Last week, I considered recent research published by the BIS – Bank of International Settlements pushing the ‘growth friendly austerity’ myth – which was a classic example of how the sense of urgency and crisis is engendered by constructing the narrative in such a restricted manner that real world options are excluded which contradict the mission. If we assume that key features of any system are unable to be activated, then it is easy to speculate that the system will fail. This communication technique abounds in the financial and economic commentariat and leaves listeners and readers with a sense of anxiety and distort the political process. The commentaries that typify this approach all invoke a sense of urgency – ‘act now or else’ – and like to quote large dollar (pound, yen etc) sums because the commentator knows that our eyes glaze over with numbers that are beyond our own experience. Further, when the article parades as an Op Ed, the writer regularly just rehearses some press release or perhaps, less formal statement, that some organisation like the IMF has made. The other part of the scam is that these organisations are elevated into the sphere of sources that are to be believed without question. Two recent examples are the recent articles appearing in the UK Guardian – Burnham’s funding gap: what state are UK finances in for the PM-in-waiting? (published July 3, 2026) – and – Act soon to change ‘unsustainable’ direction of UK debt, OBR warns (published July 7, 2026).