Lecture10: Not Learning From the History of Money

[@nivekvb]

I'm into MMT and study banks and money a bit from a lay person point of view. But I thought this one lecture explained so much about our money supply works, spot on. I've downloaded it and saved it in a folder so I can listen to more often without having to search for it on the net. In otter words, I'm making sure I've got it. Many thanks.

[@MrIzzyDizzy]

this is one of keens best, so much evidence and so much logic. how this isnt the basic understanding of all academic economist. is baffling. it can not be called a science if it ignores the real processes of lending and money creation. all the implications pursuant therein are misunderstood and /or ignored. economics cannot be trusted to model the economy anything close to accurately if they ignore this. keep fighting the good fight prof keen.

[@xtra-oi9xb]

we all have to fight Dizzy .... we can't just rely on Mr. Keen to fight the good fight for us alone ..... we have to let our elected representatives know we are on to their shit by demanding that Washington break up and reregulate the Big Banks to protect hard working people from further exploitation ....

[@MrIzzyDizzy]

yeah - i agree. unfortunately when it comes to politicians, they are useless. gilens and page showed they dont represent people at all. what im talking about is real science, and evidence based understanding of economics. there is no more powerful weapon for change than scientific proof. ............. outside of bribes of course.

[@xtra-oi9xb]

... yea politicial gilens paid off by Wall Street and main stream economists who promote the neoliberal economic model on behalf of the Banksters ... according to Keen his peers " don't get it" but I disagree .... main stream economists agree with his model behind closed doors but in order to maintain Wall Street's profiteering and the special favors economists receive they must at all costs promote the current neoliberal model .... its one Big Wall Street Cartel .... read this trofire.com/2015/05/21/wall-street-cartel-thugs-admit-to-manipulating-exchange-markets-but-will-anyone-go-to-jail/ ....

[@manjay49]

The Man. SK has the numbers and the rational analysis. He knows his history. And all kinds of other stuff as well.

[@HannesRadke]

We should make the construction of a cyclic economic model with minsky mandatory in high schools globally.

[@dhagos]

In regards to Bernanke's argument; he argues that governments, not central banks, can create inflation. The fact that the government simply didn't does not disprove their ability to create inflation. It could be that they were looking out for the interest of the few with disregard for the interest of the many. What he describes as creating inflation is a wealth transfer via the writing off of debt (or inflating away debt).

[@krishammond8851]

Wish you were teaching at UTS! Amazing teacher

[@brantknudson8194]

Would be interesting to know what the fed would have done differently had it taken private debt into account.

[@dhagos]

regarding nominal debt; there are long term leases that are written with a gold clause. These would not be nominal debt (I don't think :s).

[@Ken19700]

In the states they're called armored cars.

[@dennisblair9626]

Certainly an industry gatekeeper would cite 'fractional reserve banking' as a contributing factor in a financial crisis, knowing it's a common misconception and the actual system in use is that of the credit creation model. There are no reserves required for a bank to create credit out of thin air. Banks don't take deposits nor do they lend money, they buy & sell securities, period. When you look at who benefited in every instance, why are we even considering these events in terms of incompetence, negligence, random oversight & lack of discernment rather than the undeniable dereliction of duty, malefaction, unjust enrichment or straight out theft by the bankers and their controllers?

[@chhmar99utube]

@48:09 - the money trucks: Armourguard trucks?

[@iseeurthings]

Can someone tell me exactly why equity is written off when loans go bad (1:00:08)? Because to me it seems that if a loan goes bad, then both the bank's assets but also their liabilities fall by the exact same amount, meaning that there should be no effect on the bank's equity?

[@dennisblair9626]

The bank contributes nothing & loses nothing when a loan goes into default. They loaned ZERO money from their reserves, nor was it from an account holder, the entire credit was typed into existence, out of the aether on a keyboard. In fact the lendee created the credit by signing a promissory note, and is the creditor in the transaction, the bank accepted the note and is the debtor.

[@iseeurthings]

@@dennisblair9626 Thank you so much!