The Economic Myths of UK's 2017 General Election Exposed

[@mcdonagh4]

Borrowing money equates with selling oneself into slavery. But this lady is a breath of fresh air when talking the social science that is economics.

[@andrewsmythe6728]

Gregg Johnson If you listened carefully, borrowed money is paid in taxes by the workers but in Greece the wealthiest haven't been paying their taxes through varies means of avoidance and evasion.

[@patriciabrooks5838]

If what you propose was true then all nations would be rolling in it, China especially. Infrastructure spending is not a panacea and can easily be bridges to nowhere. Infrastructure spending often results in excess capacity and is best left to the market to decide what is profitable and what is not. Admittedly some infrastructure is required that is a service but bear in mind that is a negative burden on the economy.

[@CBfrmcardiff]

Gregg Johnson There's nothing in economics 101 to suggest that government interference is a necessary precondition to a monopoly (or, for that matter, an oligopoly). It's barriers to entry, and the ability of the monopolist to use economies of scale to kill smaller competitors, that are important. If anything, government provides a potential barrier to trusts and monopolies. Also, capitalists are correctly considered ruthless because (at least in theory) they care only about money to the exclusion of sentimental factors such as human well-being, or loyalty to employees, community, or country. And anyway, the capitalist is the investor, making money from money, and is distinct from the entrepreneur, who is actively working to create wealth.

[@hugolindum7728]

Gregg Johnson Greece never paid taxes.

[@hugolindum7728]

Patricia Brooks Chinese have been building ridges to nowhere? As the Chinese say - build a road and a bridge and the business will come. I ll bet you'll find very few bridges to nowhere ten years later. I've seen it myself; roads which seemed completely ridiculous; ten years later - full.

[@maria610421]

When Margret Thacher was in Office, she sold off everything that Britain owned, British Airways, British Telecom, British Rail, British Gas, British Shipping, she sold off all the Council Houses Tax payers paid for for pennies, so the Poor went to the Banks to borrow money to buy their council houses so they pay interest to the Banks. This has resulted in a shortage of homes for people.. Then when she was finished, they started closing down Schools, then Hspitals. Than the Former Council Tennants was Hit with POLL TAX, sparking RIOTS, High Unemployment, After that she attacked the Coal Miners to close down the Mines, because her husband had shairs in South African Mining Companies, so the put the British Miners out of work to use slave labour in South Africa and the British Miners on Wealfare, and set the Police on the Miners, to beat the hell out of them if they protested over losing their livelyhood. Margret Thacher even closed down all the day nuseries for children, stopped school Milk for Primary and Nusery schools. And I can say without doubt Thresa May is coming in for the KILL of the British people. People would be better off Voting for Corbin, because at least he has some sense of how things work. May is going to Cut the Police, and use Traffick Wardens to do their Jobs, and Community Police.. Thearasa May was Home Secretary, and flooded the Country with Migrants workers, and now we are liable for their 1.5k per Month Rents plus subsidies for their food, what she has done is unsustainable.

[@dapdapbamban]

The truth is alarming not alarmist.

[@KamZero]

Gregg Johnson are you questioning Thatcher's privatisations? what exactly do you think is not factual in the above statements?

[@matthiaswalker38]

Come on Gorilla Gregg you're embarrassing yourself. If the only food you had where bananas that you kept stuffing up your arse instead of eating them you would starve to death. Would you be so kind as to prove that assertion to be true for all those reading this thread

[@matthiaswalker38]

The level coercion, indoctrination or lets just say "brainwashing", courtesy of Edward Bernays, that have become all the more sophisticated since his time , required to maintain the perpetual cycle of consumption and production, is evidence that we are not naturally inclined to be shopaholics. Spending is also a self reward, a compassion for our labour , most of which is redundant and nothing short of digging a hole and paying a person to fill it back in. And continuing automation will eliminate even more labour and the only conversation is "we will need more jobs" demonstrating the pathological work ethic that will invent more useless tasks for people to do Inbuilt obsolescence also drives this cycle. A few suggestions. Remove advertising. Tax the machine. A basic universal income Production for need Ration labour. What would you suggest Gregg? Continue as we and see the end of the human species? Got any ideas?

[@gordonbradley199]

***** " Free market " ? Interesting idea. Could you point to anywhere where this idea is operating, or has even been tried out ? Yemen ? Somalia ? CAR ? No regulation at all in these places I hear. Nothing to stop the " free market " working perfectly. Invisible hands and all that. Paradises on earth any day now !

[@cfyves]

This is an excellent video. I'm quite pleased that there are some economists who are open and in fact trying to present how taxation, economies and basic economic theories function.

[@lizzihunt1167]

Bollocks. We are the money. We get registered at birth and our Christian/given name (not surname) is in a trust (Cestui Qiu Vie trust) that in the vatican - Great Britain is a vassal of the Roman Church since the Treaty of Verona in 1213 (isn - see Yahweh Brian Leonard Golighty Marshall). Our surname is the corporation/ franchisee/legal name/stawman/transmitting utility/ debtor and our Christian/given name is the creditor. The govt/council don't tell us that we have to prove we are alive every 7yrs (complete cfo form 206) and to secure our corporation name so these bankster bastards can't use our trust and bonds complete UCC 1 with your corporation name (all capital see birth cert). More info - Judge Anne von Rietz, Romley Stewart, Rohan Lorian, StopthePirates, Secure Party Creditor, Kindness Credits, UBUNTU, GLOSSA.

[@Vanargand23]

John Ashtone .// Britain does NOT have a written codified constitution unlike most modern states. Rather Britain has a ragbag of a constitution an unwritten one formed of Acts of Parliament, court judgments and conventions.

[@KM2558-o1y]

Excellent presentation

[@flemhawker9134]

Firsthgyhgyhuy Lastujhujhuj how you can tell that this chap "doesn't have a clue" from his opinion....."excellent presentation" Is frankly beyond me & why be so rude? This is a forum for comments & I'd rather read his than be subjected to yours. And by the way the lady is describing the workings of Fiat currency and doing it in an informed & intelligent manner as is befitting the Director of policy research in Macroeconomics & an honorary research fellow in political economics at London university amongst many other prestigious positions that Ann Pettifor a highly experienced economic analyst holds. My advice to you is to "fornicate off" and at the very least quickly google "Ann Pettifor" or look her up in Wikipedia before you start flinging such tasteless vulgarities about you awful person.

[@danzel1157]

@hujhuj. Looking forward to your learned rebuttal, my friend.

[@johnbenton4488]

This exposes Conservative policy for what it really is. Conservatives like nothing better than whipping the man in the street.

[@debbiedogs1]

Actually, VERY WRONG PRESENTATION. She has a couple of points correct. Links to articles that explain more clearly - yes, the 99% are being screwed and LIED TO, but banks do not create the money and the govt does NOT 'BORROW'. And taxes DO NOT FUND GOVT SPENDING!! The govt can simply issue money with a decision. elliswinningham.net/index.php/2017/01/04/balanced-budget-amendment-idiocy-economic-suicide-pact/ www.thepileus.com/economics/tory-campaign-relies-on-your-economic-ignorance/ think-left.org/2017/05/06/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-how-our-money-system-works-but-were-afraid-to-ask/

[@RicardoPetrazzi]

debbiedogs1 yes, you are correct on your points. I reached half way through and had to pause because her argument is a circular one. best thing to do is go and listen to a chap named Steve Keeene, an economist who does understand!

[@RaysDad]

Ann Pettifor should be on television news every night explaining why everything we see on television news is nonsense.

[@paulsimmonds2030]

And arguing for a completely new nonsense!

[@jessicavlogger]

i think most of these comments are attempting to interpret what she's saying through the filter of an american-centric worldview, and are consequently misunderstanding her argument. she's not making an argument about the way money is created, so much as she's pointing out that how much the state borrows should be determined by what the state needs to do, rather than some arbitrary "debt ceiling". that's what she's really saying - there's no such thing as a "debt ceiling". so, when a politician says "we can't do this because there's no money", that's a disingenuous argument. what the politician should be saying is "we don't want to do this, because we don't want to borrow the money.". if you disagree with that decision, it's then up to you to provide arguments in favour of borrowing, and up to the politician to argue against it. but the idea of _can't_ is not grounded - even if realizing that what she's actually saying perhaps misses the point of the debate, itself.

[@jessicavlogger]

this is otherwise an exceedingly gentle introduction to keynesian thinking, and i don't have any critique of it. i mean, i'm quite a bit to the left of keynes, sure. but, if we are stuck with capitalism for the future, it is keynes that provided the proper blueprint for it.

[@marciukspuks5353]

jessica same deficit spending rules apply to all sovereign nations that have non-convertible currency and floating fx. britain can in principle deficit spend as much as needed to achieve full employment.

[@jessicavlogger]

the point i was clarifying in the other post was that the uk _does_ need to use private borrowers to avoid the wrath of the imf, which is a serious threat to the country. that's not meant to suggest they shouldn't borrow at will, or at least up to reasonable constraints around debt/gdp.

[@marciukspuks5353]

jessica u have it backwards. it is the pvt market that NEEDS govt bonds. on the other hand, look at bank of england balance sheets. they buy up plenty of its own debt. imf threats are exaggerated. reactionaries are not confused by these issues, only progressives seem to be. pettifor starts her explanation right but then she takes a turn and contradicts herself.

[@jessicavlogger]

you're lost in some ought/is problem.

[@CS-ij8sy]

She said it and yes, we have a reason to argue our long-term assumpitons of growth. Watch it! Thought provoking.

[@Cromper]

There's a huge difference between spending taxpayers' money on infrastructure and spending taxpayers' money on "The Arts". Why should the arts receive ANY government money?

[@kennegun]

Why can't intelligent people like this be our politicians? Oh I forgot, that would require a real democratic system.

[@simonbarnes5819]

"The private sector is desperate to lend to (US and UK) governments because they're the safest bet in the world and why?" Because the electorate of these nations know the importance of not borrowing beyond our means.

[@auntviolet7720]

And what happens when low paid workers pay no tax or even take in more that they're paying to the government such as in tax credits, or housing benefit? And then when a government also has large numbers of pensioners and unemployed? And at what point should a government pay back what it owes? And what happens also if interest rates have to rise thus resulting in government increasing the size of their debt but without coinciding advantage? Governments are also notoriously inefficient in how they spend any income they receive.

[@DJRustla]

She says we nationalized the bank of England in 1947, but on the plaque outside, it says its a private cooperation? hmm...

[@kwakkers68]

1:28 I wonder if she meant Public Sector, at this point. As for the Private Sector, the equation varies according to which fact of Private we're talking about .... The reality is very different, twixt SMBs on the one hand, and larger entities, with a significant shift again to be seen in the Corporate. Whilst I would not expect a complicit Mainstream Media to cover this aspect of Western decline, even a rudimentary analysis points to the various underlying factors, compounding National Debt - with similar models to be seen across the West. e.g. 1: The Exodus of Manufacturing 2: Taxation skewed to favour those entities best able to pay more (Corporations, the Super-Rich..) 3: The use of 'The Big Four', as consultants in the process of policy-making (tax law) 4: Where Point 1 (above) significantly reduces Employment, the traditionally largest (by number) element of a given society's tax-generators is drastically reduced. 5: Point 4, being further compounded by Point 2. i.e. Where the wide mass of 'medium level' tax payers is significantly reduced, and where on permits those best able to pay more, to avoid doing so, it is very clear that overall Tax Revenue is going to substantially drop. 6: Debt-Based National Economic Policy - e.g. in the UK, PFI - using Banks, and Financiers to generate money to create and maintain State Infrastructure. Commonly, cast as the height of moronic policy, among more reasoned economists - as any entity capable of printing money, which borrows money, is at best inept! (Inflationary matters aside) 7: Public subsidies to the Private Sector - which, ironically, breaks the core principle of Laissez Faire economics (let the market be) We can add a number of other factors to this, Privatisation being one classic example. 'Sold' under Thatcher's administration as a mechanism which would (1) generate competition, (2) lower prices (3) improve quality, and (4) increase choice..... Has in fact, in the longer frame seen the coming about of 'Cartels', significant increases in costs (in real terms), a reduction in customer satisfaction, and mean standards. Of course, a lot of the prior National entities were chaotic, but killing them off latterly proved not to be the answer. As shown by innumerable examples across Europe - where efficient, well organised National concerns continue to prosper; and indeed, have bought up segments of UK infrastructure. The root of all of this Economic decay? The leading culprit: the proximity between Westminster, Whitehall, and the City (encapsulating the International aspect); but other factors exist - a lack of even basic Economic understanding, among general populations. For the cynical, as with matters Political, it is no coincidence that Economics barely features across many states' Education provision. How would this intellectual shortfall be rectified? It isn't difficult to list the key subject areas required for reasoned, 'political' critical thinking - 1: Philosophy and Ethics 2: History (broad, and inclusive) 3: Economics 4:Politics itself. A perverse paradox - it would require a confident, progressive, intellectually visionary, national executive (government) to bring these additions to state education provision. After all, where those in power are corrupt, negligent, or inept, would they rush to facilitate their own greater scrutiny? ^^ A juicy point to raise with any standing candidate!

[@kwakkers68]

N.B. Certain Northern European countries feature far higher levels of Taxation than the UK, or USA ... which also often happen to coincide with better performances across a number of 'league tables' (such as those produced by the UN) - in such areas as "Happiness", "Standards of Living", "Health", "Life span", etc; whilst the world's current best Education Model is to be found in Finland - (much useful, interesting content on this, here on KZbin)

[@kwakkers68]

For those not aware, 'The Big Four' is a term often applied to the 4 largest Accounting firms - PwC, Deloitte, KPMG, Ernst and Young. As for governments utilising these firms in an advisory capacity in formulating Tax Law / Policy..... an old saying, involving the terms 'poacher' and 'Game-keeper' springs to mind! Whilst this practice isn't necessarily illegal, it is certainly deeply immoral, at least insofar as we consider the 'fall out' from seriously reduced Tax revenues, and the subsequent effects across a range of critical public services.

[@kwakkers68]

One other clarification - P F I - The Private Finance Initiative - Thatcher prepared the 'groundwork', whilst Major oversaw its introduction. One clumsy analogy I have used in the past - a typical family utilising credit cards for routine household expenses, whereupon one adult loses their job, and thus family revenue is reduced, etc etc. Eventually, the amount of Credit becomes insurmountable. The stupidity of this set of policies beggars belief, leaving one to one of only 2 understandings. Either the policy-makers involved, then as now, were deeply inept, and should have been deemed wholly unfit to hold public office; OR, were possibly deeply tied in with figures in the City. i.e. Corruption on an incredible scale. Various scholars have made interesting points relating to 'the Law', highly suitable to this facet of economics. i.e. Whilst something isn't technically illegal, where it is clearly unethical, immoral, and where a small segment of society is favoured over the majority, it is often worth considering (1) who has written the Laws in question, and (2) who stands to benefit from them.

[@hugolindum7728]

It depends on what the government use the money for. If it pisses it away then it's a problem. If the money is invested in the infrastructure or scientific research or education - there is a benefit to society.

[@leonhines8190]

You need to get the economist Steve Keen on .....

[@mutton_man]

And Ben Dyson of positive money.

[@kwidzius]

So... where the Central Bank get money from??? Does it print them in the back office ????

[@waikikiman007]

Myths you are still perpetuating: 1. That Government borrowing that raise's money through issuing Debt "is a good thing" The fact is a Sovereign government can spend money into existence without issuing Debt, without the need to pay Banks fees and interest. 2. Taxes are used to repay government debt. There is no need for a sovereign government to 'borrow' and repay debt plus interest to the the banks that create this debt money out of nothing. This process is the transfer of wealth from the bulk of society to the elite social class If a government spends money into existence rather then through debt then Taxation is only used to regulate the amount of money that stays in existence.

[@waikikiman007]

She still does not get that Sovereign Governments do not need to borrow, they can spend debt free money into existence

[@stephenrose881]

You can always print money. The risk is plunging exchange rate and inflation. What you do with it is very important.

[@sjewitt22]

It's so sad and annoying how so much of the public have been fooled economically to believe we need austerity or Corbyn's manifesto (which was approved by 129 economist) is unaffordable. People seem to think national fianance is the same as personal.

[@AndrewWilsonStooshie]

Brilliant! One question. Where do the private investors in governments get (or create) their money from in the first place?

[@davidwebb2318]

She makes the mistake of thinking that just because a bank is willing to lend you money it is a good idea to borrow it. Imagine if we all adopted that same policy.....

[@KevTheImpaler]

It's a puzzling subject. I don't think there are many people who really understand how the monetary system works. I do remember the 70s when there was double digit inflation for most of the decade, and Labour found they could not spend their way out of trouble.

[@theodoreruleoflaw2277]

Alarmist, Gregg Johnsosn? She is telling you how to strengthen yor economy, you fool!

[@chome4]

The UK's one of the world's wealthiest nations but the Conservatives laid off thousands of police officers who are now badly needed. People are living longer with health issues but the funding's just not there despite this national wealth. They even proposed to cut free lunches for poorer kids!!!

[@BamboozledTime]

Thumbs Down Contribution Courtesy of the Private Banking Sector.

[@Matthew_007]

I have never voted as I feel passionately that my vote should go to someone I actually wish to be in power. Sadly those who seek power invariably abuse it. If this lady were ever to run I would instantly run to the voting booth and give her my vote. I cannot doubt the sincerity of what she says.

[@frankem51]

There is money for the banks because it is borrowed from the banks. A public sector deficit is a cause of inequality because it takes money from the taxpayer and gives it straight to the banks without the public getting any benefit. Reckless borrowing is a bad thing, as the Greeks have discovered.

[@9imack]

Well said. This is what happens when you give Bankers & Accountants the keys to power. They have such short-sighted & unsustainable notions of how to run a nation. They fail to see the value of human beings & the long-term benefits of investing in people. Austerity has never worked, it's failings as Govt. policy are well documented in the US after the Great Depression & it's failing us now. We need a strong Govt. which will invest in the future in terms of infrastructure & education & stop wasting public funds on things like Trident which have no value whatsoever.

[@nsoper19]

i'm confused about what she was saying about public sector investment. sure, teachers and doctors etc pay taxes, but their whole salary is publicaly funded, so surely they are a net drain on public funds?

In short: Money talks...people dies Stop Money talks...people cries.

[@Realist-sh3dg]

It has always been hard for me to understand why a presentation like this makes absolutely no sense to 40% of the American public.

[@tmlmusic5367]

6:15 - 6:55 This is your brain on socialism. She's actually arguing that the taxes paid by people employed by the government help pay for the government, despite the fact that the government is paying them in the first place.

[@xyzsame4081]

It is a CYCLE. Commercial banks - and governments - can start it (resp. increase the volume). By "creating money out of thin air" - see the Bank of England pdf: _Money Creation in a Modern Economy._ (no it is not scary when that money volume TRIGGERS the creation of goods and services). The BoE only mentions QE for the banks, but it can also be used as QE for The People. For those who are willing to understand MONEY also see: _Money creation in a modern economy_ - pdf by the Bank of England (highly recommended - they stop shy of mentioning of QE for the People of course, but apart from that it is well made). Dr. Richard Werner _Debt and Interest Free Money_ Dr. Stepanie Kelton Deficit Owl, MMT Prof. Steve Keen Warren Mosler (MMT) positivemoney(dot)org

[@sizzloh]

I don't suppose she mentions in her books the siphoning of 'funds' to the BIS??

[@tottenhamhotspurish]

5 mins in I thought this Women may of voted for Labour at the end of the video I'm "98%" certain She voted Labour and "2%" She voted for the Green's. Smart lady! She knows privatisation of public services saves Money!

[@satoterror]

The only gem in this interview was the end when she linked people growth economy and oil together. No oil No food No people.

[@TomBartram-b1c]

People love saying invest when in fact they mean spend.

[@talkingcloud740]

"They" only pay taxes where they are waged, but as tech and software robotisation & artificial intelligence is preferred to human waged labour there will be an increasingly impoverished consumer which is 74% or thereabouts of our global economy

[@MrAdmin66]

a complete scam saying that investment in education pays for itself

[@RobDeManc]

Yes the debt ceiling is a fallacy, it's just a variable.

[@idlewilds9]

i agree with her mostly.. but i have a question why does UK borrow from private lenders( mostly private banks)? Since it borrows in its own currency why not borrow from its own central bank?

[@yingyang1008]

Because if it did, the country would be destroyed and the politicians responsible killed

[@glynncoates5718]

and this is why all the rubbish spouted by Osborne during the referendum was a load of scaremongering bollocks!

[@oneobekanobe]

If the private banking sector creates the money supply, then why is it that they are entitled to attach interest instead of a charging a straightforward service fee on the new money. After all, the money never existed and only came into existence when the demand for it became apparent. Therefore if the money never existed how can one even start to determine what rate of iterest would be appropriate to charge. Whereas a service fee would be standard and logical. Interest is a fictitious entity that seriously compromises the real value of goods and services in the free economy. Banks should be compelled to abandon interest charges and to replace them with service fees instead. Naturally, the banks would cease to be silly rich, but then that would be a true reflection of their worth. On the upside, inflation would come down drastically and the money would retain its value for decades without change.

[@dashercronin]

The winds of change are beginning to blow. This lady speaks common sense. We have a choice: Speculation or investment. Tories and US Republicans only want speculation which serves the interests of the bankers and speculators and serves to reduce the earning power of the labour force and forces it to work, for less and less while diverting all the wealth to the elite: banks , corporations and the legislators who are in the pockets of the elite's lobby. This has been rumbled at last and people are beginning to listen to Corbyn despite the misinformation and condescension of the parliamentary Labour Party who were seduced by the Market Economy message during the Blair period. Nothing meaningful has been spent on infrastructure in the US since the highways were built under Eisenhower. The airports are a disgrace. Bridges are falling down. Hurricane Caterina was a further demonstration of a failed economy.

[@wakingfromslumber9555]

Spend on infrastructure, technology, healthcare and the environment not more gambling apparatuses and illegal wars . I think we can all agree that this is the correct approach going forward .

[@robinmibro]

Labour have a secret money tree. One has to wonder why the political parties do not seem to have access to these expert economists

[@medpub]

If you can create a Bond to get money, then you can just as easily create the money. Money is just a piece of paper of no value, based on nothing. A bond is just a gaurantee that you will pay the money back (with interest), just like when you use your house to borrow money. Its a ponsy scheme 'cos you need to borrow more money to pay off the interest, which you then pay interest on, so debt can only rise. Reducing national debt using this system is virtually impossible. Anyway, I would just say to the banks "Stuff you, we ain't paying it back - do you have a bigger army than us?"

[@markjones6916]

this women is correct. The whole system depends on debt to exist without debt therewould be no money and without money there would be no debt.

[@vijayafernando1]

You are so right. Sri Lanka for,example, is one of the poorest countries in the world but has free medical care from cradle to grave and free education up to and including degree level. Even universal free school meal. (The international Monetary Fund disapproves!) The question is :what are the priorities- not austerity.

[@StewartButton]

This is really misleading. Rather than point out all of the problems, just ask yourself why any country has ever needed to default on its debt.

[@stephenarcher8929]

What an eminently sensible woman. No chance therefore of any job for her in govt.

[@johnbenton4488]

Why when low inflation is a good thing is deflation considered awful?

[@johnstockwellmajorsmedleyb1214]

So sad that all this can be known, plenty of money, not for U. Economies go backwards, without education. If knowing is half the battle where the hell are our soldiers?

[@grahamariss2111]

The many points she avoids is that our ability to borrow is based on trust, as the Greeks showed the confidence is wafer thin once the markets lost confidence then the credit was withdrawn, its fantasy if she thinks we can leverage our bond issues by a factor of 6.

[@Malcolm701]

The Bank of England isn't private?

[@crumplepunch312]

Man Meryl Streep can play anyone.

[@paulsimmonds2030]

And her script-writer were the Illuminati, Banking/Corporate Elite!!

[@watsonmikeable]

Your analysis is spot on. If only conservative economists could think outside the square!

[@myroseaccount]

Can this women be chancellor? A decent media system would be exploring these subjects in more detail.

[@christopherlord3441]

Ann Pettifor for King!

[@sonsofpaletdom101]

It's like a good parent, they invest time, effort and money into their children so that they will be successful in life. That success in return will 1. Mean that parent won't have to bail them out of debt later in life 2. That parent has financial security via their children 3. A child taught well will in then learn from that good teaching and do the same. The countries who are most secure are the ones who don't necessarily have the biggest economy but the most stable people environment to live in. I think the Scandinavian countries are a good example

[@jakerichards8083]

she says govt borrowing isn't bad because people want to lend. However you still need to pay off the interest from the debt each year. currently 8% of spending goes on this. How much debt does she want to pass on to future generations? Borrowing and investing doesn't raise enough to cover the borrowing through tax. Which is why national debt went up under Brown as chancellor who tried what she talks about. So when the financial crisis hit we had no reserves to invest and stave off recession. This is nonsense.

[@carlton7015]

She has no clue. The money supply is nothing to do with fed? DOH She should have said theres one born every minute

[@zayn2476]

Brilliant speaker, ive just ordered your books from amazon after seeing this. Interesting stuff, hope to see more :)

[@jazzey69]

Money should be put into circulation by the treasury department, the way it should be... Not by private banks...:-)

[@christianlibertarian5488]

It is very rare that you run across someone who understands how money is created, yet doesn't understand how wealth is created. Yet this woman has achieved that rare level of ignorance. Her description of spending in health care and social care as being "investments" is absolutely false. One might as well "invest" in ipods, or beer. These are not investments, they are consumer goods. An investment is where the thing you have purchased will then on its own produce something. Education does do this, in that it creates a productive citizen. And by productive, I mean one who literally creates a good or a service. Creation of a good or service is how wealth is made. Spending money does not do this.

[@anthonycawley4065]

thatcher bless her , made us the one of the richest countrys in the world

[@tomd5678]

It's OK to have an environmental agenda but it should be disclosed at the start. The next crash (there is alway a next crash) is being created now. Due to the bailout of the banking system by governments the perceived risk of funding investment is very low. Greater risks are being taken as a result. Who will pay for the next crash?

[@Serfdomftw]

So let me get this straight. Tax is symptomatic of investment. But we can create investment through borrowing. This argument is fully circular. Its also fallicious. If this was true then any average joe could borrow money and invest it into things and earn it back. Businessess would never fail. Please stop assuming perfect investment and perfect productivity [perfect efficiency]. The government wastes millions every year.

[@sickbailey21]

Smart woman, glad to hear what she said.

[@johnvonhorn2942]

Ann Pettifor sounds like a strong proponent of Blair's third way. That did not end at all well.

[@MattNewt9837]

I would agree with almost all her points but she hasn't addressed the issue of the bailout bill, which is now a public dept crisis. Being that the only way to eliminate dept is with "growth" to have a higher GDP than what your borrowing... I would also have to disagree with the the the economy will keep growing, over voracious appetite for energy will keep growing as well

[@djw11111]

In my opinion this is very misleading apart from the environmentalism at the end of the video with which I agree. I present my reasons below. Happy to discuss and learn. 1:17 “How easy it is for governments to finance expenditure” I don’t think anyone believes that it’s not easy for the government to finance expenditure. That’s not the question. The question is whether the government should by spending the nation’s wealth or allowing private citizens to retain it for their own investment and spending. 1:35 “It’s at times like that that the government has to step in to support the private sector by investing” We’ve had 10 years of artificially low interest rates and QE. 1:50 “There’s a lot of money for bailing out the banks or for nuclear weapons but none for…” I’m not going to argue for bank bailouts but a reality check on the other items mentioned: Total UK Defence Budget (of which nuclear weapons makes up about £2bn) £46bn Total UK Social Care, Education, Health Budget £487bn 2:05 “There is no shortage of money in society” I can’t even imagine what this might mean to you. 2:55 “Taxes are a consequence of investment and spending they are not the thing that finances investment and spending.” Surely they are both. Furthermore, while all tax revenue is spent by the government not all tax revenue is created by government spending. If government spending ceased citizens would still create taxable wealth. 3:05 “Mainly through government borrowing” The UK increases public debt by £74bn per year, tax revenue is £716bn per year. 4:06 “There’s a new one born everyday” Freudian slip recalled a PT Barnum quote? 4:10 “Borrowers know that the money to repay the debt comes from the taxpayers” I thought you said that “taxes are not the thing that finances investment and spending”?! 5:01 “There’s no problem raising finance” Why do you think this is? Have you considered that it is because the government acts somewhat responsibly with regard to spending? 6:09 “Apparently we can’t afford this” Again, I think everyone knows the government could spend money on education. This doesn’t mean it should. 6:40 Look up the Broken Window Fallacy 7:55 “Investing in bonds is destructive, they don’t generate employment and income” Bonds do in fact usually generate income - I’m sure you know that so not sure what you mean. Lending money to businesses is not destructive it allows more competition in markets. 8:04 “Investment in education/health/social care pays for itself” Education in what? Any education? If it’s such a great investment wouldn’t individuals fund it themselves? Who’s health? Morals aside, does investment in the health/social care of non-productive members of society pay for itself?

[@xyzsame4081]

You did not - or do not want to understand the concept. Admitted it goes against everything that we are taught about money.

[@xyzsame4081]

Additional sources for those who are willing to learn about "Money" _Money creation in a modern economy_ - pdf by the Bank of England (highly recommended - they stop shy of mentioning of QE for the People of course, but apart from that it is well made). Dr. Richard Werner _Debt and Interest free money_ Dr. Stepanie Kelton Deficit Owl, MMT Prof. Steve Keen Warren Mosler (MMT) positivemoney(dot)org

[@JonesyMints]

She doesn't seem to know what 'exponential growth' means. Despite a significant confirmation bias on my part, this doesn't fill me with confidence.

[@Vulcan-zt7ob]

Would have been good to see more figures on this. For instance 1) What percentage of money is created by government borrowing and how exactly does this work? 2) What percentage of money in circulation is a result of the public borrowing money from banks. 3) What percentage of money the government spends is a result of income from taxing people? Where does the rest come from? 4) Why is there such a shortage of building land in the UK and why is it so ridiculously expensive? Why not just release loads of farm land and let people do what they want with it? 5) How about cheap land, cheap tiny houses or mobile homes and at a price where they can be payed of in a couple of years rather than 25 year slave mortgages? The UK economy and lifestyle seems to be all about creating shortage to control people on a rat wheel which wastes their life paying for basic things like a roof over ones head when the average Maori in New Zealand 300 years ago would build a hut out of Pongas and be free to enjoy his life with his family and tribe with an abundance of food, fresh water, fish, herbs and other natural produce. How did all this go so wrong??????????????????

[@chriswesley594]

You know what strikes me about this video post? The comments. They illustrate how deeply stupid so many people are. Never uncertain - just confidently wrong.

[@westonthefoster]

Damn!!! She makes so much sense. Too bad that most economist never who work for governments never see the human equation...

[@kwidzius]

There is no shortage of money??? WTF

[@yingyang1008]

Money is created by pressing a button, it has nothing to do with taxes or borrowing

[@kwidzius]

If money are 'just' printed why all government don't print them. ??? For sure it would resolve all problems around the world.

[@NickNakorn]

Absolutely right; I've been banging on about this for decades too - it made me unemployable even in the Green and charitable sector because I refused to accept the exponential argument and the 'living within our means' argument. I much prefer Ann Pettifor, Herman Daly and A.G. Frank; all three see the direct relationship between resources, sustainability and useful growth. Money supply is of course at the heart of this - governments can create money out of nothing if they so wish and if its essential spending it will not be inflationary because the 'market' is not subverted, it is endowed.

[@sambrowne3223]

spending it will not be inflationary because the 'market' is not subverted, it is endowed Please... Explain.

[@chatteyj]

Money and the supply of it will be linked to resource management, if there are no resources - there will be no money!! And if there was what good would it be????

[@NickNakorn]

Inflation is defined by too much money chasing too few goods thus the cost of the goods goes up in line with the over-supply of money. If the spending is essential - ie, specific and hypothecated, new goods are created by the release of the new money so the market is endowed with growth not subverted by inflation.

[@NickNakorn]

Sadly, the money supply is not currently linked to resources it is linked to fanciful financial entities - the sub-prime crisis being typical of the bubbles created as a result.

[@Strangerface1]

this was fantastic, thank you!

[@Gsavell]

We are witnessing the decline of civilisation.

[@lisongpidi572]

This lady is telling you this austerity talk by these politicians are liars we have loads of money the question is who is it going to the rich or the poor

[@forcemajeure72]

Could this be made creative commons so I can use it and spread this wisdom around?

[@IMBMB58]

Ah yes the Keynesian "miracle". Borrow money in the bad times, pump prime the economy and then pay it back in the good times. Only problem is they forget to pay it back in the good times. Just keep borrowing money to invest in more public servants until the make up the majority of the employed financed by a dwindling private sector. If you want to see the result of this just have a good look at the current dire state of Venezuela.

[@xyzsame4081]

The U.S. after WW2 DID follow Keynes - they did follow the recipe to pay back in the good times ater WW2. (Unfortunately also a lot of wars and military spending - else the country could be a paradise for regular people). The top marginal income tax was high with the beginning of the New Deal era (1930s), _92 % in 1944_ - the war was expensive ! It stayed in the 90 % = 80 % (effictive) area after the war. The U.S. had the highest ever federal debt in 1947 (see graphics on the web - ratio debt versus GDP, absolute numbers are useless to compare them with today's numbers - although the U.S. is headed there again). Wikipedia has a site about Income tax in the U.S. - see next comment The recipe: continue to SPEND BOLDLY, government spending and investment into infrastructure, Interstate highway, goverment employment (soldiers !) Education GI Bill, helping with export and building !! foreign markets (Marshall Plan). Good wages !! (unemployment was low - also thanks to direct and indirect government employment, for instance with the jobs infrastructure projects created). and high taxes for the "strong shoulders". Businesses could only prevent taxation with investment (and good wages). That took care of debt within 10 years (again ratio of GDP versus debt). The U.S. GREW OUT OF DEBT. Taxation (for the rich and profitable businesses) and good wages meant that no too much money was SUCKED OUT OF CIRCULATION and away from the lower income brackets and landed at the top. over time the 90 % rate was undermined with loopholes. In 1960 JFK and Nixon discussed an EFFECTIVE 72 % top marginal income tax rate for high incomes. Which would be a higher tax rate than the 90 % in the books with the possible exemptions. Taxes and domestic manufacturing stayed high/strong until the 1980s. Under Reagan the race to the bottom for taxes started, and the negotiations for NAFTA started. Bush could not get NAFTA passed. Bill Clinton started the undermining of the wages of the blue collars for real. (NAFTA, CHINA).

[@willsmith3553]

Where's the revelation? who didn't know government employee's pay tax. Plenty of bankrupt countries, regions spent/invested far more than they taxed. This seems to be an argument that there is unlimited money because its printed, but its printed as a loan so it cannot be wasted. A road in the middle of the countryside might well cost more to build than it will ever benefit the taxman, any government should be shrewd and choose where to invest the greatest portion of the nations taxes. Its also fair to say you can indeed afford anything the government choose's to but then they would need to recoup their investment with an adequate taxation. We could absolutely deliver all of Corbyns manifesto, but it would cost us around 75B a year more, our tax base is around 700B so give or take this is a 10% increase overall in taxation. Thats 10% on VAT, 10% on everyones income tax, 10% on business tax's, rates and tariffs. This is of course one way of doing things, you might then argue that country is less competitive because of the regressive tax increases which have to be included to reach said 75B, that's really where the debate lies. Over the course of 10 years, which system of priorities provides the greater good and i personally think history has shown growth focused economies increase everybody in the countries wealth, wellbeing and slowly but surely social mobility. Countries who focus on the people time and time again have fallen behind, its always blamed on something and often the states fall shortly after, but history paints a picture of over governance failing.

[@suebonnington]

So simple, so obvious. thank you for sharing.

[@tonydb9083]

Very interesting. Thank you for posting!

[@camcam638]

Very well done, nice presentation. What made me think though is that she never asked whether the government is the best operator for investments. She made the difference between speculation and investment but didn't go further by asking whether governments and politicians are actually making clever investments. She seems to believe that politicians and ministries do - but do politicians really have incentives to make clever investments in society when their terms in parliament are only 4 or 5 years long? She made it appear all so easy but it doesn't seem to be. She assumes (without saying it) that the state is not only a fantastic creditor but also investing into the common goods and taxating the capitalist free market in a way that guarantees a constant income in tax revenues.

[@pullgees]

Nothing new here, it's Keynesian economics, borrow and spend, borrow and spend and that's Labour why governments always ruin economies, and the Tories have to repair. It's all been tried before and it failed.

[@nakedmambo]

There is a growing list of people who supposedly 'predicted the crises'. Pity this astonishingly large group (after the fact) didn't shout a bit harder. However I saw Ann Pettifor presenting these arguments about money on Newsnight (I think) and I agreed it with it then as now.

[@kevinkingsbury2764]

Ms Pettifor makes many good points. However, when she speaks of Govt. gilts as 'borrowing' from the private sector it demands so many questions: is a government so indebted, that has borrowed for years, really going to repay the principle (borrow does imply repayment at equal value of the currency unit to time of gilt issue. .... . why not create the currency - the inflation (Austrian) will still be present but not the burden of debt. .... . if people/the eco system is really her focus, borrowing currency units without intrinsic value is not defensible.

[@xyzsame4081]

She spoke about the possibility ! to use _debt and interest free money._ (a term that Dr. Richard Werner coined - also see MMT). At the moment government funding is only done with two other instruments: taxation and debt. Usually with bonds (in some cases governments get loans) - like the bonds they issued in 2016 that were so attractive for the "investor" class that they could have sold them 6 times over. Those bonds disproportionally benefit wealthy and rich people (safe investment - if it is the bond of a safe state - plus interest). In the case of loans given by commercial banks the banks stand to profit. you bet the Financial "industry" does not want the unwashed masses to know that the government could use _debt and interest free money_ - so that concept is only dusted off in times of crisis when the financial elites will allow their politicians to use it. The concept is also known as QE for the people. Or: Sovereign Money. It is discussed as Modern Monetary Theory. During WW1 it was used as Bradbury Pound. Or after the Great Financial Crisis as QE for the banks - to the tune of trillions in the U.S., U.K. and Euro zone (that form of QE largely did not show up in the real economy). QE for Banks before had been used in Japan - did not help much either. A modest ! degree of QE for the People would have had much better results - for the citizens, not the criminal banks that were still hanging in the ropes after the first round of bailouts. MMT fans often argue that taxation is not even necessary. - I disagree: taxation keeps money in circulation, is a steering instrument (influencing behaviour). Especially in the case of the USD it would have unintended consequences - issuing more and more money dilutes the value of the currency in the world. I would not care for the fortunes in tax havens losing value - but the Chinese or Saudi Arabia for instance holds a lot of U.S. debt in USD - and they supplied goods or oil for it and would not be too pleased if that is undermined. We live with an economic system where huge amounts of money (independent from ECONOMIC EXHANGES) can flee into other currencies - so that would happen of course. Distortions with interest rates, problems for countries that use the currency (commodities that are sold in USD). Speculators can speculate against a currency - and they will. the required downpayments are between ZERO to 10 % (zero for the established "players") - so that is how they can speculate against countries as soon as any trend emerges. That said - for investments like infrastructure, education, social housing, railway, water and sewage systems it could be a valuable additional tool. Especially if the firesale of public utilities and natural monopolies is discussed aka "privatization". If a country has most of the resources necessary for a project it is legitimate to _invent_ new money to make the realization possible. Social housing renovation: windows, cladding, electric installation, architects, construction workers - the U.K. should have those resources - and THEY should be used - not imported - even if the prices are somewhat lower. (that could be achieved with issuing an alternative currency that is accepted for taxation, therefore making it "money" WITHIN the U.K. The construction workers, architects etc. would spend the wages (in GBP or partially in an alternative currency) for goods and services. Now if these goods would be (widely) of U.K. origin - it would be completely safe to bring more money into circulation. On the other hand if the newly "invented" money buys Dutch windturbines or a Chinese highspeed train it gets tricky - then the issued money is not backed up by more output of the national economy. We exchange goods and services with money (the most important function), the volume of money should _MATCH the volume of goods provided by the economy._ Social housing would be especially suited as investment, most countries do have the resources in the country to pull it off w/o imports. (as opposed to technology goods that must be imported). Providing the population with affordable housing reduces the costs of living longtime for the population. So it is an investment - longtime. quality (nothing fancy) pays off: there are projects in Vienna that were built in the 1920s and were groundbreaking for that time. These houses are still used. Sure they needed maintainance. Building them well can safe a lot of money afterwards. In Vienna they also so it as community and social issue. They also planned the infrastructure and the green. The government can provide the the zero interest loans. Local grassroots - tenants ! can think 50 years ahead. Council owned does not work - see Grenfell. The Councils are taken over and bribed by the investor class - and it shows. Grenfell Action Group could not use FOIA to see the specifications for the "renovation" (which had been changed from the first bid. The architects started with a safe form of cladding, but the one that turned the building into a tinderbox was _slightly_ cheaper. The Council - respectively the people that _managed_ the uppity plebs for them were already irritated about the constant demands for more information and participation. Legally they could refuse to show the altered specifications - so they did. Grassroots or co-ops that own projects of a modest size may be less successful in squeezing the subcontractors - but there will be less corruption. One of the reasons why the house community in Grenfall Tower was so strong (despite being so diverse) was that they knew they were not wanted in the area. They had to stand together to have affordable housing in an area that was "too good" for them. When people know their home depends on it - they will get off their behind. So handing it over to those impacted would bring good results. And they could not influence HOW the money was spent. They did not care for the optics of the building (which was so important for the Council = sympathetic of the needs of the real estate developers around Grenfell tower who did not like the look. The tenants asked for sprinklers and they complained again and again about electric safety. The low and medium income segment of the population would have more disposable income. And the economy is more robust. For the smaller budgets, housing is a big chunk. If that is well taken care off, times of economic downturn are not as dramatic. Needless to say Big Finance would go nuts. That might be the reason why corbyn does not mention QE for the People anymore. They are hostile enough as is ....

[@tottenhamhotspurish]

The dislikes on this video are from Arrogant Tories.

[@Stafford674]

This woman clearly loves the thought that her fellow citizens should live in poverty. Government borrowing to invest in society, which produces tax payers who can repay the debt. Sounds Great!....But: government's are very bad at investing. The investments produce no return, and all we are left with is debt. Debt that our children will have to repay. Since the Second World War British Governments have borrowed huge amounts of money, spent it on defence and social policies (which they like to call 'investment'), and now the British taxpayer must pay interest on the debt. If borrowing and government expenditure solved problems, the UK would not have any economic difficulties. The nice lady should address this problem and stop pretending it does not exist.

[@brucewallace2]

I'm no neo-liberal but this is a Keynesian dream. i.e. the multiplier.

[@plainjane2305]

She's great, I had never heard of her. Great segment!

[@klubsvetnikov8290]

Yes, excellent presentation! Only one big criticism: Government/Bank of England should not borrow from private sector (Speculative corporations), but simply create money out of the thin air, by a stroke on a computer keyboard (check the MMT).

[@xyzsame4081]

Well that is what she suggested (as additional instrument I suppose). She mentioned that the government issues bonds (like the one that was 6 times oversubscribed) - correctly desciribing the status quo. (which is liked by the investor class - debt and interest free money used for the common good is not an idea they like. Their fortunes would sit on the bank accounts and not be necessary. They can either spend it - but it would not earn them interest from bond investments. "We need to privatize" = sell the family silver "because we do not have the money to invest" would not be an argument. Therefore the investors could not get their hands on safe and lucrative investment opportunities - council houses, railway, school buildings, !!! healthcare. The only argument would be if a private company could manage the operation better. Even then it could remain in public ownership or with a majority share - and government could contract private companies as management for some time. And time and again: if it is a natural monopoly like water, sewage system, the railway - or if it goes in that direction like education, housing, healthcare - private companies do not do a better job. Sure sometimes government messes up, but there are also many examples where publicly run works well. But in case the investors get their hands on natural monopolies and public utilities - they do not invest long term, they raise the prices, squeeze the workforce - often either the consumers have to endure the long term damage (higher prices) or the public sector takes the mess back. That is ALWAYS the case with railway. After some years the voters get sick of price extortion, the effects of underinvestment become apparent. Then the public sector has to step in: Athe profits of the recent years went to the investors and therefore cannot help to offset the overdue investments.

[@mic7able]

She's a brilliant person. But everyone in the reasonable world saw those crashes coming. This doesn't diminish her insight, but the video itself seems to imply an esoteric element.

[@marciukspuks5353]

outside of nonsense regarding interest rate management (bond sales) that ann gets wrong and no. 6 in the comments debunks succinctly, she is also wrong about nominal resources and unemployment ever being too low. but generally she is one of the food ones and on the right track. lets keep pushing that good old govt spending!!

[@chatteyj]

My Goodness what a load of nonsense, this woman basically said that there is a magic money tree. Ask Venezula what its like when everyone wants too much fruit from that tree but the tree suddenly dies from lack of care only to be cut down and chopped up for firewood.

[@petebaron7886]

its in the tax evasion forest .

[@chatteyj]

So Venezulas problems are due to tax evasion? haha. Ok. Nothing to do with the wrong economic model then.

[@marciukspuks5353]

venezuala pegged it s official exchange rate to usd. functionally they are not monetarily sovereign. britain floats fx. totally different situation.

[@lizzihunt1167]

Bollocks. We are the money. We get registered at birth and our Christian/given name (not surname) is in a trust (Cestui Qiu Vie trust) that in the vatican - Great Britain is a vassal of the Roman Church since the Treaty of Verona in 1213 (isn - see Yahweh Brian Leonard Golighty Marshall). Our surname is the corporation/ franchisee/legal name/stawman/transmitting utility/ debtor and our Christian/given name is the creditor. The govt/council don't tell us that we have to prove we are alive every 7yrs (complete cfo form 206) and to secure our corporation name so these bankster bastards can't use our trust and bonds complete UCC 1 with your corporation name (all capital see birth cert). More info - Judge Anne von Rietz, Romley Stewart, Rohan Lorian, StopthePirates, Secure Party Creditor, Kindness Credits, UBUNTU, GLOSSA.

[@topclass2008]

brilliant straight forward and well delivered