What is money? With Ann Pettifor

[@mogeconomics]

This is really a good discourse. Well done @Rethinking Economics.

[@thomasd2444]

05:35 - Today I'm going to talk about another imminent crisis of our very unstable system. 06:09 - I was surprised at how few economists understood what was happening. 06:29 - Bill White - Bank of International Settlements Report 2005 06:56 - SEP 2006, no Crisis. JAN 2007, no crisis. THEN on the 09 AUG 2007 : THE WHOLE BANKING SYSTEM FROZE 07:12 - Still no recognition there was a crisis. 07:16 - Ten years ago, MAR 2008, Bear Sterns Global Investment Bank collapsed : 469 BIL bailout 07:26 - People claimed they were managing the crisis. Greenspan : Soft Landing 07:35 - The Alarms raised in Ann Pettifor's book were not needed since the crisis was being managed. 07:42 - 15 SEP 2008 Lehman Brothers Financial Services Firm 08:00 - STUNNED . . . The PUBLIC thought everything was all good. . . When the PUBLIC is ignorant of what is going on, we can't do anything, _________ WE can't change anything. 11:00 - When you understand that, then you understand that money is nothing more than a social contract. And interest is the price of money.

[@fachriranu1041]

Dude you really unsung Hero... Thanks

[@mogeconomics]

This is a very enlightening talk Ann especially the mention of what really bothered Keynes; the interest rate which seems to be an eye opener as opposed to what many mainstream Economics preach of him. Good job.

[@waynemcmillan5970]

Thank you Ann for an interesting talk. Please continue your valuable work.

[@thomasd2444]

00:33 - Roman Eliassen 01:15 - 02:15 - Roman Eliassen introduces Ann Pettifor 02:22 - book : The Coming First World Debt Crisis 2006 by A. Pettifor _________ Book : The Production of Money: How to Break the Power of Bankers 2017 by Ann Pettifor . Book : The Case for the Green New Deal by Ann Pettifor, to be released 05 NOV 2019 (21 JUL 2019) . What is the Green New Deal and How Can We afford it? . The GND has the potential of becoming one of the largest global campaigns of our times, and it started in Ann Pettifor's flat. . In 2008, the first Green New Deal was devised by Pettifor and a group of English economists and thinkers, but was ignored within the tumults of the financial crash. . 03:05 - Roman Eliassen introduces Bjørn Skogstad Aamo 04:24 - Ann Pettifor . 17:30 - M O N E Y . 19:12 - . 1:08:59 - 1:09:42 - 1:10:05 - Professor Hélène Rey, French economist who serves as Professor at London Business School (LBS). www.helenerey.eu/RP.aspx?pid=Working-Papers_en-GB www.helenerey.eu 1:10:59 - Loans at 5 times income has worked at moving money from innovative _________ production & into paying interest. VERDICT : Burdensome cost of doing _________ business. SOLUTION : Modern Debt Jubilee. . 1:15:00 -

[@thomasd2444]

38:43 - Norwegen Realities. 39:44 - 46:44 - Lessons learned from the banking crisis 53:24 - 54:41 - 55:01 - 58:20 - 58:27 - 59:30 - 1:00:56 -

[@klubsvetnikov8290]

Great talk and good contribution by the Norad guy.

[@wesleyMwarren]

This is more about the economicmiracle of SPIN.

[@Herbwise]

Money is a measure of the commodities and services we buy and has no value of its own.

[@thomasd2444]

24:10 - At the moment we have a shortage of debt . And I go into that because that's a concept economists really balk at & really find difficult. 24:20 - So then I want to walk - because this is my passion - I want to talk about this thing which is the price of money . 27:40 - easyJet of our time what was it called . . . Sir Frederick Alfred Laker was an English airline entrepreneur, _________ best known for founding Laker Airways in 1966, which went bankrupt in 1982

[@thomasd2444]

1:02:08 - 1:03:32 -

[@Herbwise]

John Kenneth Galbraith said that money is whatever we think it is and what we use to buy goods and services or sell them.

[@thomasd2444]

38:07 - now there are more signs of weakness in the United States economy, the European economy, the British economy. _________ And everybody thinks tut-tut-tut , we thought it was on the up-and-up. 38:19 - So, our global income is still pretty pathetic, given the amount of liquidity the central banks have pumped in and _________ dependence on monetary policy and the refusal to use fiscal policy.

[@Herbwise]

You cannot “lend” oil because it is consumed. And thus you cannot get it back. The implication of “lending” is that it will be repaid.

[@se7ensnakes]

John Kenneth Galbraith once wrote “The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it.” I think of this when I think of MMT. They appear to de-emphasize where most of the money is created. Private commercial banks create most of the money we use. On one hand the MMT crowd acknowledges that Banks do not lend from deposits. They acknowledge private bank endogenous money. But then they claim that "THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS WHERE THE MONEY COMES FROM" and follow with a de-emphasis in the endogenous money that private banks create. When we actually look at data we see the the M0 (which is government created) and the M2 (if you subtract 1.70) you find the endogenous money that the bank created. Are they trying to explain this difference using the Fractional Reserve Lending money because that was debunk decades ago? I believe that MMT is another ideology meant to confuse the public. They are paid shills to misinform and keep people off the track to what is really happening. So what is really happening? Bank of America et al are creating over 90% of the money stock with absolutely no supervision from the Federal Government. This is highly illegal as the constitution gives only the congress the power to manage the nation's money supply. Please refer to article 1 section 8 clause 5.

[@Rob-fx2dw]

You are right. MMT does virtually ignore private bank money creation. Yes, they are paid shills and that is evident whne you question them and they either run away becasue they can't ansswer or reply with abuse which is common.

[@se7ensnakes]

@@Rob-fx2dw exactly. If they think that you can progress with economics without shutting off the 16 trillion dollar magic money spigot, they are delusional. These powerful bankers would mobilize and stop anything that threatens them, so you cannot ignore them. You have to attack them head on with truthful information.

[@se7ensnakes]

@@Rob-fx2dw look at this debate, how this guy tries to hide the counterfeiting: David Swan extending credit does not require funds in advance, it requires funds on the back end in the event of default. You are thinking of "lending", an entirely different operation. · Reply · 1w Se7ensnakes David Swan How does that differ from the violation of GAAP's matching principle. If you give credit to someone and expect to borrow the money later, from the interbank lending market that would be an accounting violation and against article 1 section … See More · Reply · 1w David Swan Se7ensnakes it comes from your promise to pay, backed by the bank's capital if you don't. Banks monetize promises. · Reply · 1w Se7ensnakes David Swan You are saying two things: 1)promise to pay and 2) backed by the bank's capital. · Reply · 1w David Swan Se7ensnakes yes, your promise to pay is the bank's asset, balanced against the deposit liability created. If your promise to pay becomes worthless (default) then the bank no longer has that asset and thus takes the monetary hit. Se7ensnakes yeah like a burglar. If he relies on burglarizing homes to pay his bills, the burglar is going to take a hit. Ha ha ha ha . These MMT people are something else

[@TheCommonS3Nse]

Recognizing that any ideology has it’s sprinkles of truth, I’ve often wondered about the difference between money that comes from government spending vs money that comes from banks. To illustrate, imagine an economy consisting of two businesses. One selling apples, the other selling apple picking equipment. The total amount of money in the economy is $100 which is constantly flowing between the two. Now expand the economy by adding in another company, let’s say a baker. I would assume that the expansion of the economy would require more money, otherwise sales will drop for everyone and prices will fall, making the businesses less profitable. So let’s assume the money in the economy expands to $150. Where does that extra $50 come from? It either comes from the government injecting more money into the system, or it comes from the other two businesses lending money to the third business. I would think that there is a fundamental difference between those two money sources. Would that be correct? With the obvious caveat that the real economy is far more complex than this rudimentary example. Both would require the offsetting debt on the Fed balance sheet, but one is direct monetary injection and the other has an added weight in the form of private interest. I would think that if you relied on the private debt model to create most of the liquidity in your market, it would come with this extra burden of debt which will slow down your economy over time and make it less productive, as more money will be tied up in debt financing rather than increasing production. It’s hard to get a straight answer to this question on something like the r/economics subreddit, as they tend to dismiss the entire question as “political” and not in the realm of economics.

[@Herbwise]

You need a special credit card in some places. I was unable to use some of my credit cards in Brazil and I am unable to purchase things from some Swiss firms now.

[@nthperson]

An interesting presentation and discussion. The lesson is that politics dictates economic outcomes. It is clear that our politics over the last four decades has only exacerbated the consequences of long-standing systemic problems. What has been released on the world's population is the destructive power of rent-seeking. Deregulation and lowering of marginal tax rates on higher incomes has provided the fuel for dramatic increases in the amount of financial assets poured into the land and natural resource markets, which are subject to a very low effective rate of taxation and are, therefore, an excellent rent-seeking investment. The solution is political. Rents must become the source of public revenue. This is the only way to tame land markets of investment for speculation rather than actual development and production of tangible wealth. Edward J. Dodson, M.L.A., Director School of Cooperative Individualism www.cooperative-individualism.org

[@krabi94]

money isn't an asset. It's a double-entry bookeeping

[@matthewcory4733]

Money isn't an asset but a medium of exchange. Hard metals have been used because they're rare and durable, not because of intrinsic value. The backing and real bills doctrine is completely specious. Money simply needs to be constant. People can trade cigarettes when they are hard to come by. It's just a socially constructed agreement. Bookkeeping is more complicated than meaning of money.

[@19battlehill]

New Zealand --- has property bubble because billionaire class is running there because they know their is another global melt down coming --- and they are driving the price of the land up. Many many reasons for inflation --- some are supply and demand like New Zealand. Others are CREDIT EXPANSION and this is why property prices are going up in US or UK or Canada. They are giving more and more people money (even though the people are not making any more money). Private debt is a ponzi scheme ---lower and lower interest rates allow people to take on more debt- once people can not take on anymore debt because they don't have the income the prices (that where inflated by fake financialization and not real growth or resource limited supply).

[@deleteddevil912]

Its so long

[@lutherblissett9070]

and so thick!

[@klubsvetnikov8290]

No too entertaining, is it?

[@wesleyMwarren]

It was supposed to be short, but to apologise for pure evil you need A LOT of words.