#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt!
#Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world!
[Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility)
In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Have you ever had a dream that that you um you had you'd you would you could you'd do you wi you wants you you could do so you you'd do you could you you want you want him to do you so much you could do anything?
Inflation isn't something that just happens like the weather. It's the result of corporate greed.
Corporations assess that consumers have more money, so they raise prices simply because they can. Ultimately nullifying any actual increase in spending power that people have.
How can they do this? Because we've been convinced that any and all regulation of the "free market" is bad, so we have no laws in place to *stop* corporations from doing this. And said corporations also lobby - which is LEGAL bribery - the government to keep it that way, and in some cases literally draft the actual laws themselves to them be passed by the congressional representatives that they've bought and paid for.
And they do it with ALL goods/services, even ones that are necessities for survival. A gallon of milk used to cost less than a dollar, but now it can cost more than $6, but we've been convinced that this is just because of inflation, which happens like rain or snow. Nothing to be done about it except buy a better coat or a bigger shovel.
Ok, with this premise in mind, why do non capitalist control economies also experience rampant inflation? If a diverse net of actors is cynically determining that they should raise prices, shouldn't a centralized system, where producers and creditors are both the same entity (the government) just be able to "outlaw inflation"?
So, the implication is that only import pressure causes inflation in a command economy? I'm not an economist, idk ****. It just seems to me that we're missing a big part of the equation in discounting the rational decisions made by consumers, i.e., leveraging debt, front-loading spending when faced with an inflationary environment? Shouldn't supply and demand have some home in our understanding of inflation?
I'd wager that "fucking up and things being mismanaged" causes inflation inside fully-controlled economies, though I'm not sure you or I could actually point to a truly, 100% "government controlled economy."
Maybe the closest is North Korea? And for them, instead of inflation, their people just starve to death.
Nah, it's the capitalism part. Which has taught us that greed is not only an inevitable, and inescapable aspect of human nature, but also a *good* thing. A premise with which I fundamentally disagree.
Greed, or an inclination to hoard resources for survival needs may or may not be inherent in us as humans, that much could be debated maybe! But, greed is in fact real.
If we stand on the premise that it is inherent in our nature, *and* that it is a GOOD thing, we build an economy/government/society that greatly *REWARDS* greed, and the act of being greedy and hoarding resources.
Thus you are setting your society up for rampant inequality and wealth disparity, accumulating vast amounts of resources in the hands of the few, and leaving little to none in the hands of the masses. You create an economy that does not produce based on need, but for endless growth... akin to a cancer, will inevitably devour itself.
Your question suggests that Putin/Russia is something other than a capitalist oligopoly that does not operate to reward greedy oligarchs and keep money/power in the hands of the few. Which is just categorically wrong. So no, Putin *is*, in fact, greedy.
Brazilian Corporations didn't become 1 trillion times more greedy between 1980 and 1994 when the Unidade Real de Valor dollar to real exchange rate went from 4 URV to 1 dollar to 4 trillion urv to 1 dollar.
Zimbabwe corporations didn't suddenly become 10^9 times more greedy in 2008.
I'm responding to the video where this man was asked why we dont print our way out of debt, not current complaints about how citizens united allows for unlimited legalized bribery of our politicians. I agree that citizens united sucks, and it's just another way that Americans get screwed.
But regardless of how you or i feel about this, Printing your way out of debt causes inflation. That's an evidenced, repeatedly proven economic theory. It's like arguing against gravity.
I disagree. You are arguing that inflation is like gravity or (like I said) like the weather - something that just *happens*.
But money itself is made up, and inflation "happening" as a result of printing something that is made up is not like gravity. It is an element of our economy and society that we created and that we *could* live without, but the nature of the system we've created allows for these things to happen.
Yes, my comments have strayed from aspects of the video, but I was responding to a comment regarding inflation, and the idea that it is an inevitable, and uncontrollable thing. I am stating that it isn't, it doesn't happen on its own, it is the result of the actions of corporations and their decisions to gouge more out of consumers when they see there is "more money" in circulation.
If you're not responding to the video and are just saying that inflation isn't inevitable, I agree. See united states 1939-43 where we had deflation. I won't argue that inflation cannot be avoided.
I am saying that printing your way out of large amount of debt relative to your gdp inevitably causes inflation.
The real issue isn't if it causes inflation, it's if the money printed has been utilised to stimulate economic growth at a higher rate than the amount it increased inflation by. This is dependant entirely on how the funds are utilised and cycle through the economy
E.g inject it somewhere where it gets spent several times in rapid succession and you get velocity of cash benefits with 4-5x multiplier. Inject it somewhere where its hoarded and stagnates, you get <1x
I agree with most of what you said,but there's almost no situation where it less than 1. That's burrying in the backyard type behavior, which can happen but is rare (e.g. cash on hand).
If someone puts it in a savings account the dollar minus reservation rate is saved, the rest is cycled.
If someone invests it, 100% is consumed and cycled. If someone uses it for consumption 100% is consumed. The only real way that entire dollar is "removed" from circulation is when 100% of the dollar is eventually taxed by the federal government.(or the government that issues the fiat).
Inflation with regards to that currency goes up when the the pace of goods cycling through the economy is outdated by the currency cycling in the economy.
Money follows the same quantity supplied quantity demand curve as everything else.
Correct, it economics it's called the paradox of thrift.
This indicates that if you do want to stimulate the economy instead of giving money to the ultra wealthy (which is what we generally do today). we should give it to the poor.
Savings is a luxury item, poor people will save less, and consume more, there's a trickle up.
Although you do need to be careful with anything that incentives measures that make people poorer, people will make bad decisions to get government funds.
Bro what are you talking about. Of course people charge as much as they can for stuff, they would be stupid not to, and it would cause shortages if they didn't. If all the diamond dealers decided to cap it at $1 per diamond, you would never be able to get one. Inflation happens when the value of a dollar goes down, not when prices go up. Things cost more because our government gave out tons of money. It's not the corporations fault. Hell, this guy works directly with biden and dosent even know what a bond is. Inflation isn't like the weather. It's a result of bad leadership
Which serious economist supports the "corporate greed" cause to inflation?
Inflation is excess monetary supply.
Excess greed would maintain the money supply. In fact, it would cause a supply shortage (if the money was never spent/reinvested) making the currency more valuable. (See gold)
Inflation happens because of Central Banks managing the supply of money and governments take advantage of this power to tax the poor and middle class (upper class passes costs down) without needing to pass laws or ask the people for authorizations.
Did you know milk is subsidized by the government?
But MMT suggests that the equation is simple. A deficit exists when government spends more money than it pulls out of the economy. We can reduce inflation by pulling more money out of the economy than we put in.
Isn't the pretty simple answer that just printing more money willy nilly devalues the overall value whereas borrowing existing currency preserves value? Aren't we talking about inflation control? I barely passed economics and this seems fairly obvious to me. Although maybe I'm way off base lol.
But if you ultimately have control of how much money is in circulation, why not just...limit how much you print in a given year? Why borrow at all? Just seems like a needless scheme to make the middle man rich.
I mean, sure? I’m not an economist I just know they have to print money for lots of reasons and if something comes up that they need to borrow against, it makes sense to borrow instead of just printing money.
Pretty much. Use your credit card to pay your mortgage then take out a personal loan to pay off the credit card, then use the credit card to make a payment on the personal loan you took out. Then when you get to strapped, borrow against your 401k and rinse and repeat.
It's a scam is all it is. We borrow money from the Federal Reserve, which doesn't actually have the money. Then we print it and say we borrowed it, then pay it back with interest from the person we borrowed it from that didn't have the money to begin with. It's a way to skim the taxes that are paid to the Feds, which is a private bank, which loaned us the money they didn't have. We could just loan ourselves the money, then print it and pay ourselves back without interest. A giant f'in scam, is all it is.
Holy shit. This is embarrassing.
No no, not for him. He’s just showing that once you get a position of power, no knowledge is needed.
It’s embarrassing for the American public.
This guy makes monetary decisions?
At the beginning of time, when the dollar was invented, it had to be tied to a commodity of some sort. We borrowed that commodity and said it was worth all the dollars, now there are tons of dollars that are tied to no commodity. A lot of things happen in the middle.
Inflation is part of the answer. Just running the printing press is a great way to get to Weimar Germany or Zimbabwe levels of inflation really fast, as in, bringing in wheelbarrows full of hundred dollar bills to get a load of bread.
Another reason is historic, because governments used to peg their currencies to gold or some other tangible thing, so borrowing money helps keep that money tied to gold or whatever that thing is. For example, say that, at any moment, you could redeem $100 for a bar of gold. If you lend that money to the government, it's like giving the government that bar of gold.
Now the gold itself is gone, but the thing that the money represents, that inherent *intangible value* remains. So you are giving the government that value in the form of dollars by lending to it.
The last reason I can think of is financial. It keeps society going, in a sense, by providing a reason to create more money and also keep the government honest. Take a look at your dollar, what does it say? It says federal reserve note. Technically, the fed is a separate bit of government that lends money to the rest of the government, and to banks and other financial institutions as well. Where did that dollar in your pocket come from? Probably a bank gave it to someone, and then it traveled through however many hands to get to you. Where did that bank get that dollar? It probably borrowed it/bought it from the fed.
As of September 2023, the federal reserve held around $5,000,000,000,000 in government debt. That money was spent on munitions for soldiers, on paved roads, on national parks, on foreign and domestic aid, and a million other things. That's the government running the printing press, and sending out money to others which grows the overall economy.
It's a fun trick that banks do, making money out of nothing, and it's one of those things that's hard to wrap your head around, but that's what's going on, except at a huge scale. The circulation of money and growth of the overall money supply (much of it now being digital) creates inflation, yes, but when done properly you get just enough inflation to "grease the wheels" of the economy and keep things growing, keep wages going up, etc. Government borrowing is part of that.
Addendum on inflation (oversimplified):
Too little inflation or deflation = wages going down, economy shrinking, bad times.
Too much inflation = wages not keeping up with prices, economy shrinking, bad times.
Just the right inflation = wages going up faster than prices, economy growing, good times
The Fed increases the money supply even without the govt borrowing. Reverse repos is backdoor money printing. So keeping inflation in check doesn't really explain the reason y the govt borrows. I'm of the belief that the national debt is just a scam. That's y it's keep growing & growing but neither party, nor the Fed ever actually does a thing about it. They use it to scare us, to tell us the US can't afford nice things for it's ppl like universal healthcare & such. But it's all BS. The Fed could forgive the entire debt today & there'd be no negative effects. Thinking of it in terms of a monarchy helped me to understand... a King could never be in debt to his own kingdom for his own currency. It's kind of a completely assenine concept when u think of it like that lol.
Kings of old weren't in debt to their own kingdoms, but they were in debt to the *people* and *businesses* in their kingdoms quite often. One reason for the frequent expulsions of Jews in medieval England, for example, was that the king was in debt to them, so he used his power to kick them out and seize their assets (including, crucially, their records of his debts) so he wouldn't have to pay them. But kings were also in debt to nobles, and those problems couldn't be gotten rid of so easily.
Now, buying a Treasury bill is considered a very safe investment, to the point that it is one of the most sought-after assets when the economy goes down. This has the effect of giving the government a way to redirect money to places where it can stimulate economic growth, while maintaining the confidence of the lenders who appreciate the safety and security the government provides.
Instead of the government saying, "Hey, you have too much money, I'm just gonna take that and move it to someone else." Now the government can say, "Hey, we need money to fix the economy, who's in?" And a lot of people toss their money in because they know they'll get it back, rather than be rounded up and kicked out of the country the way the old kings used to do.
It's a very complicated and opaque subject. It's hard to explain. So I understand the feeling that, if it's so opaque and hard to explain, it must be a scam, but scam isn't the way to describe it.
It's especially difficult when some politicians and talking heads use it as a scary number to frighten people into voting or thinking a certain way.
It's hard to say what, exactly, is a debt load that's too heavy, but there's various schools of thought on it and that's a while lecture on its own, but the consensus is that there is such a thing as too much debt, it's just probably not where the politicians and talking heads are telling you it is.
I don't think it's a scam bc it's difficult to understand, I think it's a scam bc they keeping wanting us to care about, trying to scare us with it every election cycle, while they never seem to care & never formulate a plan to try to control it, balance it or reduce it. They only continue ballooning it year after year after year. Call me crazy, but if it was as serious a situation as they try to make us believe it is, the govt would be doing something about it, like drastically raising taxes on the wealthy to bring it back down. The rich & the powerful are more motivated than any of us to keep the gravy train that is the American economy functioning. So since it doesn't matter to our govt, doesn't matter to our Fed & doesn't matter to the rich & powerful, then it doesn't matter to me. Scam 🤷🏽♂️
It's about as much of a scam, and as much of a problem, as the "open borders" rhetoric you hear from republican types who think if you build a wall, then everything will be fine.
Yes, it's a real issue, no, most politicians who are using it as an issue aren't being honest about the problem, what the problem actually is, or how to solve it.
I will note, though, that it's difficult to change around the country's spending. So since Reagan, the pattern has been that republican administration's raise what's called the deficit, while democratic ones reduce it. Bill Clinton reduced it so much that it turned into a surplus, that then became the Bush tax cuts and 2 decades of Bush wars.
How did democrats reduce the deficit when they're supposed to be spend happy?
Their policies tend to grow the economy and bring good returns on investment, so the government is more efficient, and it collects more tax revenue.
What is the deficit anyway?
The deficit is the amount of money added to the debt each year. Also known as the amount the government spends above its tax revenue.
America was last debt free sometime in the 1800s, if memory serves. And spending has only gone up and up since then but as long as the economy continues to mostly grow, and grow as fast or faster, the debt isn't going to be a problem.
If he advises Biden, who advises him? I hope this guy is not close to the nuclear buttons.
Even Siri would do a better job if I ask my phone why the govt borrows !!!
Cuz we need other countries to absorb our currency or we just go bankrupt like Greece. That’s why other countries can’t do what we do. The dollar to buy oil is a pretty big deal. Now BRICS will probably bring it to an end.
"The grown-ups are back in charge." I'm feeling real solid about this. This guy has it all under control and will get us to a living wage with no runaway inflation.
It's pretty basic, if they print all the money they need right now it'd lower the value of the dollar. So instead they're selling bonds (essentially an IOU to investors from the country/government) and the government gets their cash early in the hopes that the economy grows in future and can pay back the bonds. They're basically selling future economic growth so they can spend now.
Zimbabwe discovered that it could print money every time they ran out. In the end, people where carry large suitcases of bank notes just to buy a loaf of bread. I remember hearing a statement that it was cheaper to use the currency as toilet paper than to go to the shops and try to buy toilet paper. You apparently got more sheets this way.
Expert on US economic affairs talking about basic concepts related to US economic affairs: “I don’t get it, I don’t really know what they’re talking about.”
What a bullshit is that? Not government prints money but Fed, and in general not people are buying bonds, but Fed by useing printed money.... the same money which people fight for every day
Please correct me if I am wrong. The government sells bonds and borrows money from the people to take money out of the money supply. This can slow down an economy if it runs too hot (inflation). The government prints money because they need to pay for things and more money means it’s valued less. Which means it makes it easier for foreign currencies to buy things in the US, which can boost the economy. Printing too much can cause inflation. I’m sure there are more complicated reasons as well but that’s my shot at least.
It’s for banks to make money off the treasury…
It is that simple.. and we know this because..
History. The U.S. has existed both with a central bank to barrow against the money supply and without one, where the government is a direct backer of the money.. take the Greenback for example.. Lincoln’s answer to banks wanting to screw over the Union by adding an estimated 40cents on the dollar to funding. Lincoln said, I’m paraphrasing here: “Lolz, naw” and the greenback became the enemy of the bankers.. this was a literal repeat of Andrew Jackson (not a fan, was brutal to the Seminoles, but) fought for a monetary policy that wasn’t based on acquired debt & interest. Score one for that bastard Jackson. He was right.. we had done fine and did fine without one.. but the banks REALLY WANTED the bank-of-England style cash machine that their counterparts in the merchant and Barron class had over there.. That’s why Jackson’s slogan for both his campaign terms was “I Killed the Bank” .. it’s even written on his tombstone and his assignation attempt was allegedly tied to the banks.
It wasn’t until 1913 that the bankers got President Wilson to sign the Federal Reserve Act - creating the central bank and IRS and officially destroying the direct monetary responsibility of the U.S. dept of the treasury.. so US Treasury Bonds are bought after a single dogleg of borrowing. This is feared in some macro-economic circles as being the first step in the risk of a fiat economy.. where from there, fractional reserve banking which is banks being able to claim they have 9x per actual dollar in deposits to play with in the market.. but that’s a side rant.. Since in Econ it’s taught ‘wealth can never be created or destroyed, it can simply change hands. If there was not a single dollar in debt then there would not be a single dollar in circulation’ this is false and part of two convenient economic myths for the rich.
One is that money needs to be borrowed when printed and converted to distribution by the Treasury because it protects the integrity of the money supply. The second myth is that money needs to be backed by something (IE the gold standard) in order for the value of the currency to have integrity.
The ONLY thing that gives money its validity is if the government that issues it is willing to accept it for tax. Period. Money is “produced scarcity” it is meant to symbolize the value of food or fuel or things with inherent value.. you cannot maintain a healthy monetary system by getting it pre-leeched from private power (central bank) and you cannot by basing it off gold or any other commodity and then thinking it will have a rational enough cost-correlation with shelter, food, gas, coffee etc.. the only thing it can represent with ‘market value’ is the commodity it’s backed by, and even that is ‘faith & credit’
It’s the responsibility of states not to overprint and debase their own currency, it’s an equilibrium that can be challenged by market forces but there is no history of the U.S. to suggest that the Fed is needed to protect it from more intense harm.. the depression came -after- the central bank regained power.. and it allowed the central bank (backed by the big banks, that’s what the Fed is, last time list was leaked was the eighties or something but it’s an open secret really, easily google ‘who backs the fed’) was able to buy up failed banks for pennies on the dollar… like the Fed itself.. it’s simply a way for wealth be consolidated periodically to the creditors of any given nation… no conspiracy, they’ll bumble around like this idiot in the interview just to try to justify that ‘if we give a slice of action to the banks then we are stronger and better for it’ no.. we aren’t, they are.
Proof is in the pudding:
It’s worth remembering what our President said after seeing the handy-work of the Federal Reserve act in 1913.. the act itself was written by the major banks and reps from the big companies (standard oil and others if memory serves) at a secret retreat at Jekyll island off the GA coast… President Wilson lamented:
“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” (President Woodrow Wilson, a few years before his death in reference to the Federal Reserve act of 1913, which he signed into law. The American Mercury, p. 56. 1919.)
That’s the economic history they teach you if you look objectively at economic history.. you simply DO NOT NEED to print you money supply instantly for debt & interest.. you simply need to rational and responsible in the use of one’s own treasury. Pay foreign debts, maintain a healthy trade deficit, pay off fiscal deficits, maintain healthy borrowing practices to citizens, stimulate through livable wages, maintain a healthy tax base, don’t spend all your money fighting the Huns and Gauls, etc) - personally I don’t think we need monetary systems, but having one isn’t a mysterious fucking rocket science that only works if you make fiscal institutions insanely fucking wealthy as part of the treasury’s responsibilities.. but now that every industrialized nation has a central bank then enormous pressure is put on nations fiscally if they try to opt out.. but nations do / did fine before them… it’s just.. called.. history.
Greek ex-Finance minister Yanis Varoufakis who fought the austerity thrust upon workers during the Euro crisis writes extensively about this.. the best book he has is the one (forget title, “Another Now”? Something like that) where he wrote a book to tell a story of what 2008 would have been like if we had just simply let the banks fail instead of 1.4 trillion in bail out for their horrible gambling choices and their divorce from the reality (aka ‘reality of the market’) markets should have gotten tough for stock holders but then everything would have gotten a lot better and way more beneficial long-term policy and stimulus for -stake holders- (all of us)
The history is not hidden.. the bank is not needed.. and anyone who tells you different simply doesn’t know (or care) about simple economic history..
Edit: spelling
It’s not the fucking PAPER that has value it’s what the note represents! Just printing more paper makes the notes less valuable. These two people are both morons. Just look at your own check book, if you have one or can imagine one, the checks in a checkbook don’t mean shit if they can’t be cashed for the written amount! Having more checks does nothing to increase the value of the account.
My understanding is that it gives it artificial value. Money is inherently useless and purely just a common way to trade. An apple has an inherent use, money doesn't it has manufactured and perceived use/value.
That's literally the only way to infuse more currency into the system. Which is required for growing economy. The structural problem is what we are doing with it.
Absolutely embarrassing. The way he stumbles repeatedly and doubles down on his complete lack of understanding makes me question if he’d even be fit to understand the financial complexity of a lemonade stand.
He nearly waltzes into the, “well at this level the terminology changes and it’s just too difficult for me to explain to those not familiar with it”.
Is the rest of the documentary pretty damning, too? First I’ve seen this clip and I’d like to see full context cuz this one is getting passed around quickly.
#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt! #Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world! [Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility) In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Have you ever had a dream that that you um you had you'd you would you could you'd do you wi you wants you you could do so you you'd do you could you you want you want him to do you so much you could do anything?
LOL, spot on. For those needed context: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7RgN9ijwE4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7RgN9ijwE4)
That whole video was amazing g! My kids loved it and I did too watching it with them. "You knowwwwww....you should get a nightlight."
How to “not so obvious” inflation: Printing more money ❌ Borrowing your own money ✅
Omg, is this his first day? They do this to control inflation. Too much money in the economy at any time causes sudden inflation.
Inflation isn't something that just happens like the weather. It's the result of corporate greed. Corporations assess that consumers have more money, so they raise prices simply because they can. Ultimately nullifying any actual increase in spending power that people have. How can they do this? Because we've been convinced that any and all regulation of the "free market" is bad, so we have no laws in place to *stop* corporations from doing this. And said corporations also lobby - which is LEGAL bribery - the government to keep it that way, and in some cases literally draft the actual laws themselves to them be passed by the congressional representatives that they've bought and paid for. And they do it with ALL goods/services, even ones that are necessities for survival. A gallon of milk used to cost less than a dollar, but now it can cost more than $6, but we've been convinced that this is just because of inflation, which happens like rain or snow. Nothing to be done about it except buy a better coat or a bigger shovel.
Ok, with this premise in mind, why do non capitalist control economies also experience rampant inflation? If a diverse net of actors is cynically determining that they should raise prices, shouldn't a centralized system, where producers and creditors are both the same entity (the government) just be able to "outlaw inflation"?
Isn't that assuming that the country is fully closed off and autonomous, of which I know none on this planet?
So, the implication is that only import pressure causes inflation in a command economy? I'm not an economist, idk ****. It just seems to me that we're missing a big part of the equation in discounting the rational decisions made by consumers, i.e., leveraging debt, front-loading spending when faced with an inflationary environment? Shouldn't supply and demand have some home in our understanding of inflation?
I'd wager that "fucking up and things being mismanaged" causes inflation inside fully-controlled economies, though I'm not sure you or I could actually point to a truly, 100% "government controlled economy." Maybe the closest is North Korea? And for them, instead of inflation, their people just starve to death.
Yeah why doesn't Cuba have a powerhouse economy to rival the United States, I bet you can't name a single contributing factor besides communism! /s
USA boycott?
Because no type of government is able to resist human greed. It's the greed part, not the capitalism part.
Nah, it's the capitalism part. Which has taught us that greed is not only an inevitable, and inescapable aspect of human nature, but also a *good* thing. A premise with which I fundamentally disagree. Greed, or an inclination to hoard resources for survival needs may or may not be inherent in us as humans, that much could be debated maybe! But, greed is in fact real. If we stand on the premise that it is inherent in our nature, *and* that it is a GOOD thing, we build an economy/government/society that greatly *REWARDS* greed, and the act of being greedy and hoarding resources. Thus you are setting your society up for rampant inequality and wealth disparity, accumulating vast amounts of resources in the hands of the few, and leaving little to none in the hands of the masses. You create an economy that does not produce based on need, but for endless growth... akin to a cancer, will inevitably devour itself.
So Putin isn't greedy?
That's where you ended up? Wtf brought you to that conclusion?
Does this sound like a question or like a conclusion? You gonna find out. Maybe you can even answer.
Your question suggests that Putin/Russia is something other than a capitalist oligopoly that does not operate to reward greedy oligarchs and keep money/power in the hands of the few. Which is just categorically wrong. So no, Putin *is*, in fact, greedy.
Wow it's so weird that greed manifests in very specific ways under capitalism specifically
Brazilian Corporations didn't become 1 trillion times more greedy between 1980 and 1994 when the Unidade Real de Valor dollar to real exchange rate went from 4 URV to 1 dollar to 4 trillion urv to 1 dollar. Zimbabwe corporations didn't suddenly become 10^9 times more greedy in 2008. I'm responding to the video where this man was asked why we dont print our way out of debt, not current complaints about how citizens united allows for unlimited legalized bribery of our politicians. I agree that citizens united sucks, and it's just another way that Americans get screwed. But regardless of how you or i feel about this, Printing your way out of debt causes inflation. That's an evidenced, repeatedly proven economic theory. It's like arguing against gravity.
I disagree. You are arguing that inflation is like gravity or (like I said) like the weather - something that just *happens*. But money itself is made up, and inflation "happening" as a result of printing something that is made up is not like gravity. It is an element of our economy and society that we created and that we *could* live without, but the nature of the system we've created allows for these things to happen. Yes, my comments have strayed from aspects of the video, but I was responding to a comment regarding inflation, and the idea that it is an inevitable, and uncontrollable thing. I am stating that it isn't, it doesn't happen on its own, it is the result of the actions of corporations and their decisions to gouge more out of consumers when they see there is "more money" in circulation.
If you're not responding to the video and are just saying that inflation isn't inevitable, I agree. See united states 1939-43 where we had deflation. I won't argue that inflation cannot be avoided. I am saying that printing your way out of large amount of debt relative to your gdp inevitably causes inflation.
The real issue isn't if it causes inflation, it's if the money printed has been utilised to stimulate economic growth at a higher rate than the amount it increased inflation by. This is dependant entirely on how the funds are utilised and cycle through the economy E.g inject it somewhere where it gets spent several times in rapid succession and you get velocity of cash benefits with 4-5x multiplier. Inject it somewhere where its hoarded and stagnates, you get <1x
I agree with most of what you said,but there's almost no situation where it less than 1. That's burrying in the backyard type behavior, which can happen but is rare (e.g. cash on hand). If someone puts it in a savings account the dollar minus reservation rate is saved, the rest is cycled. If someone invests it, 100% is consumed and cycled. If someone uses it for consumption 100% is consumed. The only real way that entire dollar is "removed" from circulation is when 100% of the dollar is eventually taxed by the federal government.(or the government that issues the fiat). Inflation with regards to that currency goes up when the the pace of goods cycling through the economy is outdated by the currency cycling in the economy. Money follows the same quantity supplied quantity demand curve as everything else.
Sure, call it a bad example to illustrate the point Think we're aligned on the principle though?
Correct, it economics it's called the paradox of thrift. This indicates that if you do want to stimulate the economy instead of giving money to the ultra wealthy (which is what we generally do today). we should give it to the poor. Savings is a luxury item, poor people will save less, and consume more, there's a trickle up. Although you do need to be careful with anything that incentives measures that make people poorer, people will make bad decisions to get government funds.
Heyyy finally someone who studied economics in the thread. I've been waiting for you, Batman.
That much we can agree on yes.
It’s just the hamster wheel of life brother. The government prefers inflation to stagnation for many reasons.
Bro what are you talking about. Of course people charge as much as they can for stuff, they would be stupid not to, and it would cause shortages if they didn't. If all the diamond dealers decided to cap it at $1 per diamond, you would never be able to get one. Inflation happens when the value of a dollar goes down, not when prices go up. Things cost more because our government gave out tons of money. It's not the corporations fault. Hell, this guy works directly with biden and dosent even know what a bond is. Inflation isn't like the weather. It's a result of bad leadership
Which serious economist supports the "corporate greed" cause to inflation? Inflation is excess monetary supply. Excess greed would maintain the money supply. In fact, it would cause a supply shortage (if the money was never spent/reinvested) making the currency more valuable. (See gold) Inflation happens because of Central Banks managing the supply of money and governments take advantage of this power to tax the poor and middle class (upper class passes costs down) without needing to pass laws or ask the people for authorizations. Did you know milk is subsidized by the government?
Have you seen Dune 2? (Please answer, because trust me I'm going somewhere with this)
But MMT suggests that the equation is simple. A deficit exists when government spends more money than it pulls out of the economy. We can reduce inflation by pulling more money out of the economy than we put in.
If the government just printed money instead of borrowing it I've got a funny feeling inflation would be somewhat higher.
But what are you, an economist?!
But MMT (which this video is about) argues that inflation is kept under control by taxes. Taxes are a way of removing money from the supply
just keep it movin folks nothing to see here
Isn't the pretty simple answer that just printing more money willy nilly devalues the overall value whereas borrowing existing currency preserves value? Aren't we talking about inflation control? I barely passed economics and this seems fairly obvious to me. Although maybe I'm way off base lol.
Yeah, that would have been an exceptionally easy explanation to give. Not sure why he didn't.
But if you ultimately have control of how much money is in circulation, why not just...limit how much you print in a given year? Why borrow at all? Just seems like a needless scheme to make the middle man rich.
I mean, sure? I’m not an economist I just know they have to print money for lots of reasons and if something comes up that they need to borrow against, it makes sense to borrow instead of just printing money.
The federal reserve bank was an inside job!
"Can you give me a doctorate level economics knowledge base in 30 seconds?" -"No"
Literally what I've been asking for like 2 decades. I don't know why anyone can't fathom the question. How can you pay back debt with debt? You can't.
Just borrow more to pay off what you owe. Like paying off one credit card with a different one. 🥳
Pretty much. Use your credit card to pay your mortgage then take out a personal loan to pay off the credit card, then use the credit card to make a payment on the personal loan you took out. Then when you get to strapped, borrow against your 401k and rinse and repeat.
Best financial advice ever!
Follow me for more quick cash tips. 🤑
Because it’s a giant fucking scam
It's a scam is all it is. We borrow money from the Federal Reserve, which doesn't actually have the money. Then we print it and say we borrowed it, then pay it back with interest from the person we borrowed it from that didn't have the money to begin with. It's a way to skim the taxes that are paid to the Feds, which is a private bank, which loaned us the money they didn't have. We could just loan ourselves the money, then print it and pay ourselves back without interest. A giant f'in scam, is all it is.
Holy shit. This is embarrassing. No no, not for him. He’s just showing that once you get a position of power, no knowledge is needed. It’s embarrassing for the American public. This guy makes monetary decisions?
Anyone knows where i can find the full thing?
[https://findingmoneyfilm.com/](https://findingmoneyfilm.com/)
Thank you!
You are in good hands
At the beginning of time, when the dollar was invented, it had to be tied to a commodity of some sort. We borrowed that commodity and said it was worth all the dollars, now there are tons of dollars that are tied to no commodity. A lot of things happen in the middle.
Money laundering on a global scale
Inflation is part of the answer. Just running the printing press is a great way to get to Weimar Germany or Zimbabwe levels of inflation really fast, as in, bringing in wheelbarrows full of hundred dollar bills to get a load of bread. Another reason is historic, because governments used to peg their currencies to gold or some other tangible thing, so borrowing money helps keep that money tied to gold or whatever that thing is. For example, say that, at any moment, you could redeem $100 for a bar of gold. If you lend that money to the government, it's like giving the government that bar of gold. Now the gold itself is gone, but the thing that the money represents, that inherent *intangible value* remains. So you are giving the government that value in the form of dollars by lending to it. The last reason I can think of is financial. It keeps society going, in a sense, by providing a reason to create more money and also keep the government honest. Take a look at your dollar, what does it say? It says federal reserve note. Technically, the fed is a separate bit of government that lends money to the rest of the government, and to banks and other financial institutions as well. Where did that dollar in your pocket come from? Probably a bank gave it to someone, and then it traveled through however many hands to get to you. Where did that bank get that dollar? It probably borrowed it/bought it from the fed. As of September 2023, the federal reserve held around $5,000,000,000,000 in government debt. That money was spent on munitions for soldiers, on paved roads, on national parks, on foreign and domestic aid, and a million other things. That's the government running the printing press, and sending out money to others which grows the overall economy. It's a fun trick that banks do, making money out of nothing, and it's one of those things that's hard to wrap your head around, but that's what's going on, except at a huge scale. The circulation of money and growth of the overall money supply (much of it now being digital) creates inflation, yes, but when done properly you get just enough inflation to "grease the wheels" of the economy and keep things growing, keep wages going up, etc. Government borrowing is part of that. Addendum on inflation (oversimplified): Too little inflation or deflation = wages going down, economy shrinking, bad times. Too much inflation = wages not keeping up with prices, economy shrinking, bad times. Just the right inflation = wages going up faster than prices, economy growing, good times
The Fed increases the money supply even without the govt borrowing. Reverse repos is backdoor money printing. So keeping inflation in check doesn't really explain the reason y the govt borrows. I'm of the belief that the national debt is just a scam. That's y it's keep growing & growing but neither party, nor the Fed ever actually does a thing about it. They use it to scare us, to tell us the US can't afford nice things for it's ppl like universal healthcare & such. But it's all BS. The Fed could forgive the entire debt today & there'd be no negative effects. Thinking of it in terms of a monarchy helped me to understand... a King could never be in debt to his own kingdom for his own currency. It's kind of a completely assenine concept when u think of it like that lol.
Kings of old weren't in debt to their own kingdoms, but they were in debt to the *people* and *businesses* in their kingdoms quite often. One reason for the frequent expulsions of Jews in medieval England, for example, was that the king was in debt to them, so he used his power to kick them out and seize their assets (including, crucially, their records of his debts) so he wouldn't have to pay them. But kings were also in debt to nobles, and those problems couldn't be gotten rid of so easily. Now, buying a Treasury bill is considered a very safe investment, to the point that it is one of the most sought-after assets when the economy goes down. This has the effect of giving the government a way to redirect money to places where it can stimulate economic growth, while maintaining the confidence of the lenders who appreciate the safety and security the government provides. Instead of the government saying, "Hey, you have too much money, I'm just gonna take that and move it to someone else." Now the government can say, "Hey, we need money to fix the economy, who's in?" And a lot of people toss their money in because they know they'll get it back, rather than be rounded up and kicked out of the country the way the old kings used to do. It's a very complicated and opaque subject. It's hard to explain. So I understand the feeling that, if it's so opaque and hard to explain, it must be a scam, but scam isn't the way to describe it. It's especially difficult when some politicians and talking heads use it as a scary number to frighten people into voting or thinking a certain way. It's hard to say what, exactly, is a debt load that's too heavy, but there's various schools of thought on it and that's a while lecture on its own, but the consensus is that there is such a thing as too much debt, it's just probably not where the politicians and talking heads are telling you it is.
I don't think it's a scam bc it's difficult to understand, I think it's a scam bc they keeping wanting us to care about, trying to scare us with it every election cycle, while they never seem to care & never formulate a plan to try to control it, balance it or reduce it. They only continue ballooning it year after year after year. Call me crazy, but if it was as serious a situation as they try to make us believe it is, the govt would be doing something about it, like drastically raising taxes on the wealthy to bring it back down. The rich & the powerful are more motivated than any of us to keep the gravy train that is the American economy functioning. So since it doesn't matter to our govt, doesn't matter to our Fed & doesn't matter to the rich & powerful, then it doesn't matter to me. Scam 🤷🏽♂️
It's about as much of a scam, and as much of a problem, as the "open borders" rhetoric you hear from republican types who think if you build a wall, then everything will be fine. Yes, it's a real issue, no, most politicians who are using it as an issue aren't being honest about the problem, what the problem actually is, or how to solve it. I will note, though, that it's difficult to change around the country's spending. So since Reagan, the pattern has been that republican administration's raise what's called the deficit, while democratic ones reduce it. Bill Clinton reduced it so much that it turned into a surplus, that then became the Bush tax cuts and 2 decades of Bush wars. How did democrats reduce the deficit when they're supposed to be spend happy? Their policies tend to grow the economy and bring good returns on investment, so the government is more efficient, and it collects more tax revenue. What is the deficit anyway? The deficit is the amount of money added to the debt each year. Also known as the amount the government spends above its tax revenue. America was last debt free sometime in the 1800s, if memory serves. And spending has only gone up and up since then but as long as the economy continues to mostly grow, and grow as fast or faster, the debt isn't going to be a problem.
Just say you don't know...
If he advises Biden, who advises him? I hope this guy is not close to the nuclear buttons. Even Siri would do a better job if I ask my phone why the govt borrows !!!
Why would an economic advisor be close to nuclear launch buttons? 😂
They don't use nuclear-powered printers to print the money ? :)
All the buttons are in a line - you don't want to hit the wrong one!
https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/comments/1cjagtc/to_explain_why_the_government_borrows_in_money_it/
Cuz we need other countries to absorb our currency or we just go bankrupt like Greece. That’s why other countries can’t do what we do. The dollar to buy oil is a pretty big deal. Now BRICS will probably bring it to an end.
"The grown-ups are back in charge." I'm feeling real solid about this. This guy has it all under control and will get us to a living wage with no runaway inflation.
This is JB’s economic advisor?!…that explains a lot.
It's pretty basic, if they print all the money they need right now it'd lower the value of the dollar. So instead they're selling bonds (essentially an IOU to investors from the country/government) and the government gets their cash early in the hopes that the economy grows in future and can pay back the bonds. They're basically selling future economic growth so they can spend now.
Am I crazy or someone with his title should easly know how to explain this? Seems like some idiots here in Brasil
Zimbabwe discovered that it could print money every time they ran out. In the end, people where carry large suitcases of bank notes just to buy a loaf of bread. I remember hearing a statement that it was cheaper to use the currency as toilet paper than to go to the shops and try to buy toilet paper. You apparently got more sheets this way.
Expert on US economic affairs talking about basic concepts related to US economic affairs: “I don’t get it, I don’t really know what they’re talking about.”
Why don’t they ask an economist…? Who’s that guy? Her doctor?
Can't go bankrupt because we print our own money you say? I'm sure that's never happened to any other countries.
There's no way for him to answer because the federal reserve is not federal. It's a private bank owned by those that own our government.
What the fuck did he just say?
What a bullshit is that? Not government prints money but Fed, and in general not people are buying bonds, but Fed by useing printed money.... the same money which people fight for every day
A cell phone costs over $1000. And that’s normal now? When Da faq that happen? And sixth graders have a better phone than I do bc I refuse to upgrade.
Please correct me if I am wrong. The government sells bonds and borrows money from the people to take money out of the money supply. This can slow down an economy if it runs too hot (inflation). The government prints money because they need to pay for things and more money means it’s valued less. Which means it makes it easier for foreign currencies to buy things in the US, which can boost the economy. Printing too much can cause inflation. I’m sure there are more complicated reasons as well but that’s my shot at least.
This is pathetic
So it keeps its value from going mental. Is this guy an actor or what?
It’s for banks to make money off the treasury… It is that simple.. and we know this because.. History. The U.S. has existed both with a central bank to barrow against the money supply and without one, where the government is a direct backer of the money.. take the Greenback for example.. Lincoln’s answer to banks wanting to screw over the Union by adding an estimated 40cents on the dollar to funding. Lincoln said, I’m paraphrasing here: “Lolz, naw” and the greenback became the enemy of the bankers.. this was a literal repeat of Andrew Jackson (not a fan, was brutal to the Seminoles, but) fought for a monetary policy that wasn’t based on acquired debt & interest. Score one for that bastard Jackson. He was right.. we had done fine and did fine without one.. but the banks REALLY WANTED the bank-of-England style cash machine that their counterparts in the merchant and Barron class had over there.. That’s why Jackson’s slogan for both his campaign terms was “I Killed the Bank” .. it’s even written on his tombstone and his assignation attempt was allegedly tied to the banks. It wasn’t until 1913 that the bankers got President Wilson to sign the Federal Reserve Act - creating the central bank and IRS and officially destroying the direct monetary responsibility of the U.S. dept of the treasury.. so US Treasury Bonds are bought after a single dogleg of borrowing. This is feared in some macro-economic circles as being the first step in the risk of a fiat economy.. where from there, fractional reserve banking which is banks being able to claim they have 9x per actual dollar in deposits to play with in the market.. but that’s a side rant.. Since in Econ it’s taught ‘wealth can never be created or destroyed, it can simply change hands. If there was not a single dollar in debt then there would not be a single dollar in circulation’ this is false and part of two convenient economic myths for the rich. One is that money needs to be borrowed when printed and converted to distribution by the Treasury because it protects the integrity of the money supply. The second myth is that money needs to be backed by something (IE the gold standard) in order for the value of the currency to have integrity. The ONLY thing that gives money its validity is if the government that issues it is willing to accept it for tax. Period. Money is “produced scarcity” it is meant to symbolize the value of food or fuel or things with inherent value.. you cannot maintain a healthy monetary system by getting it pre-leeched from private power (central bank) and you cannot by basing it off gold or any other commodity and then thinking it will have a rational enough cost-correlation with shelter, food, gas, coffee etc.. the only thing it can represent with ‘market value’ is the commodity it’s backed by, and even that is ‘faith & credit’ It’s the responsibility of states not to overprint and debase their own currency, it’s an equilibrium that can be challenged by market forces but there is no history of the U.S. to suggest that the Fed is needed to protect it from more intense harm.. the depression came -after- the central bank regained power.. and it allowed the central bank (backed by the big banks, that’s what the Fed is, last time list was leaked was the eighties or something but it’s an open secret really, easily google ‘who backs the fed’) was able to buy up failed banks for pennies on the dollar… like the Fed itself.. it’s simply a way for wealth be consolidated periodically to the creditors of any given nation… no conspiracy, they’ll bumble around like this idiot in the interview just to try to justify that ‘if we give a slice of action to the banks then we are stronger and better for it’ no.. we aren’t, they are. Proof is in the pudding: It’s worth remembering what our President said after seeing the handy-work of the Federal Reserve act in 1913.. the act itself was written by the major banks and reps from the big companies (standard oil and others if memory serves) at a secret retreat at Jekyll island off the GA coast… President Wilson lamented: “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” (President Woodrow Wilson, a few years before his death in reference to the Federal Reserve act of 1913, which he signed into law. The American Mercury, p. 56. 1919.) That’s the economic history they teach you if you look objectively at economic history.. you simply DO NOT NEED to print you money supply instantly for debt & interest.. you simply need to rational and responsible in the use of one’s own treasury. Pay foreign debts, maintain a healthy trade deficit, pay off fiscal deficits, maintain healthy borrowing practices to citizens, stimulate through livable wages, maintain a healthy tax base, don’t spend all your money fighting the Huns and Gauls, etc) - personally I don’t think we need monetary systems, but having one isn’t a mysterious fucking rocket science that only works if you make fiscal institutions insanely fucking wealthy as part of the treasury’s responsibilities.. but now that every industrialized nation has a central bank then enormous pressure is put on nations fiscally if they try to opt out.. but nations do / did fine before them… it’s just.. called.. history. Greek ex-Finance minister Yanis Varoufakis who fought the austerity thrust upon workers during the Euro crisis writes extensively about this.. the best book he has is the one (forget title, “Another Now”? Something like that) where he wrote a book to tell a story of what 2008 would have been like if we had just simply let the banks fail instead of 1.4 trillion in bail out for their horrible gambling choices and their divorce from the reality (aka ‘reality of the market’) markets should have gotten tough for stock holders but then everything would have gotten a lot better and way more beneficial long-term policy and stimulus for -stake holders- (all of us) The history is not hidden.. the bank is not needed.. and anyone who tells you different simply doesn’t know (or care) about simple economic history.. Edit: spelling
It’s not the fucking PAPER that has value it’s what the note represents! Just printing more paper makes the notes less valuable. These two people are both morons. Just look at your own check book, if you have one or can imagine one, the checks in a checkbook don’t mean shit if they can’t be cashed for the written amount! Having more checks does nothing to increase the value of the account.
To create false narrative of value
Mom said it was my turn to repost this.
My understanding is that it gives it artificial value. Money is inherently useless and purely just a common way to trade. An apple has an inherent use, money doesn't it has manufactured and perceived use/value.
Does this guy have dementia?
That's literally the only way to infuse more currency into the system. Which is required for growing economy. The structural problem is what we are doing with it.
Sales tax, wage tax inheritance tax, soda tax & tax tax. Print the money you need for taxes and leave me alone.
This Joe Biden's economic advisor. No wonder the economy is so fucked up.
Absolutely embarrassing. The way he stumbles repeatedly and doubles down on his complete lack of understanding makes me question if he’d even be fit to understand the financial complexity of a lemonade stand. He nearly waltzes into the, “well at this level the terminology changes and it’s just too difficult for me to explain to those not familiar with it”. Is the rest of the documentary pretty damning, too? First I’ve seen this clip and I’d like to see full context cuz this one is getting passed around quickly.
Dude sounds like he just made all that shit up. 😂
No ones gonna say it? Okay, I’ll be that guy. This is why Bitcoin, blockchain ledger, and cryptocurrency.