Comments by "antonyjh1234" (@antonyjh1234) on "Richard J Murphy" channel.

  1. Only because he knows how much they do, and has benefitted from it, knowingly. Now about these "few" blind spots..?
    2
  2. Any central bank most definitely wants interest, it wants growth, that can be defined as higher prices in the economy. Its job is not to control inflation it is to cause it.
    2
  3.  @garethhumphries4039  I'm saying in the comment that the relationship is direct between how much spending/borrowing that would happen, I understand non linear but that's not that point made. If spending/borrowing is dependent on the amount of current debt then the relationship is affected by it. No govt is going to say lets cut taxes to zero and keep the same spending for inflationary reasons so I was mentioning they are connected but not dependent.
    2
  4. In the bell curve that is humanity, of course there is a left, of course there is a right, in the middle are the sheep.
    2
  5. There's nothing bad with green energy but at 6%ish of total energy it would mean society would have to change if that is all we used.
    2
  6. The demand back to work is because overall consumption drops if they don't have to drive, park, get lunch, coffee etc. The business of govt is business, they do not care about us.
    2
  7. As all money is based on debt, inputting debt/money is always an option that govts need to keep open, unless of course they are trying to create poverty, so that we need "them" more.
    2
  8. @ Why say such a strange thing, when you don't explain your connection to the industry.
    2
  9.  @ianmarshall218  Not sure why it has an @ instead of the person who called it a rounding error, it was meant for them.
    2
  10. 1.5 is gone and no Paris agreements are being kept.
    2
  11.  @Hickalum  Yeah and if you'd read the textbook it would have said how long left, have you checked lately? Point is we can't use it or are you one of those denialists too?
    2
  12.  @JBLHPJ  Could you explain it differently because the point OP is making is about energy and electricity, as far as I was concerned..
    2
  13.  @foxmoongaze  No no, say something climate change valid and we'll dance..
    2
  14.  @badabing3391  Until you understand debt you won't understand money.
    2
  15.  @badabing3391  Until you understand all money is based on debt then explain how rich people don't want more money inputted into the system where they own all the assets. You have conflated nationalisation\ and govt spending, these are two different htings.
    2
  16.  @badabing3391  As every single dollar in the world is based on debt, you are saying the govt should print money, that has to be taxed out again to buy private property. How will more money in the system mean lower prices? The government does not make profit and any spending by the govt must be taxed out again, all money in the world is based on debt, govt as well, new spending means higher taxes or inflation, your pick? edit Changed "not make money", to profit
    2
  17.  @cbbcbb6803  Because the money must be spent first the govts get it from their respective central banks
    2
  18.  @arthurdixon5890  You are missing my point, I am disagreeing with your definition of very well, just based off trafficking of goods. The very reason to allow illegal immigration is to create demand, this is not what I would call very well. No-one can afford housing and the environment is being destroyed.
    2
  19.  @Jan-m5c2r  Was commenting on the comment of how old it is. People's idea's around gold and then money stem from this history, maybe if people see how silly the history is they might see money/gold differently.
    2
  20. There is a debt inequality, the ability to get debt is where the difference lies and your words could be used against most of the people here. How many people could do a little less, spend less, compared to a person who might have lost their crops in Africa or India, but aren't luxury taxes and a sliding scale of personal tax enough? Tax doesn't pay anything so all it will do is lower the upper class spending ability, not increase the amount of money in the system. Will this make people feel richer, I suppose it will if the rich aren't so rich but overall what has it done for the rest of us? Tax the rich sounds inflationary as any assets will need a greater return. Why not just have a cap how much value one person can have?
    2
  21.  @Moustache-Gaming  Either a hard wealth cap or they make everyone poor as poor can be, we all go back to growing our own food, riding horse's and learning how which grass makes the best string. If they were ecologically minded, poverty would to be a great tool.
    2
  22.  @Moustache-Gaming  The lawn is the world's largest irrigated crop, that we fertilise and mow with fossil fuel machines, so it looks nice. I bet there are other cities like mine that has creeks plumbed underground but always flowing, I bet there is plenty of land around, beside water sources, that people can utilise to produce food just they are conditioned to live the way we are now. In Cypress they have orange tree's lining the streets, to say there isn't room for fruit bearing tree's so quickly is probably conditioning to this way pf life.
    2
  23. My goodness what a load of uneducated propaganda tosh. Yes socialism is anti-capitalist, it isn't an umbrella term, the very definition means that there is a social aspect, ie for the benefit, capitalism is the means of production are in private hands and no control, supposedly, from the govt, it's not anything but that, like communism means for the village. I don't know about you but I don't know many people who have positive positions about the govt, if having them makes people socialists then 99% are. Do you have a working definition cos the above ain't them?
    2
  24.  @oneoflokis  It's 23 countries, maybe i won't list them all, China will lose 600 million, Japan another 50 million, mostly European countries.
    2
  25. The people who suck off other peoples channels to sell their financial investor, especially considering the topic, should be ashamed of themselves as people.
    2
  26. All reality is somebody else's idea
    2
  27.  @physiocrat7143  As long as everyone has food shelter and medical care, in the world, why not.
    2
  28.  @MrBallynally2  Free market consumption on a finite planet is not logical.
    2
  29.  @fulloftruthguardian5420  If I fund you money am I lending it to you?
    2
  30. From now on it will be common worldwide. 30 year mortgages will be a thing of the past soon. Australia the last four years were among the five top costing years for the industry
    2
  31. I disagree that commercial banks create money, only central banks can. Fractional reserve banking exists.
    2
  32.  @downshift4503  Blows me away commercial banks can print money, do they have a limit or is that why everything is so expensive. From the BoE Money creation in the modern economy pdf : central banks implement monetary policy by choosing a quantity of reserves. So if they want to throttle how much new money is being made they increase the reserves? |That can't be the only control as to how much money is being printed surely?
    2
  33.  @downshift4503  Why shouldn't we live like the 1800's gentry but with electricity? If that is the cost, why is that a hard sell?
    2
  34. And then what?
    2
  35. Give almost half the world an extra five dollars a day and they could double their consumption, this isn't a lot of money, but all money is debt, how will somebody who gets ten dollars a day be able to raise debt. As all money is debt, if the debt is paid back, the loan, it doesn't exist anymore, that money doesn't exist any-more. Money doesn't build up in the system and currently there is not the money for the value of the real estate. Growth, is only more money, and all money is debt so it's not less room to grow, its less debt being able to be entered into, especially for housing as its so expensive. For the Uk to not fall behind it would have to show it can now do without money and survive off the embedded energy already put into society. The thing we have to realise is we did all this for banker debt and now have nothing valuable in a real sense to show for it,
    2
  36. People who have the ability to work are able to get loans because they can pay them back, a govt is able to say we will take a percentage of our constituents life's efforts in taxes so any money printed by the central bank, debt, is able to be given back. Because all new loans/debt is new money, that money needs to leave again or it builds up as taxes make money not exist anymore. Money is not like gold in that it does not build up, it is debt and therefore works on a basis of negative zero, they are always trying to get the loan back to zero, the debt as soon as it leaves the bank and hits an account, that is what we call money, we spend our lives around it and do all the things we do because of it, imagine we are fish in a pond that has water always pouring into it, the water must leave again or it floods while we fish carry on with our lives.
    2
  37.  @Pinkdam  When we have massive amounts of obesity and people starving to death, just because of how much debt they hold or basically where they are born and then say "we should just leave it all to choice" is not really a democratic decision that I would expect to be a choice in aggregate by the public if they were given it. Saying we should leave it to choice whether virgins are beheaded to make sure the crops are good this year and saying the entire democratic way of life depends on being able to make the choice and keeping the old way of doing things does not have a leg to stand on, saying we can make informed decisions makes no difference to people dying from too much or too little food and I find it disgusting you would belittle the subject down to just a few people overweight, the massive amounts of over consumption, just because you have money, while others starve, is ultimately undemocratic as the people who are starving don't have any choice. The world has a distribution problem, not a supply problem, last year the world produced enough food for everyone to gain weight, choice shouldn't enter it at all, not whether people get basics or not.
    2
  38. The business of government is business and would you vote for someone on a platform of "Less Job's"?
    2
  39.  @Freesurfer688  I wrote this to a couple of other people, I think it explains it clearly 99.97% of the mass of the atmosphere is only 100k or 62 mile high. If you go above three and a half k you would need breathing apparatus, the point is every bit of stored carbon we are using in the range of 100 million 42 gallon drums daily is being put into this tiny sliver of atmosphere. In a tank of diesel is the same amount of energy as my total electrical energy for 3,2 months in an Australian summer with the air con going 24-7, if somebody uses a tank a week for a year that is equal to 17 years of my electrical energy. We put this carbon in and it's not 0.04% of the atmosphere, all this mass is around us because of gravity, carbon gas mass, when it's parts per million, it is how many there are per million molecules. One million molecules is a really tiny amount of space, there are trillions and trillions just in the kilogram of air and all the square metres above you. We are now at around 430 molecules of carbon for each and every million sized parcel of air. Now, radiation from the sun hits the earth, this heat needs to leave again, it travels through us to space again, if there are trillions and trillions of absolute squillions of more molecules that can absorb this heat, it slows down the transfer of heat, and you can not add to any system without it meaning something. The meaning something in this case is when God was supposedly around he didn't have an Esky so he left all the ice, that cools us to this temperature, roughly what we have had 15,000 years, he/she left it all out in the open. Now we both believe that you can't add energy/heat to a system like that without it meaning something. They can of course work out what is coming and the way we are going it will be total destruction of everything you've known, should you call that alarmist I am not sure but it's the speed we are talking about this time. The temps they think we are going to go to because of this increased forced radiation has been on the earth before, and plants and animals lived. That time it took 700,000 years to reach that temp, this time they reckon we will do it in one thousand years, to a temp that nothing alive today has experienced and might mean instead of the average temperature of the earth being 15 it might be 30. As we have taken millions of years to adapt and humans are now alive at a temperature that no human has experienced, in fact 3 million years, this isn't alarmist nonsense, this is something the sooner older people stop saying things they can't explain their way out of logically, the better. I understand change is hard considering something that is classed as normal your whole life has to change but the truth is there if you want to see it. The powers that be would rather lie and keep everyone slaves than lose or change themselves, they are more likely afraid of total collapse if they finally told the real truth. The truth is windmills aren't going to stop the next 30 years because of the lag affect and of course for you that will be ok, myself probably as well. I will say again, we can not add energy to a system without it meaning something, just because you might not fully understand the whole issue does not in any way mean this is climate alarmism, what you should be more concerned with is the lack of alarm and why, imo.
    2
  40. I don't understand your point. How is this incompatible to you? money must come in and money must come out.
    1
  41.  @howardosborne8647  I am not sure why you think this pertinent, cattle are carbon neutral for the metahne they emit in this country and many more. If a bog produces methane and it produces a certain amount each year because methane is gone after 80 years the bog or cattle, if the herd size has not increased has not increased warming. Did I not just say the temperatures were hotter too, if Co2 was higher an the temps were higher, what is it that you are proofing to me? Ohhh how lush it was, yep animals and plants, none of those are alive today, maybe the crocodile, which where I am is moving south because the waters are getting warmer. They don't have crocidiles everywhere but as the water is getting warmer their habitat increases in size. This is not hearsay, this is fact, so an animal like a crocidile knows the planet is warming why don't adult humans?
    1
  42.  @zetectic7968  I worked out the percentage of carbon that would be captured if the IIEA forcast of a 1000% increase in the number of plants at current capture rates by 2035 would mean 1.16% of current carbon emissions would be taken down, so realistically less than one percent by then. IF the 1000% increase were to happen.
    1
  43.  @rinnin  4 day week, you are funny, a ninety percent reduction in consumption won't happen if people work one day less. Degrowth of only working on either food, shelter, medical or services for the state and at most 4-5 years of your life. De growth is going back to everyone having a garden, degrowth is the removal of money if it can still buy the same amount of energy. A four day week if for the same wage then nothing has been achieved, it needs to living like they were 200 years ago, with electricity and staying home or walking, it means less jobs, overall not 20% less days working.
    1
  44. @ I don't understand, more money is always required for more goods.
    1
  45. If all money is debt based and issued at a cost of around 4 cents per hundred pound and there is still zero direction where this debt goes in a sustainable way then it will always be a losing game. We the people have no control over where the govt spends and they don't want to make things easier. A lower interest rate on this slavery should be overhauled completely. We need to move away from profit as a metric and towards general wellbeing which will need more than a lower interest rate.
    1
  46.  @blackbulldog4897  Yes I understand this but it is debt, we are one side of a ledger and money operates on a basis of zero and yes it is drained out, to keep the value of the dollar. We can't have money coming in at the top of the bucket if the hole at the bottom is plugged up and the name of the game is to not let the bucket overflow but to always have water flow through it ie society. I understand if we pay back all debt then there would be no money, tax is a drain but in this system an integral part.
    1
  47.  @blackbulldog4897  The hole is taxes Edit : The water coming in the top is all debt let's say, central and commercial banks, we are the water in the bucket and our purchasing power, the hole in the bottom is tax so money doesn't build up.
    1
  48.  @blackbulldog4897  And my belief all along .where did you think I didn't understand this already in regards to my original comment? edit taxes are the hole, not savings..yes?
    1
  49.  @blackbulldog4897  ps : Is draining society of debt draining "it of its net financial assets" I had a problem with the wording because then we would have to agree debt is an asset. All the embedded energy that is in society would still exist, the buildings, roads water filtration plants, all these would still exist without money so then once all money is removed, which I am all for, which industries would people still want and the people are the asset then. So yeah, I don't agree with the wording of its financial assets because a lot remains as assets and if money does leave society which as you say us just debt to banks, when it should be debt to society, then how does debt to society become the real value. We got into a lot of debt, for a long time to people who don't really care, getting rid of this debt to "them" could be the best thing to wash down the drain once and for all.
    1
  50.  @blackbulldog4897  I was saying tax can't stop, because it is that drain, that is always open, block if off and where will the water go so unless new water stops at the top. it will build up, or what we call runaway inflation.
    1