Some will have noted that the trolls were very active over the weekend, suggesting I had made a mistake in the video I put out on ’Welfare for the wealthy’. In it I said:

The interest rate went up from 0.1 per cent to 5.25 per cent. It's unusual for anybody to have earned 5.25 per cent on their deposits, of course, over that period. But real interest rates have risen from well under 1 percent in 2021 to over 4 percent still if you search around. In other words, the wealthy have benefited enormously from the welfare that has been provided to them by the Bank of England's benevolence, which is biased in their favour.

I thought that what I meant was unambiguously clear. My reference to ‘real’ interest rates referred to those actually on offer to real people in contrast to Bank of England base rates. It never occurred to me that anyone would interpret what I said in the context of the economic theory of ‘real’ interest rates, which compares those paid with the inflation rate.

I am, of course, familiar with that concept, much beloved by right-wing microeconomic fetishists who think the concept isat the forefront of the mind of all savers, none of whom should ever hold cash in their opinion because real rates, according to this theory, have been negative almost continuously since 2009 according to World Bank data.

Despite these people’s belief, in the real world , bank deposits remain as popular a mechanism for saving as ever and might have increased in value in real terms, just to prove that the claims of those rather desperate proponents of microeconomic theory are totally disconnected from the way real people actually behave.

I am only concerned in the videos I make, as well as in the posts here  (unless I make it very clear otherwise) with the economics of the real world. So, I use words with their normal usage as indicated by the context in which I use them. And if there are multiple meanings possible, then the right interpretation is invariably the one that common usage requires.

So why were the trolls so active? I think there could be two reasons. One is that the video series is proving very popular, especially on YouTube. That one has been viewed more than 9,000 times now, with a very high promotion watching it all the way through, which is rare on any video platform. Without any real narrative to address the issues I am raising of course they are being pedants.

The other is about framing.  They want debate on economics to be framed using the failed language and theories of the pseudo-science into which they have invested time and effort, even though it is very clearly incapable of explaining what is really going on in the world.

They are offended by my refusal to comply with their demand that I must frame things as they do, within the context of the rules that the lay down. I will not do that.

I will, instead, talk about what is very obviously happening in the real world where, for example,  real (nominal, paid, call them what you like, all terms refer to the sum actually paid) interest rates are very clearly distorting consumer behaviour patterns and spending power in favour of the wealthy, whatever their relationship with inflation. If they don’t like me noticing that because it offends their beliefs, tough luck. I do not share those beliefs. Nor do I think that much of their analysis stands up to scrutiny.

My delete button is going to see a lot of use if this trolling continues, because I am not going to bore people here with the nonsense these people talk.