A former bond trader, a Liverpool-based policy critic, and a London reader have written to the Guardian to reinforce Larry Elliott's column arguing that rightwing economic myths are constraining the Burnham government's fiscal ambitions. The letters appeared on 1 October 2026, weeks before John Healey's budget. Vince Gomez of the 99% Organisation, who spent 20 years trading bonds, lays out the operational mechanics: Parliament votes spending, the Treasury instructs the Bank of England, and the Bank credits private-sector accounts. Taxes withdraw money afterwards — they do not fund spending in advance. The household budget analogy, he argues, bears no relation to how a currency-issuing state actually finances itself. Gomez then targets the 'black hole' framing directly. Every pound of government borrowing, he notes, ends up as a financial asset held by households, firms, and pension funds. That money hasn't disappeared — it has been redistributed into the private sector's balance sheet. He applies the same logic to the triple lock: a government that issues sterling cannot run out of sterling to pay pensions. The real constraint, as Alan Greenspan told Congress in 2005, is whether the economy produces the real goods and services those pensions are used to buy — care workers, homes, medicines. Bernie Evans from Liverpool extends the argument to two more myths. The Laffer curve — the claim that raising taxes on the wealthy will reduce revenue — cannot be accepted when public services are crumbling and the richest 1% in the UK own 36.5% of all financial assets, valued at £1.8 trillion. Trickle-down economics, Evans argues, is equally bankrupt, particularly when recent US research shows most price inflation comes from companies maintaining profit margins, not from wage increases. Evans also takes aim at the Bank of England's reflex to blame wage growth for inflation, arguing this ignores the evidence on profit-driven price increases. The implication is that monetary policy itself is operating under a flawed model that protects corporate margins at the expense of workers. Gomez points to a specific policy document — 'Ending Treasury-Induced Decline,' a report he co-authored for the 99% Organisation — as the institutional reform blueprint Burnham needs. His core prescription: stop asking 'How will we pay for it?' and start asking whether the economy can produce the real resources required. The letters collectively represent a strand of post-Keynesian fiscal thinking that has gained traction since the pandemic and the energy crisis, but remains politically radioactive. The question is whether the Burnham government has the will to absorb these arguments before Healey's budget locks in another round of self-imposed austerity.
