The Green New Deal vs. The Economy

[@etclifford3]

Never has so much been said and so little been communicated.

[@rocketbike0692]

Yes.

[@Leslieclaire1]

Not sold.

[@waynemcmillan5970]

As usual Nathan gets you thinking differently to most economists. His understanding of how money operates in economies is very sophisticated. His grounded, realistic ideas about the implementation of big transformational projects like the Green New Deal should be taken seriously.

[@drakekoefoed1642]

he's basically right. gnd is not difficult. you go into deficit to hire the unemployed to build the new economy, and the stimulated economy creates lots of wealth.

[@TheMinstrel55]

@@drakekoefoed1642 So it seems to me that during Covid-19, the Treasury went into a deficit to protect existing wealth, but not to grow it?

[@typicallyodd2237]

Right! It’s not hard to fund this either! All we need to do is incentivize others to give us their money!

[@typicallyodd2237]

Right! It’s not hard to fund this either! All we need to do is incentivize others to give us their money!

[@WA4OSH]

Most of his idea sounds like a proposal for a perpetual motion machine.

[@shogun7p7]

Nathan Tankus is advocating for indicative planning it seems. Since the GND would require planning but obviously not the kind of planning we saw in the Soviet Union instead like Gaullist France.

[@jeffreyanthony6628]

I see it more aligned with what Galbraith was tasked with during his tenure with the National Resources Planning Board starting in 1938 and specifically how they managed demand during the war years 1941-45 as you had massive expenditures on real products that were then shipped overseas and you had people who were at home being compensated who then did not have much to buy with that money at home since everything was going to the war effort. This would have lead do devastating levels of inflation if not actively managed. I recommend doing some reading on how this was managed. War Bonds were a tool used to trick Americans into thinking they were financing the war effort when in reality it was a tool used to suck aggregate demand out of the economy, along with price controls in certain industries etc etc etc. It worked.

[@shogun7p7]

@@jeffreyanthony6628 Oh that too! How can I forget Galbraith.

[@tuckerbugeater]

@@jeffreyanthony6628 What a bunch of idiots and then they went and killed their German cousins. Morons!

[@billytheweasel]

There’s one planet that supports life. Money can’t buy a new one. Everyone will suffer.

[@AudioPervert1]

Nathan Tankus, like thousands and thousands of other vassals of the industrial civilisation, basically live in Collapse Denial. They want to perpetuate a sick, gutted civilisation, based on extraction, destruction and pollution. They claim infinite growth is possible on a finite planet. The green new deal is epic fraud.

[@2rooms19]

@@AudioPervert1Imagine thinking that production cannot be sustainable.

[@RezaPutra2504]

And sadly the poor will suffer the most.

[@InternetMameluq]

@@AudioPervert1 Lol dude, computers. Google it. There is no 'finite planet'. It's an infinite planet. Also ideas don't take up space either, but the computer thing is a lot more tangible.

[@WA4OSH]

@@2rooms19 Exactly. Economies can't work if they're not self sustaining and self optimizing.

[@misshvkk]

Appiah comes to mind while watching this. So many public policy decisions are so deeply rooted in value theory. I don't agree with everything said here, but it's quality stuff & food for thought.

[@WA4OSH]

It's food for thought and a recipe for disaster.

[@benarkus8003]

Shoutout Nathan tankus

[@nerdynerd0]

If interest rates go up with inflation, how will entities fare with debt serviceability?

[@thomasd2444]

Entities ? Borrowers ?

[@drakekoefoed1642]

highly leveraged casino capitalism? not well

[@nerdynerd0]

@@thomasd2444 both

[@nerdynerd0]

@@drakekoefoed1642 this is why high interest rates won't be allowed without proper planning/agreements in place. I believe 🤷🏽‍♂️

[@WA4OSH]

You really can't take problems you need to solve climate change off the table. 1) You need the new technologies in the pipeline to solve the problem. 2) The solution needs to be more resource efficient than what we have now 3) You need capital to fund a massive project like this.

[@richardsnodgrass8647]

Trillions sitting offshore. Don't you think this money should be brought back to their sovereign countries to be taxed? Do you not even know about these monies. Until you address this issue you are just spewing words and, to me, seem a bit foolish.

[@williamcook2499]

They have bots doing their works on KZbin

[@tonyfubu]

this is the problem of macro-economics: the case studies (eg. the yacht) aren't pulled from any real-life or significant aggregate, but from the a@@ of the thinker. In other words, speaking about an aggregate (eg. the economy) with various metrics (eg. supply/demand, inflation) without critically breaking down the economy into supply chains, economic relations, and social networks allows for one to talk as if you know what's going on but really all you're describing is what you can see, in your metrics. Another way to think of it: Newton's physics pragmatically describe gravity as a force that pulls, but his physics are superficial descriptions that don't actually describe the inner mechanics of this illusion, hence Einstein and his ilk. With Newtonian physics you simply don't get satellites. But hey, based on his metrics Newton is technically right.

[@drakekoefoed1642]

but newton did explain satellites. not artificial ones but the moon and planets, etc. relativity did not change orbital mechanics very much. I took relativity and quantum mechanics in 1974 but i still remember some of it. the first pp is full of capitalist economic jargon, but that is not the issue. this guy is talking about mmt, and you can (and should) study some warren mosler. As stepanie kelton will show you, you do not create inflation by hiring the unemployed. If M1 gets too high, tax the billionaires.

[@williamcook2499]

The part where this person's post was placed from a computer....and the reply was always placed as a persons post.... it's not real.

[@williamcook2499]

I am alive.

[@williamcook2499]

Your post and the reply isn't really anything but a handbrake....

[@WA4OSH]

There about 750 billionaires in the US. If you confiscated not only their lux cars, limos, yachts, airplanes, islands, mansions but everything else you would have about 1.5 Trillion dollars. The US spends more than this every year in deficit spending. But their real assets are income producing assets not liabilities. You would be removing working assets from the most viable businesses.

[@danielhutchinson6604]

If the Economy is making the possibility of Human Life impossible, we seem to need to discuss the use of Capitalism as unsustainable? Economists assume that Capital is essential to human life? Humans assume that Economists are not essential to Human Life......

[@michaelchattick3589]

The. New Big Green always goes heavy into the economics but what is in reality socal engineering on a massive scale. Who today owns the trillions of USD spent on nuke plants, solar reservations and wind generation stations? In todays push the Powers that be movers want greater density of populations within Metro areas but in ways that pushes less educated, less skilled out of. The newly "Gentrified" areas. Who owns the lands and profits of the population abandoned or sold, why the same dpomestic and fforeign financials who mine and farm hundreds of millions of their controlled what was once Public Lands. Public lands that were supposed to benefit all Americans. The recent currency resets of world with its primacy concern of gold.backing will pla ce what in effect todays flexible multiple banking sovereign and private into one account, into controll of a few digital. As recent pandemic events slammed the working poor "unessentials" while leaving essentials still managing the systems of both sovereigns and private corporate with a growing GDP and profits upon all exchanges of data info and material trade gradually profiting as they made adjustments. The energy needs are not to be for benefit of the unessentials but for top 40-50-% who actually can supply their and their leaderships with all essential forms needed to survive . The top 50% of all holders of wealth were not the most innovative of population but they know how to manage real wealth and power. tomorrows world does not need the masses of semi skilled and unskilled populations and we are already deep into drawing lines ofwhowill manage and live within the newest highest tech world. Billions of PC illiterate with trillons of not needed people with but social skill pc. vast portions ofhigher edu cation going private and seeking most profitableDisciplinees to continue with the most effecient use of material goods. Those living today will not have any skills of value only the fewwill and occupational emphasis will control who gets aneducation and who gets trained and no there will not be allowed changes of trained courses it screws lanning by. Entralized Boards. ownership of many items will be se erely estricttex to conform to Greens Future Plans. lots of millenials making livings off of. Grants but they can only generalize the future not get down to real nitty gritty of financing and controlling of populace to go along. How will fundi g needs of educTion change when only 40% of children will be allocated for highest jobs by 10th grades 40% of students will be trained in manual labor or semi labor training by 6th grade. Of course they of top 40% think their kids will be of the special catagories.

[@tonyfubu]

interesting critique. but it's wholly one-sided. is there a solution? in other words, has another side of the dialectic been identified. critical criticism, for its own sake, is simply mental master-debating.

[@williamcook2499]

I see why these Democrats are nervous

[@aarononeal9830]

If you are looking for away to help the environment you can use ecosia they are a search engine that plants trees

[@WA4OSH]

The bigger problem is how to provide food, shelter and energy without producing excess carbon in our atmosphere. It's far more complicated than planting a few trees or unemployed folks as wildfire fighters or campground police.

[@terryloder6339]

Why should the World support the US ?. Interest rate for US debt is based on selling bonds, about half of all bonds are purchased by foreigners why would anyone purchase Treasures for zero return or even negative return.

[@drakekoefoed1642]

they buy dollars, which do not pay interest

[@terryloder6339]

@@drakekoefoed1642 some institutions do that are getting undre the table benefits, if you know what i mean.

[@lutherblissett9070]

Because they have 5000 nukes pointing at them?

[@ncabcabin]

How can we trust this guy on money when he can’t even figure out his own weight problem 😂

[@patrickmccormack4318]

Who is this guy? Next.

[@harrygeorge409]

People will be kicking themselves in few weeks if they miss the opportunity to buy and invest in bitcoin

[@ryder7634]

Bitcoin trading right now will be at every wise individuals list. In few minutes you'll be ecstatic with the decision you made today

[@santiagomanuel3757]

Bitcoin trading nowadays is a big change to make money

[@helencooper6818]

BITCOIN: IS THE ONLY TRUE DEMOCRACY EVER EXISTS IN THE WORLD

[@peterjohnson9361]

Crypto is the future, trading crypto has become a lucrative way of making money

[@sonyabutler9503]

Stock are good too

[@yepwhocares3541]

Oh i soooo solved this. No really. I did

[@MyMysaysFU]

Real men prefer fossil fuels…

[@jimallgeier6009]

Why don’t know that guy know how to speak english

[@drakekoefoed1642]

stephanie kelton does

[@thebrunoserge]

#TaxTheRich

[@ouss]

#AxTheRich

[@rocketbike0692]

Leave the economy alone. Let people work for their own livelihoods. The government needs to stick to it’s original function, and should be more worried about paying off it’s debt and cutting spending down than dictating our lives. The reason that it isn’t is because those like AOC and this guy want our lives dictated. Expanding on that concept, do you really trust this guy?

[@katiecannon8186]

You: I hate my government issued dollars I have in my pocket. My government issued dollars are killing me!!! The government must stop getting dollars into my pocket!!!! 😜 Also, per our Constitution, an original obligation of our government is to issue our national currency. You silly head. Finally, all money is debt because double entry accounting: For any asset, there’s a corresponding liability (debt). And vice versa. Bank credit = Private debt Government “debt” = Private net savings (minus private debt, minus foreign trade, minus taxes). We use government issued dollars to shop, pay our banks back, settle our foreign trade deficits, pay tax and net save. You’re saying you hate being able to save.

[@rocketbike0692]

@@katiecannon8186 I understand that, but they are trying to threaten the economy with the green new deal.

[@lutherblissett9070]

@@rocketbike0692 You think mass starvation and eventual civilisational collapse won't threaten the economy?

[@stevefitt9538]

@Rocket Bike06, the Gov. can never pay OFF its debt. It is flatly impossible. Just where do you think the Gov. can find about $25 trillion dollars to tax? You obviously don't know that the US Gov. has run a surplus 7 times in history and every thime the surplus caused a recession or "bank panic". The last time was Pres. Clinton's supposed surplus that is said to have used accounting tricks to still spend while claiming a surplus. And still there was a recession. The causation is obviou to many. In todays dollars and situation, after the Gov. has had a total surplus of just a few trilions of dollars the lack of income will caise a lack of spending, and this will cause a racession, and if the Gov. keeps the surplus in place the recession will become a depression. The UK has had a national debt for 325 years now and rarely had a surplus. Just why do you think the US is different from the UK? Why will the US ever need to pay down let alone pay off the national debt. Every dollar of the debt, is an asset of someone. These someones do not want to Gov. to tax them to retire the debt. But, they are the people with the dollars. The Gov. can't tax trillions from the bottom 20% of the people, because they do not have it. It is simple to get rid of the debt. Just default on it. How is this different from passing a law that imposes a 100% tax on the money the people have in Gov. debt? The only fair way to "pay off" the US Gov. debt is to ccreate dollars (and not use tax dollars) to pay off the bonds. This would likely have bad consequences for the economy just like defaulting on the debt would. It is far better to keep kicking the can down the road forever. The US Gov. doesn't need to borrow to spend. It can, as Nathan said, set interest rates on its bonds at say 1% and sell all those bonds that nobody wants at 1% to the Fed. All it takes is a new law to allow this.

[@emanate0]

yeah idk man, seems like a good idea to keep people housed, healthy, and well fed so they can contribute to society. what the hell is the purpose of government if it doesn't do these things? why would you support a government that uses most of its money to pay off big oil (which is destroying the planet) in subsidies, big pharma and insurance which is keeping people sick for profit (i guess the payment is going the other way for this one), and the military industrial complex so it can continue to make money off of killing innocents all over the world to control resources and for warlord money? why would you support that? do you really think if left to their own devices, that corporations will play by the rules and not monopolize and create extremely unfair work environments and prices? have you read any history?

[@brice243]

An entity who bases their policy on modern monetary theory were not

[@brice243]

An entity who bases their monetary policy on modern Economic theory Will never find a lender At any interest Rate

[@thomasd2444]

@@brice243 - That made me laugh at how you have not learned, yet, that the problem is controlling Lenders to only lend for the productive purposes. Anyway, start by reading the book, The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One by Black. And as you read ask yourself, "But how can we get a lender to lend?" . . . Never find a lender is just too darn funny.

[@brianlaroche8856]

Shits

[@brice243]

One reason why interest rates can't be set at 0 is because In the real world nobody is lending money for free

[@AudioPervert1]

Nathan Tankus, like thousands and thousands of other vassals of the industrial civilisation, basically live in Collapse Denial. They want to perpetuate a sick, gutted civilisation, based on extraction, destruction and pollution. They claim infinite growth is possible on a finite planet. The green new deal is epic fraud. After 5000 years of DEBT and SLAVERY we have discuss "0 interest rates" Pathetic!

[@thomasd2444]

@@AudioPervert1 - Probably the "green" part = not based on extraction, destruction, & pollution

[@snowballeffect7812]

@@AudioPervert1 I think you missed the point. Tankus isn't advocating for infinite growth, on the contrary, he's saying the government needs to refocus the economy to sustainability and he's making a claim that 0% interest for gov't liability would be helpful to that end. I'm not sure how you got to the opposite conclusion. Also people do lend money for free all the time, especially individual to individual. The problem with huge long-term loans, though, is that inflation will eat up the value of the principle unless it's adjusted for. Charitable loans are worth it if the loan is used to benefit all parties, too.

[@InternetMameluq]

Uh. No. That's not why.

[@katiecannon8186]

Government bonds are just a savings account at The Fed. Our government creates dollars when Congress votes to pay for something. It doesn’t borrow

[@brice243]

At the end of the day the fed has got To find somebody to buy their bonds Interest rates are not arbitrary they are based On the credit worthiness of the borrower An entity who basi s Modern monetary theory

[@AudioPervert1]

Nathan Tankus, like thousands and thousands of other vassals of the industrial civilisation, basically live in Collapse Denial. They want to perpetuate a sick, gutted civilisation, based on extraction, destruction and pollution. They claim infinite growth is possible on a finite planet. The green new deal is epic fraud.

[@2rooms19]

No, the Fed buys a lot of bonds right now, it doesn’t sell them.

[@katiecannon8186]

Primary dealers are under contractual obligation to clear all treasury auctions. So, no, The Fed doesn’t haven’t to find someone to buy “its bonds”. And The Fed sets interest rates

[@katiecannon8186]

@@AudioPervert1 You, we cannot create a green, caring, culture economy because that’s pollution 🙄

[@john-lenin]

You either don’t really understand the implications of MMT or you’re purposely dumbing things down to try to win over the people who definitely don’t understand it. What you’re arguing for is some kind of bizarre hybrid of traditional and MMT

[@thomasd2444]

You who ? . . . You're who ? . . . You're who ?

[@slipshodglasses2769]

I also share the same feeling after watching his talk.