How to Fuel the Economy Without Increasing Debt, through Sovereign Money
www.positivemoney.org/
Ben Dyson, Founder of Positive Money, speaking at the Positive Money 2014 conference. He recapped how the nature of money has changed since the Bank Charter Act of 1844, which outlawed bank creation of paper money. Most money today is electronic. There had yet to be a democratic debate on the consequences of this. Indeed, there had hardly been any democratic debate on the consequences of Quantitative Easing (QE).
In terms of where this private bank money went -- 40 per cent went into the property market, 37 per cent to financial markets, 10 per cent to credit cards and personal loans and only 13 percent to productive business.
In our system today, "more money means more debt". If we have a crisis and we want less debt then we have to accept that we will end up with less money circulating, because when the loans are repaid, the money disappears from the economy.
Under the present system, there are two ways to get more money into the economy:
The first way is to get the private banks creating new money by creating new debt. That is the situation where "more money equals more debt." So, interest rates were lowered to 0.5% in the expectation that "lower interest rates will get people to borrow more." There have also been various "funding for lending" schemes.
The second way is to get the Bank of England to create money. It has initiated QE, whereby it creates money and buys bonds from pension funds and insurance companies.
This money floods into the bond market and some floods into the stock market. It artificially increases bond prices, in the same way that the banks' privately-created money pushes up mortgage prices.
The idea behind QE is that those who see the value of their bonds go up will then spend more on the High Street. But in reality, it means that the relatively small number of people who have the money in the first place, take their money and put even more of it into the bond market. In short, QE is a scheme which has made the very wealthy much better off, but has done very little to create jobs and get the real economy going.
Incredibly, around £375 billion has been created but there has been very few questions asked in Parliament about the wisdom of this process, about how the money is created and where it is spent. This is remarkable considering the tortured debates in Parliament about the spending of sums which are a mere fraction of this figure!
Ben explained that the alternative is Sovereign Money.
The idea of Sovereign Money is that instead of the BoE creating money and putting it into the financial markets, it should be put into the real economy, through spending on infrastructure, through tax cuts, or through the simple expedient of giving it to people. This would allow us to escape from the debt trap where, if we need more money then we must have more debt.
www.positivemoney.org/our-prop...
He said that for every £10 billion which gets added to the government account and spent into the economy then we would get £6 billion coming back in taxes, and that for every £1 which goes in, we would get £2.80 of spending throughout the economy. He suggested that a Sovereign Money creation of £10 billion would lead to 28 billion spending, up to 284 000 jobs and 5.6 billion tax revenue, and lower personal debt. (These calculations come from CBI figures.)
Furthermore, this is a policy which can be done now. Private banks will still lend, but Sovereign Money will, to an extent, offset the negative effects of debt. Once it can be shown that Sovereign Money works, then we can point to the full solution, outlined in Modernising Money which is stopping banks creating money in the first place.
--------------------------
SUBSCRIBE to Positive Money UK's videos:
kzread.info_c...
Like us on Facebook / positivemoney
Follow us on Twitter / positivemoneyuk
Follow us on Google+ www.positivemoney.org.uk/googl...
Positive Money is a not-for-profit research and campaign group. They work to raise awareness of the connections between our current monetary and banking system and the serious social, economic and ecological problems that face the UK and the world today. In particular they focus on the role of banks in creating the nation's money supply through the accounting process they use when they make loans - an aspect of banking which is poorly understood. Positive Money believe these fundamental flaws are at the root of - or a major contributor to - problems of poverty, excessive debt, growing inequality and environmental degradation. For more information, please visit: www.positivemoney.org/
Пікірлер: 100
This is a nice general awereness video about the problems of the economic system. However, it seems rather short-sighted and conclusions are drawn too eagerly. First, as you tend to focus on this point throughout, housing prices are less affordable no matter what system you use, for the simple reason that population grows (I am not saying this is the only determinent of house prices). Now what you are suggesting is creating a Department of Spending within the UK government, fully funded, for free, by the Bank of England, not via the efficient, open and transparent money/bond market that we have today -- which is not the problem of our economic system -- , but with a loan with 0% interest. This is very dangerous, and many countries forbid such transactions for good reasons. The talk goes on and argues that government spending will create virtuous cycles, and that taxes on those spending will result in the government's reduced debt. I could buy this if we do not consider the loan from the BoE as a debt. But it is. Further, the story does not stop there. What is the effect of these expenses on the prices, and health, of competitive firms? If this spending gives 200k jobs, what will happen to these jobs when the BoE, which supposedly makes independent decision regarding money emissions, will decide to cut this spending? One more point; bank, it is true, can create money 'out of thin air', and charge interest on it. This is simply because they assume the role of intermediary, allowing the users of this money to make final payment when they trade. So the risk of no-repayment is not any more on one of the traders, but on the bank; this justifies charging interest rates, which, if competition works (and this being not always the case is another problem entirely), should be set in such a way that they exactly cover the risks taken. There is absolutely nothing wrong about that mechanism of trade, which can be seen as one of the greatest inventions of mankind (really; money is THAT powerful). The problem does not come from there. QE did not work as much as it was expected to for reasons unknown to most, yet alternatives are difficult. There are more direct ways of making money 'flow', but the easy method that are described in this talk are possibly not sustainable and most certainly harmful to the economy. The analysis is shaky at best; certainly because of the audience of the talk. There is no denying that the economic system needs a change; but for a proposal to really be taken seriously, more effort is to be put in the careful scientific study of the new system. This is a very tedious task indeed, one that I, and others, are undertaking as we speak. You've done a great job raising awereness of where money comes from; but you should be careful on some parts of your talk, where you make too-easy a claim to be true. This makes it deviate from what would otherwise be a good linen of argumentation to, to put it bluntly, simple populism. I fondly encourage new economic thinking and movements that sprouted after the crisis such as positive money; yet it seems too much effort has been put into media coverage and not enough into careful scientific analysis. I'd be more than willing to voice my concerns more clearly on this talk and positive money in general, and share some ideas on how some research could help improve your argument. In the meantime, I wish you and positive money all the best.
The UK already has sovereign money and they don't need to do anything special to do what your saying. The treasury just has to spend. When they deficit spend they are increasing the private sector assets side of the balance sheet. When a government borrows money from the private sector they give them a treasury bond in it place, you've swapped an instant IOU to 1+ how many years IOU. The asset side of the balance sheet of the private sector has stayed exactly the same. The asset side gets increased when government spends that money into the economy. There by making the private sector have positive equity and the government holds the liability on it's balance sheet so the private sector can have positive equity. This is being done right now. Don't need anything special, government just needs to decide how much spend to get to full capacity and low unemployment with the constraint on spending being inflation. Setting up a monetary commission like you suggest could help them make these decisions of how much they should deficit spend.
valuable information, presented in a brilliant and easy to understand way! thanks ben!
Sometimes I wonder, informative videos like this has so many less views, whereas some stupid vlog counts millions. No wonder very less people are interested in improving the world and many are just hell bent on complaining.
@qwertyuiop-cu2ve
3 жыл бұрын
It takes a certain intellect and attention span to be drawn to this kind of content. Most people prefer cat videos.
Ben et al, excellent proposal! Only a handful of politicians understand this and proposals I have seen e.g. Cobden Centre generally conflict with banks' interests and are thus going to struggle. MP Carswell's credit/checking is a start but private members' bills also rarely make it. If I understand correctly, this looks like QE but through productive economy not bonds? Hence implementation would be a decision of Osborne?
An excellent 32 mins of viewing, which cleared up a LOT of the financial 'goings-on' in my head! Thank-you, Ben Dyson.
Do Promissory Notes like Bank Notes Only Exist in Circulation Because Someone Has Recieved a Business Loan but if that Business Loan is Paid Off Would that Be That There Would be Less Promissory Notes or No Promissory Notes at all?
Major C.H. Douglas noticed this problem almost hundred years ago and also presented a potential solution
Ben, this is one of the best, clean-cut, informative speeches on such a complex matter I've EVER seen. Congrats. Fantastic! Thanks for making me understand and see the cross-connections! Awesome!
This isn't a new concept. The US already did this with the United States Note. The banks merely changed the law and flushed the currency out of existence. The speaker said that the two systems would live side by side but the Banks are more than aware of the effects and crush the idea before it gets a lobby in Parliament.
That graph around 4:40 with debt, bank (book) money and cash is misleading. Stems from a very common mistake, to confuse stock and flow.
You do not need the Central Bank at all. Merely issue UK Bank Notes by the Government and spend them into the economy provided you are creating goods and services, which will not increase inflation.
@shawnkimble6182
4 жыл бұрын
No central bank means the power to create money is solely in the hands of fiscal authorities, you thus run the risk of monetizing debt. That can be inflationary. Central bank should be independent of fiscal authorities.
Hi Ben It's Dai from the money chronicle on scoop.it at 26:37 on the time line you make the claim that 10bn will create 28bn worth of spending but, you did not explain how this money is nearly tripled. You just stated it was so. For your average person or house wife if they go out and spend £10 they can only buy £10 worth of goods not £28 worth. The claim that £10 worth of spending can create £28 may be correct through something like the volume and velocity of money but, to the average person who can't see past the end of there nose as far as money and how it works, this sort of stuff needs explaining and demonstrating how it's possible. If we are to convert the the average person to our cause we need to justify our claims. They may make a lot of sense to us but, the average person they make no sense at all in fact it may sound like BS unless we explain or show how it is possible. I think another video is in order showing how it is possible to turn £10bn into £28bn of spending. In another video you used the analogy of an island and creating money for the islanders to use so, how would these islanders turn £100 into £280 worth of spending?
It's true that most of the money is created by banks in the form of loans, but the “positive money” people jump from most money to ALL money. The U.S. federal government created 3.8 trillion dollars in FY 2016, and NOT as loans. That money was not borrowed from anyone, nor lent to anyone. It was created out of thin air the same way that banks create loan money out of thin air: by crediting accounts. Federal money and loan money are both created in banks, but federal money is not loan money.
We have to remember that at the end of the day it's not about money itself but what money buys you. Extra money needs to be created only in proportion to how many extra goods and services are created. And for the amount of money you need to create, the best thing to do is have experts look at what you can spend it on that would benefit the country as a whole the most. Don't just spend money to spend money. I would spend it on things like infrastructure, public goods and services, or just flat tax cuts.
Can anyone clarify how the stock market (or any other market) can ever "hold" any money? Not that I disagree with positivemoney.org. Just want it to be perfect!
@qwertyuiop-cu2ve
3 жыл бұрын
That's if people who profit from the stock market are reinvesting it into more stocks instead of spending it in other markets.
How does money disappear from the economy when debt is paid off? Doesn’t the capital you use to pay off the debt( say mortgage), go to the bank which uses the capital, as well of the interest, to invest in the economy again?
@AnitaCorbett
6 жыл бұрын
Kyle Dolan a bank CREATES money in its balance sheet when you take a loan or credit .....by paying it back to the bank the money comes out of the economy and negates the money that was " created" by the bank in the beginning, so now the balance is 0 . The banks have nothing the economy has nothing. That means banks don't want money paid back and so they make it easier and easier to get credit to keep lots of money circulating.
@nathansukchai9415
3 жыл бұрын
The big issue comes with the over giving of loans for things or to people that are too unlikely to use the capital they buy to directly or indirectly generate new wealth leading to an inflated amount of money floating around without the wealth to give it value generally the over valuing housing will hold this up until the cruel reality that housing doesn’t hold that real economic value wealth production housing people obviously creates wealth it’s very difficult to hold a preform a job without being housed but how much wealth production dose having a bigger nicer house really have
@Jesus-kt5dc
2 жыл бұрын
*When banks create a loan they create money along with an off setting liability. If you look at a loan there's 2 things to pay attention to, the principal and interest. The principal is the amount of money actually created and the interest is the banks profit for creating that money for you. As you pay back the loan the principal portion of the loan is being deleted and the interest portion of the loan is the banks profit. Banks are a business after all. Let me know if this help.*
Wouldn’t increasing the money supply decrease the value of money a drive inflation?
@Sinha010
4 жыл бұрын
Yes. This isn't a solution, it's just more taking money from producers to consumers, giving consumers less buying power over time and exporting production.
Excellent. Should be compulsory viewing, then maybe, as someone once said, there'd be a revolution by the morning.
@mrsmackenzie7850
3 жыл бұрын
He is wrong. There have been a few studies done showing the crisis was not caused by the creation of money but by the use of that money. He sort of says it but then confuses that with it was QE fault too much debt? If the QE money was used for business activities rather than financial markets and consumer consumption you don't get the boom and bust. Financial markets are not part of GDP... So hence why it's a recipe for disaster. It's not too much debt. It's the wrong use of debt. The Central banks already have too much power, they just don't act responsibly and control the use of credit, they give it to their friends that is the problem.. The same thing happened in Japan , has happened for a Century, Japan was not Private money Gvt produced the money. It was again the wrong use of money...
Where do you disagree with mmt?
@thomashammons1488
3 жыл бұрын
sovereignmoney.site/modern-money-theory-revisited
Is not the Bank of England a privately owned institution and therefore if the BoE prints money it would be more debt money?
@jamesosborne4567
10 жыл бұрын
No. It was nationalised in 1946.
@ROLLO2able
10 жыл бұрын
James Osborne Then re-privatised with the on-set of Fiat money in 1971!
@jamesosborne4567
10 жыл бұрын
Bill Rollinson nope. Still fully nationalised.
@Only-one-life-68
3 жыл бұрын
@@jamesosborne4567 So who are the share holders of the B.O.E. Then us the the citizens of the UK
I really like how this sovereign money proposal can work side by side with the current monetary system, it is not a complete overhaul of the monetary system. complete overhaul is indeed scary especially with as big a game as banks. The Swiss had a referendum about it which failed, I understand as it would be too risky for the world's secret bankers. So I really like how this can be just a one time experiment that the government can do and see if it works well or not.
When you advocate "sovereign money" .. how exactly would the process be? Governments would borrow at all-time low rates? But that would keep increasing government debt, not reducing.
@lgiorgos1
8 жыл бұрын
+Ricardo Afonso they won't borrow. They will create.
@Sinha010
4 жыл бұрын
@@lgiorgos1 Which is borrowing, it's the same thing.
He didn’t talk about moving to a full reserve banking system to prevent the banks from creating any money.
@edbop
4 жыл бұрын
The ability for society to create new money is very useful. The issue is who decides what that money is spent on and the fact that currently that money is debt with interest owed on it. Also in reality banks have never really been constrained by reserve ratios.
@Sinha010
4 жыл бұрын
@@edbop It's very useful for stealing buying power from those that save and giving money to those that don't deserve it.
@edbop
4 жыл бұрын
@@Sinha010 Wow Danny the ignorance you manage to express with such a short sentence is really quite impressive. Care to tell who these undeserving you mention are?
@nghianguyentrung518
3 жыл бұрын
This used to be the case in the early 18th century in the US, but it didn't work, and people went from that to the current credit scheme. Credit, though controversial, has a vital role in the economy.
QE enriched (on average) the top 5% by £128,000 each but failed at its 'stated purpose' of increasing bank lending???
@econ4every1
7 жыл бұрын
The reason this is the case is because of the false idea of "loanable funds" or fractional reserve banking. QE has proved beyond a shadow of any doubt that FRB is a myth.
thank you
doesn't your solution create excess demand in the economy hence creating inflation?
@UniversalPotentate
10 жыл бұрын
No. If one institution creates money (Monetary Policy Committee) and another (Parliament) determines where it goes, then Parliament is looking for spots in the economy which have under-served demand. What he explained was that by putting excess money into the bond and stock markets, the prices of bonds and stocks rose without any appreciable change in value (aka inflation). The plan is designed to create a balanced approach to how money is inserted in the economy specifically to avoid BOTH under-service AND inflation.
@Sinha010
4 жыл бұрын
It does. This is hogwash. Nothing is actually being produced in the end, and if it does people still can't afford it.
I'm glad (for all the wrong reasons) that this is a U.K. video/lecture. Conspiracy theorists - God bless - hopefully our US Federal Reserve is as sovereign as the Modern Monetary Theory proponents say, and we can end the "Fed-ish". #MMT
great! good explanation! all countries in EU are lost monetary sovereignity.... sad... best regards from Croatia!
He is wrong. There have been a few studies done showing the crisis was not caused by the creation of money but by the use of that money. He sort of says it but then confuses that with it was QE fault too much debt? If the QE money was used for business activities rather than financial markets and consumer consumption you don't get the boom and bust. Financial markets are not part of GDP... So hence why it's a recipe for disaster. It's not too much debt. It's the wrong use of debt. The Central banks already have too much power, they just don't act responsibly and control the use of credit, they give it to their friends that is the problem.. The same thing happened in Japan , has happened for a Century, Japan was not Private money Gvt produced the money. It was again the wrong use of money...
He is just not convincing me, not sure I have the time to complete this video. All I hear is talking points that have been regurgitated 100s of times before, which didn’t convince me then either
Ben, you are an intelligent man, but if you put money in the financial market you actually give them to the companies' owners that own the majority of their shares. When you invest in shares you actually invest in the company. If the company gonna spend these money reasonably is another thing though. So the money is actually ''magically'' flowing from the financial market to the business. The companies that are big and are public of course, but they are actually the ones that move the economy. The others just work for them. So, money is flowing to them too. Non financial businesses are small firms like sole traders and limited companies. The thing that you are offering to put the created money straight to the non financial business is like making the government their main investor and work creator. I don't think governments do that anymore, except in totalitarian dictatorships. It just won't ever work.
Brilliant
Why should government decide to build houses? if you need a hiuse you can decide yourself you want one and how it should look like. Then you should be able to shop or construct etc etc. why housing and not buinesses. It looks more like an old scheme wanting to reinvent itself. It iassumes people dont know what to do with the moneyor their time. Maybe some forgot how its like to spend, but the majority doen’t. It still creates bubbles. 250k jobs is laughable. If you build a house, you need income. If someone has an idea, he/she must be freely to pusue it. If you don’t need rent everything becomes less expensive. Now instead of paying rent, save it and out it into something productive for that individual. Then you can have affordable hous, create your job, invest in someone’s ieda and grow a service. Pool mkney to have a pizza hut and you enjoy pizza. If the money is repaid you pool again and you get a motorcycle shop. Deflation is not scary if you have real products and services.Never ask the owl about inflation. The animal would find it ridiculous. In an environment were bidding up prices don’t make sense, there’s no need for inflation. Scary thiught but true. What if individuals send their budget plans to the government. Then suddenly you would know how much money you need. No problem buying that specific house if you can build it somewhere else. Negotiateing power is key. Even a trillion miney budget is limited in some sense. This idea is penny wise pound foolish.Well I’m going to ponder more about this intriguing question.
Strength to you and your sane understanding of the mess and wilful greed created by people who are spending, the hard earned working class people's money, as though it was their own .
This is the same shit that's happening in the USA
CRYPTOREVOLUTION.
Missing the entire point, the private bank of england needs to go, so that we don't have to pay interest on money that is printed & tax payers aren't saddled with greater & greater debt.
@steved2667
6 жыл бұрын
The UK government pays off the principal and interest on the debt daily simply by transferring existing pounds from gilt accounts back the the checking accounts of the gilt holders. No new pounds required. The transfer is similar to your bank transferring your savings account deposit back to your checking account deposit - a simple money transfer of existing pounds. This simple money transfer is a NOT a burden on the UK government or on UK taxpayers. It is no burden on anyone, and the entire debt - principal and interest - could be paid off tomorrow, if the government wished.
@Only-one-life-68
3 жыл бұрын
@@steved2667 So why is it that our government doesn’t simply wipe of this £2.2 trillion debt then..
Money is not a commodity -- it is a measurement. YOU ARE WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@nospammike
3 жыл бұрын
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_money
u create credit to produce usefull things but bankers wont allow u
Let the 5% rich take the crash in stockmarket
It is ok with public infrastructure work but do not support business with money they just score the money them selves. Give money or tax reduction to the individuals that works. We have made failures in Denmark by given money to business but it does not help the individuals. Let individuals decide where to use the money. Simple is it not? Who the heck paid these professors
5:52 His argument that, as the crisis was caused by banks lending too much, encouraging banks to lend more after the crisis was nonsense is wrong: after the crisis, it was sensible to encourage banks to lend more even if a couple of years earlier it would have been sensible to check that lending: the context had changed dramatically from boom to recession.
Your arguments make sense. This sounds like a very well thought-out plan. Let's not implement this.
So the plan is to replace an anticompetive oligopoly of debt creation with an anticompetive government monopoly on fiat currency creation.... Surely a better solution would be to allow competeing currencies and through fitness functions, let market demand evolve a best solution.
@Mitjitsu
10 жыл бұрын
Explain how allowing government to create and issue it's own currency free of debt is "anti-competitive"? It's not in any way a perfect solution, but it's vastly superior to what we have now.
@matthewstannard7532
10 жыл бұрын
Mitjitsu It's anti-competive as the public sector would have a monopoly on issuing currency. Like all monopolies, it's in a position to either be abused or be abusing. We already know that politcians and goverment angencies can be corrupted so let's consider this a possible outcome. So how could we reduce the incentive to abuse the currency? Well, we can allow private competiting currencies to the pound. Each of the competeting currency issuers would have to act responsibly or provide increased reasons for users to continue using their currency. If they started to abuse their position, people could freely move to another less abused currency.
@Mitjitsu
10 жыл бұрын
***** The problem all over the world right now is that banks have to the power via financial means to put their chosen politicians in power, and make sure they do their bidding. All under the guise of a pseudo democracy. Also, how are you going to value all these competing currencies? It's going to be a nightmare to shop in your local supermarket. and have pricing's for 20 different currencies. Unless there is one common currency that they can all be linked to. You're ignoring the fact that the reason the government is so corrupt is because it's serving the interests of the money masters, and not of the electorate. Due to the fact we have a national debt, the government can never serve the interests of the people. At least in a situation where we have a freely elected government. We would have some say in where the money goes. Unlike now. where we have next to no say where the money goes. Due to private banks deciding whats in their interest.
@matthewstannard7532
10 жыл бұрын
Mitjitsu We can value these private competing currencies the same way we currently value national currencies. This is via exchanges and markets where people can voluntarily trade from one currency to another (forex [1]). It would be very simple for supermarkets and other merchants to use technology to fetch exchange rates and display differing prices. Or, simply just display the price in the national currency and allow people to use smart phone apps to convert the rate. I'm not ignoring that at all, I agree with you. My point is that if there was more competition, the abuse of the currency supply would be less of a problem. If people weren't happy with how the national currency is managed, they could use another. Consider also that democracry is just dictorship by the majority and the most effective vote you have in society is how people choose to spend their money. This in turn determines what business is profitable and again this determines how the economy develops. However, as we have already discussed this system isn't function well becasue the centralised currency supply is being abused. Hence, businesses and industries are being developed by the abusers which normally wouldn't be. [1] Forign Exchange Market - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_exchange_market
@Mitjitsu
10 жыл бұрын
***** I'm against central planning as much as you are, and I want smaller government as well. However, the people in Westminster and Brussels will use the next financial crisis as an excuse to consolidate more power, and they'll use classic divide and conquer tactics by directing the blame towards foreigners and minorities. I'm in favour of some kind of meritocracy. Where where only people who pass the equivalent of a driving theory test are allowed to vote. I'm perfectly aware that government is nothing but a disorganized mafia. That uses violence and coercion to get it's way, while achieving the exact opposite. My Utopian society is a world without government, but we're centuries away from that being obtainable.
Australian government paid money directly into everyone's bank accounts. At least it kept us in work if only by churning money round and round the economy. Those economies still manufacturing 'things' like China began buying up Australian properties because Australia appeared a 'safer' option than US/UK. The consequence is more bloody property nobody can afford! So while we didn't end up sleeping rough we are still prey to command economies like China's whose own populations aren't/aren't able to play this silly game. I suspect corrupt post Soviet money is flooding London's property market, on top of the stock brokers sucking on the government's teat. Australia also set up a 'pink batts' subsidised home insulation scheme. Through poor regulation and certification of tradesmen four installers were electrocuted while installing insulation. The MP in charge of the scheme was lynched and crucified. Nobody asked why loft insulators didn't have to go through proper safety training. It was much more satisfying to bay for blood and start head kicking the easiest target. I suspect the banks had a word to the press about the best way of sticking the knife in. Still our banks are able to print money to 'compete' with prices being paid by the Chinese. This is all a symptom of a world economic hierarchy in transition. As the developing world's poverty decreases so our 'relative' economic advantage decreases. "Too big to fail" is the safest destination for money now, which is the only thing keeping western democracies afloat. As soon as the centre of gravity shifts a bit more the west followed by the east will start to loose faith in the whole sordid fairytale.
Someone should send this video to Boris Johnson.
Money is a debt end of story. There is no way on this earths it’s not. If this money is put into the economy by the government. Who is the purchaser? So is the government buying houses. If not then explain your story in full context. You stop short of explaining the full process. There’s a reason for this and that’s because you’ve not thought it though. If you had you’d face palm and shut up. I mean let’s play this out. So the govenment pays a company to build houses. So when the house is sold is there an obligation to pay for said House. Well of course. So who are we going to pay. Well we would have to pay the govenment just like we pay the banks back. You cite interest as a problem so is this new money that’s coming from government by what system will it be delivered. In. Will we be using bank accounts by any chance. Will banks need paying for accounting for our accounts. Will the government be accounting for our accounts. If so this is going to have to be paid for one way or another. To me you’ve not identified the problem at all. Not even close. Your advocating a shuffling of the deck when the decks fucked.
ANDREW YANG 2024