How many would have been employed in the professions at that time, f.ex.
Middle means between working and upper: "wealthy, but has to work to earn, not rely on inherited assets", rather than reflecting the average.
A degree isn't an absolute requirement, just a signifier.
Middle means between working and upper: "wealthy, but has to work to earn, not rely on inherited assets", rather than reflecting the average.
A degree isn't an absolute requirement, just a signifier.
November 11, 2025 at 6:29 AM
Sounds about right. How many would have been employed in the professions at that time, f.ex.
Middle means between working and upper: "wealthy, but has to work to earn, not rely on inherited assets", rather than reflecting the average.
A degree isn't an absolute requirement, just a signifier.
Middle means between working and upper: "wealthy, but has to work to earn, not rely on inherited assets", rather than reflecting the average.
A degree isn't an absolute requirement, just a signifier.
But let's not forget: he's a fictional construct - a grotesque designed to expose and satirise obsession with class and its contradictions, not intended to be a representative of the archetype. He's intended to be a figure of ridicule to actual middle class and working class viewers.
November 10, 2025 at 11:46 PM
But let's not forget: he's a fictional construct - a grotesque designed to expose and satirise obsession with class and its contradictions, not intended to be a representative of the archetype. He's intended to be a figure of ridicule to actual middle class and working class viewers.
In his own mind, if it's just a drab second to third rate hotel frequented by the holidaying working class, that threatens his own class identity and self worth because it's all resting on being the proprietor of a swanky hotel. He hasn't got anything else to fall back on.
November 10, 2025 at 11:40 PM
In his own mind, if it's just a drab second to third rate hotel frequented by the holidaying working class, that threatens his own class identity and self worth because it's all resting on being the proprietor of a swanky hotel. He hasn't got anything else to fall back on.
*Pretensions*. He's got some of the trappings (business owner), perhaps that's his background. But his position is precarious, he lacks the social capital and skirting failure. That's why he's constantly chasing validation from clientele and trying to make the hotel more upmarket.
November 10, 2025 at 11:40 PM
*Pretensions*. He's got some of the trappings (business owner), perhaps that's his background. But his position is precarious, he lacks the social capital and skirting failure. That's why he's constantly chasing validation from clientele and trying to make the hotel more upmarket.
University education is one signifier; but yes you can be in that category through other means (clergy, for example). Saying it's "nothing to do with it" isn't right either.
November 10, 2025 at 11:03 PM
University education is one signifier; but yes you can be in that category through other means (clergy, for example). Saying it's "nothing to do with it" isn't right either.