I made the mistake today of listening to a “video” from MoneyWeek entitled “The End of Britain”. Adverts for it had been cropping up regularly in the MoneyWeek daily email so, even though it looked suspiciously like they were trying to sell me something I sat through it and was appalled at the quality of the so-called journalism.
If you want to find out what’s in the MoneyWeek video I recommend you read the text in this article (the so-called video is merely someone reading it, badly).
And if you want a critique of the content you could do worse than read this article from Another Angry Voice in which Tom Clark highlights The End of Britain’s most egregious faults.
For those of you who have better things to do with your life than read the whole End of Britain article you can get the gist of the nonsense it contains from my email to MoneyWeek in which I unsubscribe from their mailing list, copied here in full:
“I have just wasted a significant chunk of my day listening to your “End of Britain” video (sic), which has utterly destroyed any credibility that you might have previously enjoyed.
Yes, we have a problem with debt in the UK but you have completely missed the root of the problem.
You see government spending as the problem without acknowledging that tax-and-spend, and borrow-and-spend, are effective ways of cycling money through the economy, which is exactly what the economy needs in order for it to thrive.
You fail to acknowledge that private debt, rather than public, is the real problem.
You fail to point out that c.97% of the money that we use is created when we borrow from commercial banks, which means that we have to pay interest on almost all of the money that we need to make our economy function, which is the root of our private debt problem.
You fail to point out that private debt must always increase because money is constantly being removed from the productive economy by people who want to hoard it or use it for financial gambling, which means it has to be replaced with more loans from banks in order for the productive economy to function.
In short, you blame government for the financial crisis when the blame lies squarely with our dysfunctional financial system, and you therefore fail to acknowledge that the remedy lies in reform of the financial system.
Your “video” is nothing more than mendacious fear-mongering that’s designed to entice unsuspecting investors into subscribing to your magazine and using the services of your commercial partners: telling lies in order to frighten people into parting with their money.
Please unsubscribe me from your mailing list and remove my contact details from your database. I have better things to do with my time than read the nonsense that you publish.”
Views From The Boatshed 
‘Your “video” is nothing more than mendacious fear-mongering that’s designed to entice unsuspecting investors into subscribing to your magazine and using the services of your commercial partners: telling lies in order to frighten people into parting with their money.’
Respect, Theyve resorted to pop ups now. infecting your computer with malware to make the message pop up on your screen. it seems like a financial attack on britain too, which should be against the law
Hi, There are elements to their arguments that have some truth but the conclusions they reach are ridiculous and contradictory. Like clairvoyants that claim to talk to the dead, they extract some portion of truth from the bereaved to tell them what they want to hear.
The contradictions are clear. They predict negative interest rates that will punish savers and then predict higher interest rates that will ruin home owners on mortgages in the form of a property price crash which will also deplete the balance sheets of the banks. Well you can’t have it both ways.
Then they predict a run on the banks so your money isn’t safe then say you won’t be allowed cash so in that case how can there be a run on the bank? If you transfer your money into other non cash forms that just recirculates the money in the financial system so the banks are safe.
Their “evidence” for negative interest rates is the example of Germany and scandinavia but if these countries have negative interest rates that might because there are other advantages such as safety and currency considerations.
Surely negative interest rates are unlikely as the government would not be able to control the outflows of foreign money simply by outlawing cash to it’s own citizens. In fact such a move (negative interest rates and outlawing cash would be political suicide and there would be riots in the streets)
Much more likely would be inflation higher than interest rates which would be the same thing