Youtube comments of Garys Economics (@garyseconomics).
-
3500
-
1500
-
660
-
344
-
246
-
226
-
220
-
211
-
201
-
153
-
139
-
126
-
124
-
110
-
86
-
86
-
84
-
82
-
78
-
69
-
69
-
67
-
64
-
63
-
57
-
56
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
45
-
44
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
39
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
Ok, this is a good question. So the first thing to plug is my website www.wealtheconomics.org. I wrote this in 2014/2015 but it explains my theory neatly and concisely and in plain english and is still very relevant.
In terms of other writers, the problem we have is that
1) Very few economists write seriously about inequality
2) Of those that do, few write in a way that is accessible and engaging to ordinary people who haven't studied economics at uni.
One guy who I like a lot and mention in the video is Ha Joon Chang. A nice guy and a smart economist, he has severy books that are very accessible, though usually not with a specific focus on inequality.
The two big inequality writers are Piketty (who is now quite famous) and Gabriel Zucman. Piketty wrote a huge (literally) book in i think 2012 called "Capital". It sold very widely but is VERY big and not easy to read all of. If you are serious you can buy it, but, in my opinion, only the first few chapters are interesting to people without econ degrees. Zucman's writing is also not always the most accessible to non-economists but I think his book "Triumph of Injustice" is good and I would recommend it.
Unfortunately, I cannot think of any other economists who's writing I have enjoyed. Owen Jones recently interviewed me for a book on economics, so maybe that will be worth reading when it comes out. If you find any writers that you find interesting, do let me know.
Oh and also I've written several articles that you can find by googling my name. The best ones are for opendemocracy (a website), but my Express articles are also quite good.
35
-
35
-
35
-
This would depend on how the money was spent. It could, for example, be used to reduce the taxes that ordinary people pay, especially the taxes that fall most heavily on the poorest like council tax or the lower levels of national insurance. In those cases the money would go to ordinary workers who would then use it to improve their quality of life. You could also use it to improve public services in which case it would raise the wages of public sector works, improving their quality of life, and also improving the broader economy by allowing them to have more money to spend.
Putting money in the hands of ordinary workers, rather than the rich, has a multiplicative effect, as the ordinary workers spend the money, driving up the wages of OTHER ordinary workers, who then spend it again, as opposed to the rich who use it to buy assets FROM ordinary families, making ordinary families poorer over time.
Maybe I'll make a video on this at some point.
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
28
-
27
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
Hi Sami, this is a good question.
For starters, I think there are some areas where increased government spending could clearly be benificial. Increased funding of education and the NHS would surely be a good thing, and it seems to me that better funding of social activities and youth clubs for young people would surely be a good thing to have.
Even without this, taxing the rich more in order to reduce taxes on ordinary working people's wages would also definitely be a good thing both for the economy and the society.
So there is no doubt that higher taxes on the rich COULD be beneficial on society. Even if the money were simply destroyed, taking it away from the richest would reduce asset prices, inequality and inflation, thus basically reversing the most damaging long term economic effects of COVID.
So, ultimately I think that, at this point, almost ANY taxation of the rich would be economically and societally beneficial, although of course there are better and worse ways of doing it.
It may be that your question may be about direct government theft/corruption, of which it does appear there has been some particularly during COVID (although I am not an expert on this). If this is happening, of course it's an enormous problem, but it does not take away from the central economic problem of rapidly growing wealth inequality in society.
Gary
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
So I think this comment touches on an interesting and common confusion between different forms of "money creation", and you've actually highlighted it yourself in your comment.
The kind of "money creation" done by banks is, as you point out "credit creation", that is, its the creation of loans, or the lending of money. This is, in a sense, a kind of "money creation" as it gives lots of people access to the same cash, but it's not GIVING out money, it's the lending of money - people get money, but there is always a corresponding debt alongside it.
What happened during covid, and will happen again now as part of the governments energy plan is a different kind of money creation in the sense that they are GIVING out, not LENDING out money. This means that someone in society MUST end up with a ton of money WITHOUT any corresponding debt against it.
In my opinion, this latter type of money creation, giving rather than lending money, has the potential to be much more inflationary, as the rich people who end up with the money are unlikely to be willing to accept holding much larger cash balances, and will use the money to push up asset prices and also purchase assets from poorer people, which will cause the money to cascade back downwards to more average families, but only at the cost of poorer families losing their homes or becoming more indebted, and an increase in overall wealth inequality.
Another important difference is that money created by loans disappears when the loans are repaid, but money created by government deficits only disappears when the government runs a fiscal surplus, which is quite likely to never happen.
As a result I see a big potential for huge increases in asset prices, average debt levels of ordinary families, and inequality in asset ownership. Quite simply it will be a disaster, and it is largely going unopposed due to a widescale lack of understanding of "money".
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
Well, this is an unexpected question, so I will take it! I lived in Japan 2012-2014 and I studied Japanese a lot when I was there, first with a teacher and then just from textbooks. Since I was living there I was using it a lot and I learnt through a natural combination of study and immersion/conversation.
Learning a language in your own country is a bit harder, because you lack the immersion. Spanish and Italian are both languages that I have learnt since covid, largely using an app called Duolingo. A lot of people don't like Duolingo as a method, and I also think that it has a lot of weaknesses and doesn't work for a lot of people.
What I would say about Duolingo, is that it is a very nice and easy way to introduce yourself to a new language, but that often some people need a bit more support than Duolingo offers for learning new/unfamiliar grammar structures. When I started using it (initially for Spanish), I had already studied a lot of French and a bit of Spanish at high school, so I already had a basic understanding of the grammar worked, and I had also learnt Japanese, which meant I was more familiar with learning new grammatical concepts. If you are not confident with grammar, you may need more support, for example from a textbook, a formal teacher, or a friend.
The other weakness with Duolingo is that of course it gives you no conversation practice. In both Spanish and Italian I got to levels where I was very comfortable reading, but not comfortable in conversation. I spent a lot of time in Spain, Colombia and Italy and forced myself to use it (which was hard), and developed my conversation that way. But the jump from reading to actual conversation using Duolingo is very hard.
Overall, I would say that, with learning a language, the first thing to recognise is that it is a long term project and it will take quite a bit of time and work to get to anything even approaching a conversational level. Once you accept that and are willing to take the time commitment, I honestly think that the most important thing is simply to find a method that you enjoy. That could be apps like Duolingo, textbooks, formal study with a teacher or an official course, watching netflix, listening to music, or talking with friends. Whatever method you choose though, you will have to do a lot of thinking and studying and research around your method to fill in gaps with grammar understanding, and, eventually, you will have to take the dive and try throwing yourself into conversations. If you don't have any friends you can talk to, there are often language meetups in big cities. If you find those nervewracking, you can use websites like "italki" to pay a small fee for conversation practice sessions online.
Overall, learning a language is a big project, and it requires time and commitment, but it can be very rewarding. Pick a method that you enjoy and stick to it and you will get there in the end. Good luck!
15
-
Ah yes I remember you well! I remember that time we whistled the superman theme tune in your class! I think you told me I was "setting new records for underachievement in maths", I think that was fair!
Yes the Laffer curve is an interesting idea that has been very politicized. I have no doubt its true that, at the extreme end, income taxes of 100% will raise little or no income. However, there is much disagreement about what levels would raise the most income. Probably higher than the current 45%-ish levels would raise more revenue, although it depends of course on the specifics of the country. A small, open country with a very mobile workforce has much more to lose from raising taxes than a big, closed country, for example. It's worth also realising that high income taxes may serve purposes beyond simply raising revenue - for example, preventing wealth inequality from growing.
That said, my focus is not on taxing income at all, but taxing wealth. It is worth realising that the classic laffer curve argument no longer holds in this case - 100% income taxes can be avoided by not working, but wealth already exists so cannot be avoided in the same way. There are other ways that a wealth tax could be avoided, of course, and those would be relevant and must be addressed. I focus on wealth because the richest people in society tend not to get their income from working, and so their income tends not to be taxed by normal income taxes.
Good luck on your economics study. Academic economic study can be very mathematical and very abstracted. A lot of attention is often paid to the maths at the expense of the theory and assumptions. Do try to keep aware of what is happening in the real world, and keep open minded that mathematical models are not always correct if they produce counterintuitive results. Remember our focus should be on understanding the real world, not only the models. Good luck!
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
I tell u what I should have addressed this in the video. Under the current setup, if the government nationalized the utilities it would largely do this via debt and would, in a sense, have to run the companies at a profit in order to pay the interest incurred.
That's not at all to say that I'm against (or pro) nationalisation, but rather I think people assume the government will simply "take" the assets, whereas in reality it's more of a debt-for-equity swap that may or may not financially benefit the taxpayer. In general, the government tends to get bad deals for this sort of thing, so it could end up coming at a net cost.
Really, what you need, is a real transfer of wealth from the very rich, to ordinary families AND the government - the exact reversal of what we've seen in the last few decades and especially the last few years.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
The reason I make the videos I make, political videos rather than videos about trading (which is my profession and something that I'm much better at), is because I honestly think that ordinary people have no realistic hope here rather than political action. I know that people want individual actions, and, for those who want that, there's always Martin Lewis and the Bitcoin crowd. But, the way I see it, that's just day trading and changing our gas providers while the economy quickly collapses. It's deckchairs on the Titanic. The unfortunate truth is that collective political action is the only realistic chance here, and most other alternatives being sold (like day trading and Bitcoin) are in most cases frauds. If you want my personal investment tips though, I'm long everything - gold, property, and I've been building into stocks.
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
That's a good question. I wouldn't be doing this work if I didn't think that it was possible.
In my opinion, without any change, it is inevitable that the economic situation will continue to deteriorate relatively quickly, and we will see a sharper split between most people and the privileged few. The lives of ordinary families will continue to become more difficult.
When that happens, people become hungry for political change. We've already seen that in the last few years, with the rises of Trump, Corbyn, Sanders, Boris/Brexit, Macron, Sinn Fein, Orban in Hungary and the rise of the far right across Europe and many other countries.
I think it's inevitable that those trends continue if the economy continues to worsen, which is what will happen if nothing is done on taxation of the rich.
As such, if we don't fix taxation of the rich, I think that SOME form of significant political change in our lifetimes is inevitable. Of course, it's not inevitable that that change is positive. Historically, times such as these have often led to rises of the far right, of racism, of violence and, in extreme cases, war.
I don't want those things to happen, and I believe that positive change IS possible. There is huge popular support for greater taxes on the richest. If we can mobilise that support, educate people about it's importance, and unite people to push together for something positive, rather than fight with and blame one another, I do think that change is possible.
A lifetime is a long time, and politics changes quickly. It can be a positive outcome if we make it one. But we will have to work, and come together, if we want that to happen.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
This is actually a really good question. Most very rich people don't usually buy many "normal" houses and flats - so why does their wealth push up house prices? The answer is that, many of their other savings options push up house prices indirectly.
Consider the money wealthy people save in the bank (and this amount has increased hugely during covid), the banks lend this money out. If wealthy people have very large bank accounts, banks will lend out more money at lower rates for mortgages. This might sound good - more/bigger mortgages means easier to get a mortgage, right? The problem is that larger mortgages become available to EVERYONE (or at least everyone rich enough to be eligible), this means that they also become available to the people competing with you to buy housing. Since other people are able to access bigger mortgages at lower rates, they can/will pay more for houses, and thus so must you if you want to buy a house.
This is an interesting point, I think, and something many people don't realise - your mortgages are not just owed "to the bank", but ultimately to deposit holders, mortgage holders and equity holders of the bank, who are, on average, wealthy people. In a sense, the increasing sizes of mortgages are an indirect way of the very rich owning a larger share of the housing stock, and pushing up house prices.
Hope that helps!
Gary
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Thanks Emile - it is my mate Simran (AKA Mohan Media) that does all the camera work/editing, so I will pass on your compliment.
I would say that some of the basic things that I learnt in undergrad (which was at LSE, not Oxford) were useful, although it was still quite over-mathematised. The 2 year Oxford masters was almost completely useless in terms of the macroeconoimcs that was taught.
What WAS useful from both degrees was that it taught me what was missing from economics teaching - an understanding of class diversity, an interest in "the economy" as it affects ordinary people. Understanding the total lack of teaching about inequality definitely helped me to understand why the market predictions were so bad post 2008, and that helped me to be confident in betting against those predictions. So ultimately, the education WAS useful, but more because it taught me what economists were NOT looking at, rather than teaching me that much about the actual economy.
If you want to read more about economic theory, and you haven't already read it, check my website www.wealtheconomics.org
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
UBI I think is a little more complicated than it initially seems. It can, at first, seem like a panacea, but I think it can be helpful to realise that a UBI is actually quite similar to a welfare state. One provides the basic necessities of life, in cash form, to everyone, and the other provides the basic necessities of life, directly, to everyone who needs them, with additional payments/services given to those most in need.
So in some senses what we already have, and are dismantling, the welfare state, is very similar to the UBI. The main difference is that the UBI gives to EVERYONE where the welfare state gives mainly to those in need. As such a switch from a welfare state to a UBI would actually be regressive, giving more to the less needy.
Of course many people propose a UBI ON TOP OF rather than as a replacement for the welfare state. In that case the problem is mainly the one suggested in the video - it won't be affordable without fixing wealth inequality.
If wealth inequality were to be fixed, it would become affordable, but it would be one of many possible alternative options - for example, making the existing welfare state broader/better quality, or reducing taxes being paid by ordinary working people significantly could be both be potential alternative options.
Ultimately, if we don't fix wealth inequality we will get neither - we will not be able to afford UBI and we will also lose the welfare state.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The government pays interest to the central bank, yes, but the central bank has created new money with which to buy the debt, so the central bank now has to pay interest on the extra cash circulating in society.
Effectively what has happened is that now, rather than the government paying interest through the government bonds (this interest is now paid to the central bank, which is part of government), it is instead paying interest on newly issued cash (via the central bank which pays this interest).
In a sense it is a transformation in the nature of government borrowing - rather than borrowing from individuals and institutions, through bonds, the government "borrows" through the printing of new currency, and pays interest to the currency holders.
In a sense, cash is the new government bond, and anyone holding cash is holding a part of the government debt.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Hey boss yes you are right that, ultimately, mortgage holders, in a sense, benefit from the devaluation of money - their house prices will go up. It's probably worth realising, though, that an ordinary family has no way of benefiting from their house price rising without selling their home or taking large amounts of debt against it. As a result it doesn't really help ordinary families in the long term - if they sell their property, then their kids and grandkids wont be able to afford propert at the new, much higher prices.
You are also right that some banks have lost money recently - although not all of them, if we look at Bank of America, the share price is up 90% in the last 2 years.
Thanks for watching the videos boss, please do share them if you can we are trying to grow the channel. South London represent.
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Hi Marie, thanks for your messsage.
I think the best thing people can do to support right now is to sub the YouTube, and also my other socials (I'm @garyseconomics on twitter, insta, facebook). If those channels all grow it opens up more doors for me to do bigger media, and can get me onto Question Time and things like that, and can also force politicians to listen.
Other than that, I think it's important to understand what is happening, and to talk sensitively to friends and family to try to get them on board. The fact that the rich have made an absolutely ENORMOUS amount of money during covid, and also that that was ultimately funded by the government/taxpayer is not being mentioned AT ALL in the media, despite it being (in my opinion at least) the primary causal factor for the inflation/cost of living crisis.
The way that works is explained very clearly on this channel in my FIRST video, so I would recommend to watch that, to understand it, and, if possible, to share it with your friends. If more people understand that our problems are being CAUSED by the enrichening of the very rich, then we can hopefully build a movement to oppose it.
The last thing is probably that if you know anyone with large social media channels, to encourage them to share this video. It's available on twitter and instagram as well as on here. It will be a long slog, but we are growing quite quickly now. If we continue to grow we can be a serious force at some point.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Hey Denizhan, thanks for the great question. Debt is a form of ownership. Consider this as an example. Imagine you own a house worth £500,000, and also £500k in cash, and I own nothing. Imagine then that you lend me the £500,000 and sell me the house for £500,000. I own the house, but have a £500k debt - my net wealth is 0. You do not have the house, but you have £500k in cash, as well as £500k owed to you by me. I own the house but my net wealth is zero. Of course, the legal ownership of the house is mine, and I bear the risk of price movements, but my net wealth is zero and so all of the "wealth" represented by the house is still owned by you, via debt.
This is exactly the situation of the government - they own many assets, but their debt is greater than their assets - their net wealth is 0.
Have a great day.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It was actually the lockdowns that caused the growth in inequality, by banning the spending of the rich, rather than the handouts. But that said, I am suspicious of the potential of UBI. The main thing to notice is that a UBI is quite similar to welfare state which could be described as universal basic SERVICES.
In the context of the welfare state being aggressively stripped back, the (usually unanswered) question of how to fund a UBI would probably be answered by further elimination of the welfare state, or funding with printed money, both of which would be disasters in my opinion.
If you were to fund a UBI with taxes on the very rich, it would be great, but in a context of being able to get that even to defend a crumbling welfare state, it's the wrong battle to fight - you need to solve the funding battle before you ask for nice things.
Win the war first, then build the society. With no funding there's nothing - no NHS, no education, no housing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think that some of these are quite good points, and I'd definitely like to make it clear (if it is not in the video) that I don't think that all, or even most traders are very good economists. Traders are often not particularly interested in the economy at all, and, where they are, they generally come from the same flawed economics education system as everyone else, with its biases and its algebra obsessions.
Where trading IS however different to other fields of economics however, is that it aggressively rewards/punishes people for making predictions that are right/wrong, and, as such, most traders who make economic bets ARE aggressively trying to make correct predictions, something that I don't think is true in any other area of economics that I have seen. Furthermore, trading is the only space I've seen where people who ARE consistently right get recognised and pushed to the front of the field.
That said, in spite of that, as I have said, most economists in trading share the prejudices and biases of the economics education system, and, as a consequence, markets are frequently wrong, often very wrong, and I have in fact made a career out of betting on that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The best traders are mainly using heuristics they have developed themselves that work well to understand specific issues. We probably need to understand that economics is complicated and develop a more nuanced sense of economics that seeks to understand and resolve/avoid a variety of possible individual problems, rather than searching for some sort of holy grail, all encompassing model. Doctors recognize that a body is a large, complicated thing with many different things that can go wrong, they specialise in fixing certain problems, whilst understanding general ideas, rather than seeking a grand unifying idea. The "grand theory" approach always feels more religious than scientific, to me. I focus on inequality because it's driving the worsening living conditions at the moment. That makes it a very important theory right now. If u fixed the problem if rapidly growing inequality, other things would be more important. If you have cancer, cancer is probably the main health problem you need to understand, if you just got hit by a cer, you probably don't need a cancer doctor right now.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes, I do think it's possible, but it will be complicated. If done effectively, it could create a really vibrant, high-wage economy, where large amounts of wealth flow around the system repeatedly to the workers, but care would have to be taken to avoid wealth flowing out, and to avoid foreign countries that don't tax wealth (and have lower wages) from competing jobs away. As you say, it would be easier with international cooperation, although I do think it could be feasible within one country or area, especially large ones such as Europe or the USA.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hey Tom, this is a good point. Inequality, of course, has always existed, and I strongly suspect it always WILL exist. But it's important to realise that the level of inequality is not constant - in fact it is constantly changing.
The level of inequality now is higher than it was 20 or 30 years ago, that is why housing is less affordable now. It's also LOWER than it was 100 years ago, which is why quality of living and affordability of housing is so much better now than it was then.
It's important to realise that inequality can be much WORSE than it is now - for example, if you go to places like India, or Russia, you will see much higher levels of inequality, and, as a result, much less affordable housing and worse standards of living. Currently inequality in the UK and other western countries is increasing. If we don't do anything to stop that living standards could continue to fall, like they have been doing for 15 years, and our standard of living could slowly fall towards what it is in, India, for example.
Conversely, if we REDUCED wealth inequality, like we did after the second world war, we could significantly IMPROVE the economy, like we did then, improving housing, healthcare, education and wages.
I hope this convinces you that, whilst inequality will never be eliminated, it is both important and possibleto prevent it from constantly getting worse, as it is doing at the moment.
Thanks for your question
Gary
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The BoE receives interest on the government debt. But it also PAYS interest (at the base rate) on the cash it created to buy the government debt. Since the BoE and the government are financially the same entity, what QE does is effectively change the rate the government pays on its debt away from the government bond rate and toward the base rate. As such, when the central bank raises the base rate, it is effectively raising the rate the government is paying on its debt. Another interesting point to notice is that, when QE is very large, like it is now, cash effectively IS government debt.
Your other points are correct of course, that interest rates are still overall low on government debt, but as government debt is high now, it does still represent something of a burden, and that burden is increased when interest rates are increased. Furthermore, rising interest rates, in general place a greater burden on debtors (the government, ordinary people), in favour of creditors (largely the rich).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hi Jamie, that is no problem at all, that is a good question. It is true that when government funds its spending with printed money, like it is doing now, it does not have to pay that money back. However, it can cause a lot of other problems. If the government prints a lot of money it increases the total amount of money in society, which can lead to prices rising. We are starting to see this already in house prices, which are rising despite a really weak economy. In particular, if that money tends to end up with certain people, other people can be really badly affected when prices start to rise. In this case, the money is ending up largely with richer families, which will make it even more difficult than it already was for young people from poorer and ordinary families to do things like buy houses.
Hope that helps!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is an interesting idea, often put forward by MMT advocates, that the government has an alternative to borrow-and-spend in the form of print-and-spend.
This is effectively the same (albeit with some technical differences) to what the government does when it funds a deficit using QE - like many governments did during the pandemic.
Under the current setup, the government pays daily interest on the new currency issued to fund the deficit. As a result, it is not functionally very different to funding via traditional borrowing - in one system, the government borrows and pays interest to the lenders, in the other, the government borrows and pays interest to the cashholders. For this reason, I don't think that print-and-spend is particularly beneficial as opposed to borrow-and-spend. Whilst there can be some benefits (for example, the interest rate can be lower), in both cases the government has to pay ongoing interest in order to fund its spending.
I think some in MMT would argue that the government does not HAVE to pay this interest - it could revoke the independence of the central bank and choose to reduce the interest rate on cash holdings to zero. Under this setup, I think you would probably see enormous falls in currency value on foreign exchange markets, and very rapid spikes in inflation.
For this reason, I'm somewhat sceptical of MMT ideas that "you don't have to pay it back". The statement itself is definitely true. In fact, I don't think ANY economists expect governments to ever "pay their debt back anyway". The problem is not so much the paying back, but the interest incurred on the debt, and this happens even if the government prints to fund, as it did during covid. If you choose not to pay the interest, you will collapse the currency, so either way I don't think you can avoid the problem. Real resources and distribution matter, and money printing alone is limited in its ability to resolve those problems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What you have done here is you have confused a real asset (a house, a stock) for money.
If you have a house worth £500,000 you do not have £500,000, you have a house.
And if the house price goes up to £1,000,000, you do not have "more money" now, you simply have a house that is worth more money.
I'm not trying to be facetious here, it's important to recognize that money/credit are specific things, and that things like houses are different, specific things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The problem with reform is essentially the same as the problem with the conservatives and labour - their analysis of the economy is failing to recognise the key problem. This means that reform, like the conservatives and labour, will be unable to prevent the economy from worsening when in power.
With reform specifically, they will come in (because Farage probably WILL become pm sooner or later, whether its via reform or through the conservatives), they will slash immigration, and it will not fix the economy. The obvious political response will be to say "it is not enough merely to stop new immigration, we need to deport the old immigrants". That, too will not work, and the obvious response will be again to push further, for example, it was not enough to deport the old immigrants, we need now to deport (some specific unpopular group). That too, will not be enough. Keep pushing further and further in that direction, and you can end up in some very dark places.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bruceparker805 I just always quote it when people ask me how to teach them to make money.
The whole point of this channel is to educate people that the economic system is rigged in such a way as to guarantee that ordinary people get poorer over time, with their wealth transferring to the rich. The game is designed in such a way. If the poor choose to play this game, they will become destitute. If the poor choose to unite to change the tax system, they can change the rules of the game and start to become richer over time.
There is a certain irony here, if the poor try to be individualistic and selfish, and focus only on wealth and money, they will lose all their wealth and money. If they are able to work together, to help one another, they can start to become individually richer.
In a sense, the rich have managed to weaponise selfishness and greed, in such a way that they can trick the poor into playing a game that they can never win.
And them that take the sword, shall perish by the sword.
Pick your battles well, brother.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blackbulldog4897 the video takes great care to explain the difference between a government deficit, central bank lending, and private bank lending.
Unfortunately, all three of these very different things are sometimes described as "money creation", which causes a lot of confusion, as it seems to have done in your case.
A government deficit increases private money holding, as i very often say on this channel, as such, it is not entirely inaccurate to describe it as a form of "money creation". It is important, though, to understand that central bank and private bank lending, both very different from a government deficit are also often described as money creation.
Unfortunately, many people are very emotionally tied to one specific definition of the term "money creation", leading to a lot of talking at cross purposes. All three forms are discussed in this video.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It was actually an intentional creative choice to make myself out to be a bit of a dick in the book. Not that I was not at all a dick in real life, but I decided to play up a little, intentionally, the negative sides of my own character, at the time. I just can't stand it when people write books about how great they are. That includes a lot of fiction where the main character is kind of obviously kind of the author, and I also thought it would just be better, creatively, to have this main character who was kind of morally grey. It makes the overall story less moralizing and leaves moral questions to the reader. The truth is there IS a lot of moral grey in that world, and I wanted to portray a realistic world in which a bad system corrupts people in the system, rather than a more classic (unrealistic in my view), good versus evil tale with completely "good" and completely "evil" characters.
Finally, the book portrays a lot of the bankers (people I know and worked with) in quite a negative light, a lot of the time. If you are going to do that, I think it's only fair to do the same to yourself. Overall I felt the morally grey character made the book more fun, funnier, more real, more interesting and more readable.
And besides, in a lot of ways, I am a bit of a dick. Basically everyone is. Doesn't mean I don't do good tho. We all do.
In the words of Frank Ocean, we all try.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1