No dislikes! Should be mandatory viewing for all citizens. No one explains government finance better than Stephanie K.

@dannywindham3295

5 жыл бұрын

Notecrusher absolutely at every grade level

@osark2487

4 жыл бұрын

mosler does

@Ted0302

4 жыл бұрын

No..., you misunderstood everything that was just explained to you.

@Ted0302

4 жыл бұрын

No ..., it should not be 'mandatory-viewing' for all U.S. Citizens. Take your desires for reckless implementation of anything 'mandatory,' and get the hell out of my Country, Socialist.

@tonywilson4713

Жыл бұрын

*ITS JUNE 2022* And this is even more valid now that it was when she gave this lecture.

Like Dorthy with her ruby slippers in the Wizard of Oz, we've always had the capability to go where we wanted economically, but it took the crisis of the Great Recession and the subsequent success of the no-alternative-other-than-print-money action to convince our economic visionaries that MMT really could revolutionize fiscal policy.

@MrMarinus18

9 ай бұрын

But there is one other thing and that is that the power of the state usually comes at the expense of the power of capitalists. A good example of that is healthcare which is immensely profitable and so there will be fierce resistance against universal healthcare. This also goes back to the idea that the private sector is inherently superior to the public one by a significant margin and in all circumstances. Which is very oversimplified to suggest capitalism is the perfect tool for every problem. Capitalism has it's merits and it's place but it's not the ideal solution for EVERYTHING and it's mechanisms work with some things but not with others.

Still the best MMT/heterodox Economist! Dr. Kelton, your lecture in Rimini in '12 changed my life, thank you!

@Achrononmaster

5 жыл бұрын

Yes, in educational terms. But Warren Mosler was the original splinter in the mind on alt.econ bulletin boards in the early days of the Internet. He and Michael Hudson deserve to be remembered as the pioneers of modern monetary dynamics.

@richardmillar2412

4 жыл бұрын

@@Achrononmaster Absolutely agreed! I am just glad that there is an actual groundswell of support from academia.

@MrMarinus18

9 ай бұрын

One criticism I do have is that she doesn't use the word for the ability of the government to spend infinitely; sovereignty. There is no limit to government spending because the government has sovereignty so it can buy anything that's for sale in it's currency cause it's the one that makes it.

@bernardwatts5339

6 ай бұрын

Do you go to Multilevel Marketing meetings?

Excellent! Very simply explained so any one can understand this, and how badly the public have been conned by the Gov (faux) 'debt' myth. Great sound and video recording. Well done and big thanks to UCL and Mariana for organising this :)

@Rob-fx2dw

5 жыл бұрын

You are sucked in by the mechanics of Kelton's explanation in which she mixes concepts and uses language and deception to mask reality. She is totally wrong in saying the government's deficit is the private sectors Surplus. It is a surplus of fiat money that enters the system when deficits are used by government to take resources from the private sector instead of tax revenues that take existing money and re spend it. It is clearly not if the whole of the facts are taken into consideration instead of only part of the facts that she presents which is the increased money in the system. The surplus is only a surplus of fiat money and Not an increase in wealth of the private sector because wealth Only comes from increase production. No increased production occurs in her example of a surplus being the result of the government using deficits and money expansion to buy more from the private sector to fund government's increased take of their share of resources. The confusion in some people's minds that a surplus of money is a surplus of wealth is understandable but it is still mistaken and caused by confusion resulting from lack of ability to differentiate between money units and actual increased production that is real wealth. The other deception is that increases in fiat money in the governments sector will increase savings in the private sector. This deception involves confusion in some minds of the difference between savings which can only come from people spending less than they actually earn and an increased number of dollars (currency units) in the economy. For instance if increase numbers of dollars in an economy created greater savings and wealth for the private sector then countries like Brazil in which the increased numbers of their currency (the cruzeiro) in the late 1990's would have increased savings. It did exactly the opposite and caused their savings to drop in value and brought huge amounts of inflation. People had huge increases in their money but less production to spend taht money on so prices incresed massively and the value of their savings fell dramtically. Same for many other countries in the 20th century where money expansion created first a false illusion of wealth and then more poverty.

@fullmetalalchemistjd

4 жыл бұрын

Rob this is the correct answer ladies and gentlemen

@thomasd2444

4 жыл бұрын

@@Rob-fx2dw - Comedy from Rob

@Rob-fx2dw

4 жыл бұрын

@@thomasd2444 No reasoned reply from you again.

@tonywilson4713

Жыл бұрын

*ITS JUNE 2022* And this is even more valid now that it was when she gave this lecture.

This is so shocking that I need to check its true from other sources. I love this series, this should be taught at school, I'm sharing this, I wish I had a version in Spanish instead of English.

*ITS JUNE 2022* And this is even more valid now that it was when she gave this lecture.

Professor Kelton Who is the score keeper for the Euro?

Professor Kelton our future Fed chair or treasury secretary she would be great at either one

@Notecrusher

5 жыл бұрын

So true!

@mrDmastr19

4 жыл бұрын

Shit I’d vote her to be POTUS

@Ted0302

4 жыл бұрын

Oh, I doubt that... Sure, she's well spoken and it all sounds 'nice.' But, this if Crazy-Talk.

@dannywindham3295

4 жыл бұрын

@@Ted0302 okay what's crazy about it did she lie about anyting.

@Ted0302

4 жыл бұрын

@@dannywindham3295 I don't believe she is lying; nor did I accuse her of lying. Please do not presume to put words in my mouth. Her arguments do not present the many deleterious effects which are likely to develop following acceptance/implementation of MMT. She mentions briefly Alan Greenspan stating before Congress, "We (The Fed) can guarantee cash payments in any amount ... [etc., etc.]; but, we cannot guarantee the purchasing power of the Dollar." Most Americans DO NOT SAVE! Most do not even know how to save their currency. Thus, they will fritter away universal basic income (UBI) or their newly inflated wages on inflated goods & services (it's doubtful they will acquire interest/profit-generating assets). Further, the foreign holders of Treasuries will be quite displeased when their bonds are devalued, and we will no longer have successful bond auctions, etc.

We should address the problem of developing countries, which are not currency issuers and usually have debt constraints. How can we rethink fiscal policy for them?

@webfreakz

5 жыл бұрын

They are dependent on the US Dollar for international trade, which is another problem for them.

@woopswoopsie8381

5 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/qo6ip6arhsnJeLg.html

@woopswoopsie8381

5 жыл бұрын

twitter.com/NathanTankus/status/1088487291360894976

@Juanijia

5 жыл бұрын

webfreakz exactly. That is why I dont know until which degree they can allow themselves to be not so "fiscally correct"

@thedarwinist672

5 жыл бұрын

We shouldnt be deciding their policy for them.

I listened to this entire presentation and compliment the speaker for a cute fairy story. It was beautifully presented but it still regards the physical economy and the impact of technology and the impact of pollution and environmental destruction as externalities. So it does explain how people have been behaving but does not describe the final effects of the economy on the Earth.

@thomasd2444

2 ай бұрын

So no hope seen , @raykirkham5357 ?

25:39 - What is the USA-FED-GOV (or National Debt) ? 25:43 - The USA-FED-GOV (or National Deficit) is the year (or annual)

This should be a talk for every American HS student...repeated every year!

MMT can save our nation. People still think about the federal budget as if we were still on the gold standard, and that it should be balanced like a household budget. That attitude has been wrong since 1971. MMT is the only school of economics that has figured out how to vastly improve living standards in America; even Keynesianism is too limited. It's a new day with a new way, but not enough people have seen the light. Professor Kelton is doing yeoman's work trying to spread the good news. Admittedly, it does takes a psychological paradigm shift to grasp MMT's foundations, but when you do, it's liberating: We can improve things; we don't have to live like refugees with millions chronically employed and innumerable economic opportunities missed or shortchanged. I've been looking for such a solution since 1972, but didn't find it till 2020. I'm not an economist and didn't know where to look, and I thought all the old options were the only ones. For me, economic heaven has come down to Earth: We don't need socialism or vulture capitalism; we just need MMT.

@Rob-fx2dw

3 жыл бұрын

You certainly are not well conversed in this subject if you feel that way BUT it relies on incorrect facts and deception. You have so far swallowed this whole like a many ill informed people have without seeing the deliberate omission of facts that is used to fool you about deficits and government debt. Kelton says "their red in is our black ink" which is supposed to convince us that government deficits are a saving for the private sector. It is designed by omission of the facts to fool the public. It is totally false because it ignores the fact that the red ink of government ( the government deficit) carries an obligation for the taxpayer to pay out on maturity the bonds that were sold to fund those government deficits. The reality is Government red ink is Obligatory Private Sector Debt that the public is forced to pay for.

@jimmuncy5636

3 жыл бұрын

@@Rob-fx2dw Thanks for reading and replying; I've read your other comments on other threads, if memory serves. You seem very impassioned about this subject. Are you an economist? I'm not. Have you read Kelton's "The Deficit Myth"? Or perused L. Randall Wray's "Why Minsky Matters" or his KZread video "Modern Monetary Theory for Beginners"? They and a few other convinced me. It did require a paradigm shift in thinking; MMT is very different, almost a mirror opposite to classic macroeconomics where governments are still seen as similar to household budgets, where the budget must balance, and that revenue must be accrued before spending can begin. That, according to MMT, is just not true. We can simply keystroke in the money to be spent and go to work on the project immediately -- as long as inflation doesn't get out of hand. We do that now, and inflation is around 1 per cent. I could go on, if you're even still with me, but enough said for now, except please don't hurl rhetorical brickbats at MMT people: They are not hucksters trying to "fool the American people." Although strangers to me, and probably you, we should give them, and you and me, the respect a speaker deserves, till proven to be a crank or a con man. We all want to improve living conditions in America and the world. If we put our heads together, we might just achieve that goal, no?

@Rob-fx2dw

3 жыл бұрын

@@jimmuncy5636 I am not an economist as such. I have studied economics all my teen and adult life and read quite a number of books and articles on the subject over a long time. I had for quite a long time followed money trails as part of my profession which involved detecting fraud. I am interested in the methods and varied strategies that people use to mask what is really happening by avoiding dealing with the facts. You could do well to learn some of the methods yourself to be able to distinguish between rubbish and the real facts. You say "MMT is very different, almost a mirror opposite to classic macroeconomics where governments are still seen as similar to household budgets, where the budget must balance, and that revenue must be accrued before spending can begin.". What you have demonstrated is you have swallowed MMT and are defending it. You have made no mention of any other books or accounts you have read. Just on the point of MMT claims why do you think that government must spend the money first when private banks create most of the money in the system? Why can't you understand that someone saying that the government is quote "Nothing like a household or business" does Not prove anything in itself. You just accept it even though the MMTers consistently use the language and compare households and business to make comparisons. Do you accept anything that people say without testing it against reality including mathematics? Do you think everyone in the past until the present MMTers arrived was just a fool who didn't realize that fiat money is just created out of nothing by journal entries ? It may be news to you that they all weren't and those who thought creating money and ignoring the accounting rules and principles to manage it which MMT is proposing will result in anything other than chaos?

@Rob-fx2dw

3 жыл бұрын

@@jimmuncy5636 You asked me whether I am an economist. What do you actually think an economist is ? What is or was you professional experience in regard to financial matters? Financial investigator, accountant, business operator, computer sytems engineer, auditor, banking?

@MrMarinus18

9 ай бұрын

It's also important to keep in mind that between 1920 and 1940 the fastest growing economy in the world was neither Germany nor the US, it was the Soviet-Union. While the Soviet-Union did eventually collapse this was due to a diverse amount of reasons one of which is that it was stuck in this growth mode and held to communist dogma even when it wasn't working. But the Soviet-Union started out as a ruined nation and completely isolated from international funds. Yet it still build up one of the most powerful industries the world had ever seen up till then. The reason it could do this is because of Stalin and the absolute power that he had. Every resource rather material or human was mobilized and no economic asset was unused to make the USSR into an industrial superpower. Now while Stalin's approach was obviously very extreme and came at a horrific cost it does prove that a nation in ruin with no money can build itself up very quickly if it just throws fiscal responsibility to the wind and is willing to use everything at it's disposal. I'm not saying we have to go to Stalin levels of extreme spending but it does show what is possible if you just ignore the concept entirely.

problem with large deficits is that it went to the one percent

@tonywilson4713

Жыл бұрын

I know its 3 years later but she recently said words to that effect. But this is even more pertinent as we come out of COVID into an era of inflation. The problem with the idea of public surplus isn't that we see it as public surplus instead of government deficit. The problem is WHO got that money and WHAT did we the people get for our money.

@MrMarinus18

9 ай бұрын

That is true and is a problem. Most government spending has gone to the 1% making them more and more and more powerful and capable of union busting, price gauging, political bribes and wage suppression.

@MrMarinus18

5 ай бұрын

Indeed. Deficits are not a problem on principle. What matters is what kind of spending you are doing and who benefits from it.

This is the moment I understand MMT.

Does she lecture flight theory for pilots too. I would like to see that one.

@Rob-fx2dw

Жыл бұрын

Her flight simulator crashed on that one just like her economic theory. Lucky it was only fantasy like her economics will crash an economy if tried in reality.

Those are the answers to questions that you have been unwilling to ask yourself because of what it means about actual government decisions.

mission oriented goals for budget, how very logical, why is it not the norm?

@mahnamahna3252

4 жыл бұрын

It is

@MrMarinus18

5 ай бұрын

Because the US government is horribly corrupt and is in the pocket of a handful of billionares who want to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. The US government has a massive problem but it's not with the deficit, it's with corruption.

Along with that aviary, we need an apiary (bees).

and since corona .... to Infinity and beyond!

@justwanttogarden8690

4 жыл бұрын

with an idle workforce ready and 'willing' to be recruited

Printer go BRRRRRR......... Everything's fine .

40:10 - The RED INK BLANCE & THE BLACK INK BALANCE Double Entry bookkeeping in balance

I usually explain that we use people and businesses to balance the govt budget instead of using the budget to balance the economy for people and businesses.

@Rob-fx2dw

3 жыл бұрын

Can you expain how a government deficit is funded and who is obliged to pay it out? Can you explain why a deficit of government is a saving for anyone else ?

I'm generally a supporter of MMT, but doesn't fractional reserve banking make it possible for the gov to collect more in taxes than were spent into the economy? Private banks also play a role in expanding the money supply to private people and businesses. it's not just the central banks. However, I suppose the "real" amount of money in the economy is what the private banks hold as deposits, not loans.

I'm not an austrian school enthusiast by any means, but a few problems I have include, Inflation, govts notorious inability to effectively allocate capital accompanied by rates rising and the US is privileged as it has the reserve currency status....for now. Plus, for the people to be truly free, private central banks need to end.

@jordanmole6298

2 жыл бұрын

@@lepidoptera9337 You're right, by the way this was some time ago and since, I've become more of a kelton fan. To be more specific, end fractional reserve banking like the Fed tho, we must provide context as prior to the Fed, there were liquidity problems in the banking sector so it's not a simple answer. One fact is that the Fed have failed to achieve their goals of maintaining stable prices and keeping inflation low. Cheers.

@MrMarinus18

9 ай бұрын

@@jordanmole6298 The inflation the US is experiencing is not really related to government spending at all. Rather it is mostly because the lack of regulation and enforcement has allowed enormous market concentrations which has enabled price gauging. US corporations don't charge more because the economy forces them to. They charge more because they have the power to do that. Covid and the Trump tax cuts and deregulations enabled an enormous amount of additional market concentration and they are now taking advantage of that. Profits of US companies are at all time highs because of all that price gauging. The US government could put a stop to this with windfall profits tax and better anti-trust enforcement. Unfortunately those corporations have armies of lobbyists on congress to make sure this doesn't happen. In total terms the US inflation right now is actually very modest and well within safe limits. The problem though is that price gauging means that prices for consumers are still very high. It's also the fact that decades of wage stagnation are catching up to the economy with most of people's savings wiped out by Covid.

"You need a new bird in this aviary, because there are things these dodos don't see"

23:23 In 1960 we were at zero. According to Kelton the lines are a mirror image but there's a downward trend shared (not mirrored) - loot at 2005 both lines are at -3% of GDP. We're getting poorer.

Bad Religion - American Jesus........ Very apt soundtrack to the gospel of disastrophy.

Deficits and debt don't matter until they do. There are tipping points where debt service becomes excessive or there is hyper inflation. The Fed has to manage the money supply.

@NoExitLoveNow

5 жыл бұрын

Tipping points? That sounds well researched and factual and not something you made up.

@NoExitLoveNow

5 жыл бұрын

The government controls the overnight interest rate so interest can be < growth almost all of the time. As long as i < g most of the time debt service is easy. Japan's government debt to GDP ratio sits at 236% in 2017, more than double that of the U.S., which stands at 108%. The way you service the debt is just add the interest payments to the accounts of the bond holders electronically.

@MrMarinus18

9 ай бұрын

When it comes to internal matters there is a name for this ability to spend infinitely: Sovereignty. When Russia became communist in 1919 it was completely cut off from foreign currency and it's land was in ruins and it's treasury was gone. Yet during the next 20 years it had a higher economic growth than any other country in the world. That money didn't come from the people as they were all dirt poor and a lot of industry had been destroyed in the war.

@bernardwatts5339

6 ай бұрын

“How did you go bankrupt?" Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.” ― Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises

@thomasd2444

2 ай бұрын

Been 4 years since you left this comment @dougwhiting7631 . You got the word "debt" out of your thinking when talking about a Currency-Issuing-Government's RED INK BALANCE & BLACK INK BALANCE ?

In a crash/depression the government becomes the spender of last resort. It's what they spend it on that matters. Pork, a bridge to no where, or a tax break to a special interest group.

Well, private banks also pump new money into the economy (as debt) as well as the state.

@Rob-fx2dw

4 жыл бұрын

Private banks do create credit money but that collapses when the mortgages and loans they create are paid off and the credit ceases to exist. That has not happened with Federal governments who have created excessive credit that is sold to the Federal reserve in exchange for more fiat money that government spends as part of their budget. That credit stays in the economy as new fiat money. It is not destroyed like private credit is.

@DrBenVincent

4 жыл бұрын

Rob. Agree, but the proportion of debt based money is not small. And because most lay people don’t know about, it is a good reason to spread awareness

@neilanderson891

4 жыл бұрын

@@Rob-fx2dw --> You're right about how the money supply is reduced when mortgages and loans mature. Actually, the "fiat money" created by the Fed is also "destroyed" (which reduces the money supply) whenever a bond owned-by-the-Fed matures. The Fed receives cash from the US Treasury (i.e., the redemption proceeds), which came from tax revenues paid by you, me and Stephanie Kelton, etc. The cash thus returned to the Fed is no longer "money". The money supply is thus reduced, unless the Fed uses the redemption proceeds (i.e., cash received) to buy more bonds, which puts that money (i.e., the redemption proceeds) into the bank accounts of some ex-bondholders. The Fed has to keep buying bonds at the same rate bonds mature, or else the money supply will be reduced. Generally speaking the money supply (M2, specifically) has grown a bit faster than 6% per year since 1945. That's justified as 2% for population growth, plus 2% for productivity growth, plus 2% for desired inflation (which was not an official goal of the Fed until 2012, or so.)

@Rob-fx2dw

4 жыл бұрын

@@neilanderson891 Yes. Maturing loans in the private sector destroy money. The issue with Federal (central ) government bonds is also much the same but base money is not destroyed unless the Federal government does not decrease their overall net number of bonds which would decrease the national debt. The practice of continued increases in federal bonds is a political decision which has been so for most countries for many years. It is the attraction for politicians of getting more money from either the private sector by selling bonds has allowed increases in government spending without raising taxes that is the motivation for this expansion of credit and base money. The other money that the Fed can raise in through sales of bonds to the Fed which is straight base money creation. Maturing bonds which were sold to the Fed also require the government to pay them out on maturity. The money to do that is collected by the government via taxes that the private sector pays. That is a money transfer where no dollars are destroyed but credit is destroyed. The confusion of MMT is among other things a failure to distinguish between credit, fiat money (which appears on credit documents but which is not money itself) and base money and also fails to see that taxation does not destroy money but is merely money transfer from the private sector to the government sector which spends it again. You also mention the 2% target inflation . That is just a political decision again to allow politicians to spend more and which has no rational basis. That is despite claims that people would not spend if there was no inflation. Ha Ha . Everyone would stop getting health care or eating or stop paying rent or stop buying cars or going to the movies or holidays or stop investing if there was not 2% inflation !!- How utterly absurd an idea based on stupidity and failure to observe !. Thre is no economic need for money expansion. Prices adjust if money is more scarce and taht is the natural factor not some politically attractive policy of 2%. over the past 60 yeras or more most economies have had to eliminate their smaller denominations because specifically the results of loss of purchasing power of their currencies due to money expansion.

@neilanderson891

4 жыл бұрын

@@Rob-fx2dw --> Rob said, "The issue with Federal (central ) government bonds is also much the same but base money is not destroyed unless the Federal government does not decrease their overall net number of bonds which would decrease the national debt." ... I disagree with what you said, or may be how you said it. Rob said, "The practice of continued increases in federal bonds is a political decision ..." Yup, but the low "Treasury Bond interest rates" that we're addicted to are the result of China's unfair tariffs imposed over the decades you rightly mentioned: We buy goods from China, and Chinese companies get our dollars, but they don't buy US goods because the Chinese Government slaps tariffs on US goods, making them too expensive for Chinese to buy (ie, cost-noncompetitive with goods made by other Chinese companies.) So what happens to our dollars? Well, the People's Bank of China prints enough yuan to buy ALL the US dollars that the Chinese companies are holding (because our US goods appear to be too expensive due to the tariffs.) These tariffs are the means by which the People's Bank of China obtains lots of US dollars (which were bought by China's Central Bank [[with newly-printed yuan]] from said Chinese companies) ... and then the People's Bank of China buys US Treasury Bonds, which is why our interest rates on our Treasury Bonds are so low .... which encourages politicians to see it as "free" money ... and now we're addicted, due to China's tariffs and the politicians' creation of entitlements. When inflation hits China, all China's central bank has to do is reduce their money supply by selling US Treasuries for US cash (which would tend to raise US Treasury bond interest rates), and then using the US cash to buy-up the excess yuan in circulation. But that puts dollars into circulation ... which puts the US at risk of inflation, which could cause stagflation. I have more to say (against) MMT, but running outta time. I'm completely against MMT. It harks back to the Medieval era; It's not Modern at all.

Remember...chain...🎼

The introductory vid of pols being deficit hawks showed demagogues. Did they know they were being demagogic?

.....wait and see....

Debt is a forecast of future earnings. So, taking out debt to facilitate economic production is good and taking out debt to pay for bastard children is bad. Why you are taking out debt is much more important then the amount of debt.

An interview Stephanie did on Feb 8, 2024 titled “Was MMT right about inflation?” at 12:25 she says, “We are getting real GDP numbers that are eye popping”---She is ignoring the elephant in the room which is, how much debt was incurred to get those “eye popping numbers”? In 2023 the US government borrowed $3.2 Trillion, of which only $2.4 Trillion of GDP was recorded. The remaining $800 Billion generated ZERO economic activity whatsoever. She talks about the “multiplier effects” yet every 5 year period since 2006, GDP grew by much less than the increase in the debt which means that money vanished without generating any GDP activity. We would have been far better off taking the entire $3.2 Trillion borrowed and spent it entirely on battle tanks and aircraft carriers. We would have gotten at least $3.2 trillion in economic activity from such wasteful spending and that is with no economic multiplier effect, which is pretty hard to do. This consistent, horrific economic multiplier effect of less than 1, for the last 18 years goes against MMT theory. This theft from the US populace shows that government cannot, and should not manage all but the smallest amount of public money since they are evaporating money in a way that not even the Mafia could do.

It would be disastrous for the mass USD savings and asset holders if such guy or the like becomes America's Treasury Secretary or FED chairperson.

I'll got to my bank and tell them that my credit card debt is a savings clock, sounds better.

I would like you to become the Japanese Minister of Finance or the President of the Bank of Japan.

Increasing money is no problem but to ensure that the spending will reflect in production is the key issue. The question is that US can increase the money and spending but who produce is another country. Then the benefit of production and employment will be in other country. Who can guarantee that the money expansion and production will occur in the same country in the today's globalized world, where the multinational companies just look for the cheapest country to produz.

@MrMarinus18

9 ай бұрын

Yeah, just giving blank checks to corporations and letting them do whatever they want with it is a bad idea and this strategy has really screwed over Europe and the US. What we should do is create state owned corporations or buy private ones so that the government can maintain control of it. If we do use private contracts they need to be under severe limitations. This model actually does still exist in the US for the military. The military industrial complex has heavy restrictions put on it on what it can do and who it can sell what to.

35:37 -

They like to wait & see so....OK ...

Now that everyone in the world is worried about money printing, I can't help but start looking in the other direction. Going to be hard to deny MMT if don't have our "day of reckoning" within the next 10 years. The debt hawks thesis is money supply and inflation increase at a 1:1 ratio. Twice as much money in existence = twice as high of prices? I really don't feel like I have to pay back the national debt... or my kids.. I mean I could just never work again? Then how are they going to get it.

@MrMarinus18

5 ай бұрын

One thing though is that deficit arguments are almost always made in bad faith. The ones who complain most about the deficit are usually the ones who add most to it.

Magic wand what is that.if I have one I like to be Pinocchio 😂

Print, print, print money, yeah that solves the problem.

We need to shift from “deficits are bad” or “how are we gonna pay for it” to “Who is being helped and is anyone getting hurt?”

@Rob-fx2dw

5 жыл бұрын

Yes, many are getting hurt badly when the value of their savings for retirement are being siphoned off by government debts as a result of deficits funded by money expansion. That is why deficits funded by money expansion are no allowed in State governments or any other institution or by any individual Except the monopoly Federal government.

@BanBb1

4 жыл бұрын

@@Rob-fx2dw Did you view the video? First, State governments don't print money. They are dependent on spending by the Federal Government which does print money. Don't feel too badly, I understand that it is difficult giving up political talking points even when there is absolutely no proof in history that they are correct and that they actually make no sense at all.

@Rob-fx2dw

4 жыл бұрын

@@BanBb1 State government do not depend on Federal governments printing more or excessive money. In years when the money supply has not increased the states have not run out of money. State governments existed before the central governments had money printing of fiat money that exists today. That is evidence of fact. You didn't read what I said which is "That is why deficits funded by money expansion are no allowed in State governments or any other institution or by any individual except the monopoly Federal government". It is about the sound policy of not allowing governments to print money because it does not work to the benefit of the people to have bad accounting practices which excessive money printing of fiat money supports by allowing politicians to be careless with the finances of the country. No surprise that you have criticized me of having no proof but appear to be unable to make sense of what I said since your reply shows you actually have put forward no supporting evidence of why one level of government should be restricted from practices that a higher level of government has monopoly power over such as excessive money printing which has ruined many countries' economies. Where is your evidence?

@BanBb1

4 жыл бұрын

@@Rob-fx2dw That my friend is wrong. Every state is dependent on federal funding. We have had more dollars in the system than we can back with gold since the early seventies, nothing is new here except the relatively new approach understanding the ramifications of that. Japan has been severly in the red since the nineties. Their debt is 2 1/2 times it's GDP with no adverse affect, no inflation. There have been other examples. This contradicts all of your tired old assumptions about printing new money. As long as there is room for growth in our economy, our government should continue to print and spend new currency until our econonomy is running at full capacity. That is the crux of what she is saying here.

@Rob-fx2dw

4 жыл бұрын

@@BanBb1 No-. You make the mistake of assuming that there is some fixed relationship between the number of dollars in the economy and the wealth of the economy. That is simply not true and proven so by the fact that countries with the highest number of currency units or who have expanded their number of curency units are Not the richest which they would be if more currency units created more wealth. In some cases they are the poorest. So your assumption is false to begin with. As for the statement " We have had more dollars in the system than we can back with gold since the early seventies, nothing is new here except the relatively new approach understanding the ramifications of that". Yes that is true there are more dollars in the system but also the facts are the currency - dollars buy less than they did when there was a gold standard and restricted dollar growth. Just look at the price of a hamburger in 1970 which was roughly 30 cents and now is 6 dollars. Same with many other prices of consumer goods. - Take a compact sporty car like a Chevrolet Camaro or Ford Mustang or Chrysler Charger which was $3,500 in 1969 and now is $40,000 dollars or more. You claim government printing more money allows growth in the economy but more growth occurred under the gold standard of the 1950's than any other subsequent period. You are arguing against historical fact. How did that happen if more money is required for more growth? The crux of what she is saying is based on false assumptions that are easily proven to be wrong in many respects. Proven wrong by historical facts.

Kelton's argument at the 33 .00 mark of this presentation about the debt service not being a problem is a fallacy since servicing the Chinese foreign debt is problem itself just as the servicing of any debt is a problem if you have to print more dollars will result in inflation and a desire for more goods from any other overseas supplier in a third country will be a problem if increased numbers of dollars apear and China and any other country does not want more because they cannot get rid of them either to buy US goods which have become more expensive for the US to produce or to pay for third county goods whose suppliers want higher amounts of US dollars for simply because the US dollars are more abundant and buy less.

@dansmith2808

4 жыл бұрын

Wrong! The government can create and put in as much money into the economy as it wants without creating any inflation unless too many people now can afford to and want to buy the latest widget, but now the demand is higher than the supply. Now you have inflation because the manufacturer of the widget can sell everything they manufacture at an inflated price. More manufacturers of the highly profitable widget come online and now there is an over supply so in order to sell all the widgets that they manufacture the price falls based on the supply and demand. China needs the US and the rest of the world to buy their products or their economy will suffer. The more China sells, the more $$'s they have to buy treasuries.

@BanBb1

4 жыл бұрын

@@dansmith2808 Yes the government can and should print and spend as much money as it takes to keep our economy running at full capacity, no more, no less. It is as simple as that.

This is misleading. The government does NOT issue currency. It is issued by the central bank. If the government was the one to actually issue currency then there wouldn't be debt in the first place.

@MrMarinus18

5 ай бұрын

There isn't debt since the gold standard is gone. Calling it "debt" is an anachronism from when the government was borrowing gold in exchange for treasuries. In fact without the gold standard treasuries could be abolished altogether.

That paradigm shift has already taken place. UK governments have been practicing what you preach for decades. Why are you saying this is new?

I have gone through most of the comments here. A point that to the best of my knowledge has not been addressed except in one of my comments is the fact that our fiat monetary system relies on trust in the full faith and credit of the US. This is nothing new it always has, even under that gold standard. The day that we could no longer give a dollars’ worth of gold on demand for a paper one dollar bill would have meant the end of trust in the US. We are all arguing about a system that is in fact printing new money and spending it daily. The national debt in reality is of little concern to the people in charge as with deficit spending. The fact that we even have to borrow the money we print relates to the full faith issue. Many people here have regurgitated the same complaints about the ramifications of printing new money to pay for government spending, by referring to the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe. This is the basis for the charade. We have to look responsible from a gold standard viewpoint, in fear of losing trust in the US dollar. I say that if on the day the world loses trust in the US dollar, we will certainly have bigger problems to worry about.

@MrMarinus18

5 ай бұрын

Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe faced hyperinflation due to massive economic collapse. It wasn't printing money that brought hyperinflation, it was economic collapse. If your economy suddenly drops by like 40% in a matter of weeks the faith in the value of your currency is going to disappear.

@BanBb1

5 ай бұрын

@@MrMarinus18 Yes and both countries had massive real debt denominated in foreign currency, not in their own.

Why am I so suspicious of lecturers who pour assertions faster than the audience can reflect on their validity?

@thomasd2444

2 ай бұрын

Good to be skeptical. Not everyone can see the flow of money from account to account in 37 seconds

The budget deficit/national debt controversy would disappear if congress would reform the accounting system to reflect the fact that money "borrowed" from central banks (in our case, the Fed Res Bank) is NOT ACTUALLY DEBT, because it will never be repaid! Currency inflation money is simply a form of taxation, an alternative form of gov't financing in place of income tax. It definitely constitutes deficit, but it does NOT constitute debt. And, it is a very 'progressive' form of taxation, in that the burden falls far more heavily on the rich., which pleases those on the political left.

@Rob-fx2dw

3 жыл бұрын

You are so totally wrong. You have a very limited understanding of the national debt. The national debt is being repaid throughout every year because it is comprised of Treasury bonds and securities that mature over time and have to be paid out to the people or institutions who bought the bonds initially. Taxes are used to pay those maturing bonds. How the hell do you think money to fund deficits is obtained by government in the first place?

@clarestucki5151

3 жыл бұрын

@@Rob-fx2dw I do not dispute a single word of your response, but I fear you do not understand my post. So, in response to your question (" How the hell . . ." etc.) I would point out that all gov't revenue comes from three sources; 1), taxes, 2) borrowing (sale of bonds and securities), or 3), money newly created out of thin air by the Fed Res Bank. So, specify what I've said that you claim is "totally wrong".

@Rob-fx2dw

3 жыл бұрын

@@clarestucki5151 You seem to be unaware that most money in the economy of every country does Not come from the Reserve banks. We live in a fiat money based system and the fact is private banks produce most of the money (out of thin air) through their lending process. They have a license to do that if they want to for any borrower or not. It is their risk to do so. When someone takes out a loan the bank credits the borrower's account with newly created money by typing into their account. That money is spent on anything including - housing, taxes, a car, or whatever they spend it on. What you also don't seem to know is All of the money that created the national debt of 30 years ago has already been paid back when the bonds created to borrow that money matured. Some of it was short term borrowings that was paid back within one year or less. What you see as the sum of the national debt today is all the debt that has been created since then and some of it was created last year or the recent years before. Some is short term debt that will mature in a few years or less and that will mature throughout every year and has to be paid out when it matures. the national debt is constantly coming to maturity and constantly being expanded when new debt is being sold. But it all comes to maturity and has to be paid out.

@clarestucki5151

3 жыл бұрын

@@Rob-fx2dw Mostly agree on everything BUT the part about private banks creating "most of the money thru their lending process". That is a total myth (as in utter bullshit) and I don't care how many economics textbooks and how many economics teachers have told you otherwise. Private banks cannot "create money"! When someone takes out a loan, the bank credits the borrower's account with money from the bank's (stockholder's) capital, with money the bank's customers have deposited, or with money the bank has borrowed from the Fed Res. Think about it, if private banks could create money "out of thin air", as the textbooks claim, wouldn't all bankers be gazillionaires?

@Rob-fx2dw

3 жыл бұрын

@@clarestucki5151 Your claim of banks only lending out deposits or money from the Reserve bank is also in conflict with the banking systems in many countries including the US which adheres to the principle of Fractional Reserve banking whereby private banks have to retain an amount of money (a small percentage of loans) in an account at the Reserve bank instead of being able to create unlimited amounts of money to borrowers.

Kleton wrong again. Auctions for government bonds are NOT always over subscribed. The evidence is that the recent sales of government bonds in the US have not been all taken up by investors so the Federal Reserve has bought the shortfall of unwanted bonds.

rwo hands...

Stephanie Kelton has some magical thinking going on when it comes to economics. MMT is like the book "The Secret" applied to the realm of economics. Not reality based at all.

....Pound.....😂

Sports... nothing to much money come😑

She’s right, I just hope conservatives don’t get the idea to do this type of spending in a trickle down way exacerbating the disparity of wealth even more. Supportive of her method as it will be the way forward when the economy stops because if we do more austerity we might very well have pitchforks in the streets.

@Rob-fx2dw

4 жыл бұрын

Wrong description at the 13 minute mark of what happens when deficits occur. It is due to ignorance of the reality or a willfully ignoring the facts e when presenting the graph that allows Kelton to put over this faulty view of what happens. The description is the short term excessive fiat money supply only view which also ignores the facts that government spending takes goods and services from the private sector . The fact is when deficits occur the central Federal government spends borrowed money that it has obtained from the Federal reserve or from treasury bond sales. That spending and bond sales situation creates a debt that the private sector is obliged to pay back on maturity and pay the interest on in the meantime.

@ChalrieD

4 жыл бұрын

Rob minute 13 doesn’t have a graph.

@ChalrieD

4 жыл бұрын

Rob What you describe will eventually happen if the debt get’s too high. Believe what Kelton and her ilk are describing is that we have one huge debt number until that happens and so we ought to spend on a green new deal.

@Rob-fx2dw

4 жыл бұрын

@@ChalrieD You say -"if the debt gets to high". But that debt is "too high" because any additions to the debt create a burden that the ordinary person already cannot pay. They already are having difficulty paying their debts and defaults and growing debt such as student loans and car payments and credit card debts are growing unsustainably. No additional government spending can relieve the economy of that debt since Federal governments with the help of the Federal reserve create debt money (fiat money ) and not real wealth that the private sector creates.

@ChalrieD

4 жыл бұрын

Rob Trump guys don’t care about the debt, they only care about the value of the 401K and unemployment. I don’t care about government debt either really, we’re going to need to spend massive debt to get out of this Malaise we have been in for some time.

Kelton now claims that the inflation we see and experience is just a sign of' growing pains' in the economy. Such stupidity is rarely heard.

@MrMarinus18

5 ай бұрын

Since the US is a capitalist economy inflation is the fault of corporations. After all corporations set prices, not the government.

@Rob-fx2dw

5 ай бұрын

@@MrMarinus18 Wrong again - Rising prices are not inflation. They are the result of inflated amounts of money put into the economy usually by the biggest monopoly in the country which is the Federal government. If you think you know how it all happens then try setting prices as a business competitor alongside other businesses and see how it goes for you.

At 31:20 Kelton is either too stupid or just being outright deceptive to say that interest bearing deposits are not a problem. The fact is they are since the US government uses people's taxes to pay the interest on them and later have to pay the full amount when requested by the holders. The taxpayers foot this bill.

@thomasd2444

4 жыл бұрын

Rob strikes out , again lol keep studying

She only looks at government spending but forgets that big corporations take money from the poor and give it to their share holders that get richer and richer. Inequalities is the big issue, not just austerity vs deficit spending.

@kathryntokarska6062

5 жыл бұрын

Actually she doesn't, but this is just a 45 minute lecture, there are more lectures of Ms. Kelton that are very much worth exploring. Austerity through less than full employment, shifts a greater share of GDP away from labor to capital. The unemployed are being used a buffer stock against inflation.

@666mandrake

5 жыл бұрын

I admit I dont understand what you are saying. My worry is that when corporations become more efficient, they reduce their workforce. Then it takes money away from the middle class. Who in turn, stop spending their money to buy consumer product that they can no longer afford. Its this vicious circle that cannot be fixed through austerity. Do you see my point? Your explanation about GDP and buffer against inflation, I do not really understand. I think it is a simple problem of better distribution of wealth. To allow more people to participate in the economy. Is this not your view also?

@kathryntokarska6062

5 жыл бұрын

Technology, innovation has and will continue to decrease the amount of work that must be performed by humans. I don't think it makes sense to fight against such things as it would be to keep horses employed to pull carriages or elevator service man who used to push the buttons and operate the doors. There's a great chart that shows how much productivity has increased over the previous 50 years and yet the hours we work haven't changed, and the wealth generated by that productivity seems to have gone to the top while rest of us have benefited from cheap production, exportation of slavery to other countries. Prof Kelton has a great video called something "angry birds guide to understanding deficits" where I think she drives in the idea that spending drives sales, which drives the economy. Sufficient money in the hands of the people who have many needs for products and services creates economic activity. Extra money in pockets of those who already have enough to meet and exceed their daily needs, well that money goes to buy politicians and gets Bills passed that help those already with wealth and power maintain and grow that wealth and power.

@kathryntokarska6062

5 жыл бұрын

@@666mandrake Too much money in the economy, chasing too few goods, such as when production has reached maximum capacity, not another widget can be made, so an extra dollar now will just mean people bid up the price of what is available, this causes inflation. By keeping people unemployed, it's a buffer against inflation. I don't agree with this of course. It's one thing to have real estate, a mall, or something like that laying in waste, it's another to send human beings looking for work that isn't there because there isn't enough for everyone. Until there is enough work for every person who wants to work there is no reason to point fingers are those who don't want to work. I'm all for cutting the work week down to 3-4 days.

@kathryntokarska6062

5 жыл бұрын

@@666mandrake Yes, better distribution of wealth, I totally agree with you. Wealth is not in the money, it's in the natural resources: real estate, space, time, labor, minerals, water, fertile soil, ingenuity, etc... Currency facilitiates the transactions, govt created unemployment, how the govt provisions itself, how goods and services are distributed. What we actually seek is love, security, quality education, food, shelter, healthcare, self actualization.

Simple ask government sold U.S asset.....TA..DA.

All this babble at tne 22 minute mark of this video about creating financial surpluses when the real needs of pepole in the economy are actual goods and services Not exceses of financials like what happened by causing an excess of financials in the lead up to the collapse we know as the GFC.

@richardmillar2412

4 жыл бұрын

Jeeeeeee......Look who it is?????

@Rob-fx2dw

4 жыл бұрын

@@richardmillar2412 Another inane comment by Richard Millar. - Nothing to add to the discussion again Richard. Just a repeated ad hominem attack !! That again shows everyone your mindset.

@richardmillar2412

4 жыл бұрын

@@Rob-fx2dw How was that an "Ad Hominem" attack? You lack understanding of basic latin, just like your inability to spell or understand economics!

@richardmillar2412

4 жыл бұрын

"All this babble at tne 22 minute mark of this video about creating financial surpluses when the real needs of pepole in the economy are actual goods and services" MMT Et. al are on record stating that the real needs of the economy are the actual goods and services. Remember when Kelton spoke about Greenspan's congressional testimony? kzread.info/dash/bejne/aIxpk7iJkbvfops.html (4:03) "Not exceses of financials like what happened by causing an excess of financials in the lead up to the collapse we know as the GFC." As usual, you leave out the culpability of private speculators. They are the ones who wrecked the global economy in 2008!

@Rob-fx2dw

4 жыл бұрын

@@richardmillar2412 Not interested in talking to you Millar - you have been a serial abuser of what I comment on. You contributed nothing of intelligent comment to discussions.

Devil's voice from the hell.

Good luck with national debt 🤥

Totally misleading and a little bit childish exposition of government debt given the institutional setting of today. Has she ever heard of Greece? This view and vision is sustainable only if g. would „print“ money and buys goods and services outright circumventing capital market where private banks are willing to buy bonds because they earn eternal interest. Most economist are horrified neglect her vision because of historical examples of hyper inflation (GER in the twenties). In principle she is right but seems not to be able to step deeper into the matter. A precondition for going practice would be an integrated central bank and treasury. Monetary and fiscal policy would be one and the same thing. A completely new institutional setting would be needed. And the end of the somehow parasitic collecting interest for nothing by Rothschild etc. . Therefore there are some minor problems ;) with this vision. But nevertheless, she’s on the right track. In principle.

@NoExitLoveNow

5 жыл бұрын

You have to be completely ignorant to think she doesn't know about Greece. Of course, Greece was part of the Euro and so did not have monetary independence because it uses the Euro. Your third sentence is gibberish. You would need to flesh that out in order for it to make any sense. Regarding hyper inflation, we don't have anything at all like that and hyperinflation is accompanied by supply shocks - as was GER in the twenties. Of course, monetary and fiscal policy are not ever the same thing. Fiscal policy adds money into the economy while monetary policy swaps money for bonds of equal value. Your comments about the Rothschilds is gibberish. You would need to flesh that out in order for it to make any sense. You talk with a lot of confidence, which I don't think you have earned.

@grantbeerling4396

4 жыл бұрын

Greece is not a Fiat Currency, its like local government that is a user of currency so it cannot print. That is why it was wise for the UK to keep its own sovereign currency. To Quote Bill Mitchell "Germany; you will recall that the French and Belgian armies then retaliated after the German default and took over the industrial area of the Ruhr - Germany’s mining and manufacturing heartland. The Germans, in turn, stopped work and production ground to a halt. The Germans kept paying the workers in local currency despite limited production being possible and you can imagine that nominal demand quickly started to rise relative to real output which was grinding to a halt. The crunch came when the export trade stalled and the only way the German Government could keep paying their treaty obligations etc was to keep spending. The inflation followed." So without using a resource ( paid labour) to produce ( something to exchange for another currency). Its not the currency, but the output, the value of the resource.

Kelton hypothesizes "she spends ten pounds into the economy and taxes out 4 pounds, and claims the economy has a six pound "gain", making it better off. She never explains where the original 10 pounds came from. That's a stupid analogy!

@rickydas9779

3 жыл бұрын

By issuing currency (aka money printer go brrrr)

@pillmuncher67

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, exactly! She never mentions the money mines in the Appalachian Mountains, where hard working miners dig up Dollars with their shovels and picks!

@Rob-fx2dw

2 жыл бұрын

She never mentions that it has to be paid back when the bonds that were created and sold to the Reserve bank mature and that the funds for those payouts come from taxes on private sector people. No, no, because then the MMT deception would be exposed as fraudulent information being peddled by politically motivated MMT economists.

That graph is NOT correct. When I left the military right after the Regan Era where military were not given the free education etc. there was a recession that put me on the street for years. (1987). My father suffered in 1965 working hard trying to keep a job. I lived through this so don't say that I am wrong. I know what happened. By your argument WAR is a good thing because both countries have their governments go into debt. Not true. War is a WASTE of resources. Look at your budgets again and account for war, oil embargo, steel union strikes and other factors like global military operations: Condor, 1955 Honduras, etc. This plays out a bit differently on your story. Further, we have things like Bernie Maddoff who STOLE 30 to 60 BILLION. How many other thieves are out there that have yet to be caught. Then we have LICENCE TO STEAL Supreme Court. This was a good argument. Still think it is better that the US is out of debt because then they can go to the World Bank and bail out our foreign allies, like what Russia. Russia paid off all of their world debt two years ahead of schedule.

Prof. Kelton gets an F in basic accounting. She might get an A in economics: A for alchemy.

Kelton's claim about deficits at the Federal level at the 22 minute mark "somebody got made better off in financial terms " Yep. - That somebody was whoever spent that new deficit created money first. The undisputable facts are :- That was the government which bought goods and services from the private sector before anyone in the private sector had the opportunity to do so. Not someone in the private sector who then had to compete with government for the resources but who could not run a deficit because the federal government had exclusive monopoly power to do that and how can anyone compete for private sector resources against a monopoly that has the power to out bid any person in the private sector by printing more money.

@richardmillar2412

4 жыл бұрын

You're not making any sense!! As usual!!

@Rob-fx2dw

4 жыл бұрын

@@richardmillar2412 Again nothing that you would understand. - back to pre school for you !!

@Rob-fx2dw

4 жыл бұрын

@@richardmillar2412 Just abuse from you again. - No economics discussion. - No surprise.

@Rob-fx2dw

4 жыл бұрын

@@richardmillar2412 Your blank reply. No economics discussion again. No surprise.

@richardmillar2412

4 жыл бұрын

@@Rob-fx2dw You have ZERO knowledge about economics, why would I discuss with someone with the intelligence quotient of a snail? Why don't you take some yoga classes Roberta?

What a naive and misunderstanding of human nature.

Kelton is so dangerous, equal parts eloquent and misguided

@Herbwise

3 жыл бұрын

You have contributed nothing to this discussion. Troll.

@MichaelSmith-fw6st

3 жыл бұрын

@@Herbwise... not to mention having missed the entire point. I believe the task ahead will face the same reaction that I've received. That the logic is not received with curiosity with a resolve to investigate the viable possibilities but instead is attacked as if it were personal insult. There are many an oversized ego to overcome. (Or softened with massage-like diplomacy.)

@Rob-fx2dw

3 жыл бұрын

@@Herbwise And you have contributed nothing but Abuse .

What's with all these Jews pushing MMT???

Kelton is afraid to call out Classical Economists for being the corporate stooges that they are.

...Just number... 🪠👽🤖👻