General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

antonyjh1234
Richard J Murphy
comments

Comments by "antonyjh1234" (@antonyjh1234) on "The rich don’t spend enough – and that means they shrink the economy" video.

No wealthy person argues against govt spending as that means more money in the economy and as they own all the businesses it means more wealth for them, govt spending has driven shares through the roof, along with all asset prices Comments like this that are opposite of reality get upvoted because it's negative rich but not helpful because it's not factual.
51
They have succeeded in keeping the myth that money has more value than the debt it is. The "poor" keep believing it's money that is valuable instead of direction, which is all choice, that money is what we need to be able to live, instead of choice. We could feed, shelter and offer society medical care as well all free. The rich have you convinced to be able to live, you must hold bank debt. The attitude pf the rich is that you must keep working dead end jobs that do nothing overall but keep the system of debt turning over as it has done for hundreds of years. "They" have succeeded because send our children to education centres run by people at the top, that we don't trust and need replacing.
20
A property tax makes no sense as it will be passed to us. The money for those properties doesn't exist, price is an indication of the debt that has passed through it. All money is debt so asking for debt to pay debt is never going to work long term, unless new debt is always being entered, is this what you are asking for 1% per annum to be added to your costs? Stop trying to bend the system that is directly working against you, by asking for more money which is all debt based. If tax makes money disappear then it can't be a tax as won't that mean less money in the system?
19
@coopsnz1 You make strange comments that are hard to understand, is english your second language your other comment needed deciphering and I don't think lefties forget that
14
There is nothing wrong with money, per se, it was always the love of it for it's own sake, now it's all just banker debt they love.
14
@physiocrat7143 Taxes on rents are absorbed and not a cost of business? ANd not a tax deduction, or passed to the consumer, where do you get this idea from?
7
@Betweoxwitegan Considering they own all the assets then, YES, they always love govt spending.
7
@Jack-bs6zb Ps : You say free money, but this money costs four cents per hundred dollars to create, we have to earn that and pay it back full value, with an interest rate applied with our life's efforts and it will be sucked from you until you have none or you die. This is far from cheap.
6
@nanajan-x3n No, because all money goes to the private sector, there is no public without us.
5
Rich people do not hoard or store money depriving us, because they know it is debt and debt always has an interest rate applied so it must be working for you or it devalues. Money is debt, rich people can get into debt a lot easier because they have other assets, money is inputted into the system through loans that they can get any time they want, yes there might be a trickle down with the things they buy but mostly they buy assets which make money, like a business or property, that we are paying rent to. As more money ( debt) enters the system, then prices for these assets are an indication of the amount of debt that has gone through the property. All money in the world is based on debt and the prices for property, that money does not actually exist, as all money is debt, as soon as the loan is taken out and paid off that money does not exist. Then what can happen is a place might have a fire, it might be a windy day, 8 or 9 fires might somehow start at the same time in different places, the state insurance company will cancel fire insurance a few months before, the reservoir that has had funding for ten years remains undone and unfilled even though last year was the wettest and they would all be full. Then during a drought and major warnings from all fire departments the mayor will go away on a goodwill trip to Ghana, after donating all spare fire equipment to Ukraine. Along with that the Governor will be trying to make the place multi density for high-rises but of course was getting a lot of pushback considering the area and the neighbours, then what can happen is the banks or Blackrock because that's what has happened in Hawaii after the fires, will either repossess or give a low ball offer and because a company like Blackrock, the 1% rich people, they can then get loans for more debt, which we peasants call money.
5
@davidmcculloch8490 Considering God made Hell, how bad can it be? A three star instead of five?
4
@Betweoxwitegan Oh you are silly, an increased amount of money is inflation, more debt into the system means the money supply is inflated. A silly notion that public housing will bring down house prices is just absolutely ridiculous, sorry. You have an opinion, but this is not fact, you are wrong, hovt spending, because it is all new money can only increase the money supply, inflation is not just a rising of prices on its own, it is because of the increased money supply, which you seem to be ignoring, quite confidently, but incorrectly. edit the only way more money isn't inflationary is because more taxes, which don't pay for govt spending, as Richard says.
4
@Jack-bs6zb In a way it will make the poor richer, the divide won't be there as much so even though most people in this chat would be able to buy any food item from anywhere in the world, almost any product, people still think they are poor. If it's UK they have one of the most beautiful country's in the world and still think they are poor, because of the divide. The world needs direction to a better way than mindless investment that overall achieves nothing towards making things cheaper or easier. The goal is to keep everyone enslaved to money, which is bank debt and money being just a product, we all believe the power to buy all these things will continue while the world says uh uh, so it really depends on how you define prosper. The goal now should be to raise general wellbeing, food shelter and medical care is such a small part of what we do, yet that's all we need, investment, for a job, is pointless.
4
@physiocrat7143 I went to your channel, I did not like it and none of the videos described the full picture.
3
As every single cent has a corresponding amount of debt, somewhere, money is the belief that we are progressing, it is debt but we use that as a means of exchange. As it is all debt and we need to earn it before we are allowed to exist, this is not wealth or progress. It is a misunderstanding of money being of value more than what it really is, banker debt that we use as a means of exchange, it is the need for it that is designed by the govt that holds us back from true progress, it is the ignorance of what it is and it is the lack of belief in a direction that we all agree on that is needed to supersede money. We do things now because we think banker debt has value, and we have given it more value than it deserves. The choice, to go another way, and the will, is all we need for progress, to raise general well being.
3
@Betweoxwitegan PS Any new money must always increase the amount of money. ALL money the govt spends is new money, increasing the money supply in new building IS inflation
3
@badabing3391 Until you understand debt you won't understand money.
2
@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
@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
@cbbcbb6803 Because the money must be spent first the govts get it from their respective central banks
2
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
@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
@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
@3nertia Everything is made up but we still live within rules, of its creation, how it is removed, what we have to do to get it and why we need it to be able to live. It is a great system under growth like the world had 400% the last 80 years and will be luck to be 10% of that the next 80 so another way will have to be found. I prefer need over profit.
1
@ Oh u are the person you said " Money itself is inherently reductive and meaningless. We made it up." and I replied that "everything is made up" and therefore choice and that point means we should be able to choose better. What part were you confused about? I was talking about money creation, you know all money is based on debt I guess so that was what the comment was regarding debt meant and to live we must hold debt, as all money is debt. My last comment was in agreement with you abouts needs. What part was confusing?
1
@3nertia Did my reply come to you?
1
@3nertia We could agree but because capitalism means the means of production is in private hands, meaning if you want something made and will pay for it then it can be made no matter what it is or how much pollution it emits. ANy other system where the government directs what gets produced is of course different but the thing that we must separate is the debt based system and capitalism as they are different. I agree being able to make just about anything we can, just because, without any direction is a problem but I think any other system that is based on debt, without direction is where it would fail too. Point being, unless we can agree on a direction, money whether it be bitcoin, gold or fiat, we will still end up with the same problems. Not the best description, regarding what we are talking about but the thing we must get people to understand, is the debt based system we spend our lives around. Debt they create at a cost of four cents per hundred dollars.
1
@3nertia PS We have to understand how money is created first before we blame the system it goes into.
1
@3nertia Of course, saying you disagree completely though is something that you could clarify later? You disagree about educating people about the debt based system, you disagree what capitalism is, you disagree other systems wouldn't find themselves in the same situation.. etc. My whole point is govts and banks are supposed to be negative zero, we always try to stay above it, that all this debt that is inputted has an interest rate attached therefore does not hold value. Not holding value for the thing we spend our lives around is where fault in the system, for us, lies.
1
@3nertia Ar you 15-19 year old girl> Your "debate" style is of one. You attack, don't understand and now talk of irony and lmao, do you have a valid point that money and any other system won't be affected by too much? The irony is you don't understand how money is created and now want to talk as if you have all the answers and then ;;ash out with lmao. Do you have a debate point?
1
@physiocrat7143 Describe the full picture then
1
@physiocrat7143 If you can disparage someone in a few words maybe you have a quick answer just as easy.
1
@maria8809ttt copied and paste the first thing in the internet, well done you
1
@nanajan-x3n All money goes to the private sector as we are all private individuals who get it. 99% of businesses are small businesses and it does not matter if the govt spent it on people in the govt standing on their head, as long as it is taxed out again. The govt borrows from the central bank, it could all go into hospitals run by the state it would not matter because once that money/debt is in the economy it eventually finds its way into their pockets because they own all the assets and the govt has it that you need to hold some of this debt before you can live.
1
@nanajan-x3n All money goes to the private sector as we are all private individuals who get it. 99% of businesses are small businesses and it does not matter if the govt spent it on people in the govt standing on their head, as long as it is taxed out again. The govt borrows from the central bank, it could all go into hospitals run by the state it would not matter because once that money/debt is in the economy it eventually finds its way into their pockets because they own all the assets and the govt has it that you need to hold some of this debt before you can live.
1
@Betweoxwitegan PPS : You say govt spending isn't exploitative, it is created at a cost of four cents per hundred dollars, we pay this back full value in our taxes and this money disappears, we give our lives for this debt and get nothing back in return insofar as sustainability or things made easier and we are made into slaves for this debt, to be able to live. When it is printed at such a low cost and we have to live in fear for food when it is the low bar the achieve?
1
@Betweoxwitegan " Increasing the monetary supply does not necessarily cause inflation" If the amount of money is inflated then how is this not inflation? As all money is debt and therefore has an inflation rate attached, how does money not lose value every second and therefore why wouldn't inflation always exist
1
@Betweoxwitegan What part of what I am saying do you think is opposite to Richard?
1
@bestbehave Which one, just name one wealthy person that argues against more money entering the economy regarding asset prices increasing?
1
@ You said "They very much argue against spending on public services" I asked you to prove your comment and then you write the above nonsense that you "might dignify"...does it hurt with your head so far up yourself?
1
diablo, your comment is incorrect and leaving it there spreads false propaganda about money as you have a false impression of money.
1
@makhnothecossack4948 Increasing money supply while lowering the availability of properties for purchase?
1
@makhnothecossack4948 There is no purchasing demand on low income housing at the high end of town, there is not a lack of it, there is a manufactured scarcity but adding more money and lowering the amount of properties for sale and we have to understand every single dollar is debt, then adding more debt isn't going to mean less inflation. I've got no problem with social housing and we shouldn't have to hold debt to survive but we need to do more than shrink the amount of available purchasable properties while increasing the amount of money.
1
@badabing3391 All money in the world is debt, if govt spending inputs money into the system, wealthy people collect it because of the added income streams to their business/rentals etc
1
@badabing3391 Until you understand all money that exists is based on debt then you don't understand money
1
Until people realise all money is based on debt then saying wealthy people don't want money is beyond reality
1
@badabing3391 It's just not true, sorry.
1
@badabing3391 PS Saying not all rich people are the same is a waste of time as we are talking about the system, not personal actions.
1
@cbbcbb6803 Governments print their own money at the same cost, around four cents per hundred dollars to create.
1
@cbbcbb6803 They get it from the central bank. They are very rich.
1
@cbbcbb6803 All money is debt based, so they also have a bank they borrow from and we pay that loan back with our taxes, the money must enter society first before it is taxed out.
1
@victorwestmann Prove it and how as all money is debt, prove one way rich people don't want money to enter the economy.
1
@measlesplease1266 Do you have a point an adult would understand? Do you have a point of discussion to the point I raised or do you mean to have the approach of a teenager?
1
@measlesplease1266 " you must be a kid" Do you have a conversational point that an adult might be able to gain some sense of what you are talking about? WHy not make a point, go on, make a point about the subject at hand and we will see if you understand money?
1
@KilledMind1985 Are you saying debt not being entered into by private individuals then govt will have to input the debt, as all money is debt? Why is govt debt or private debt the reason why socialism happens?
1
@AIRoasteri What a load of nonsense, a teacher liking one student is not an example of corrupt govt spending, next you will say if a nurse fluffs one pillow, it's unfair and corrupt, what a load of tosh.
1
@AIRoasteri Oh no, the rubbish man put my bin in the wrong place, it's unfair govt spending against me. Oh no the police officer let me through in traffic, I am being bribed by the govt, oh no the teacher gave my kid a b plus after I waved hello last week, should have only been a B. help against this unfair govt corruption...please!
1
@sproo6412 As taxation has to happen after the spending why don't the rich people think it is good money is being paid in tax that they didn't input?
1
@sproo6412 No govt in the world depends on tax for their spending, it is the whole point of this channel.
1
Rich people can get into debt a lot easier because they have other assets, money is inputted into the system through loans that they can get any time they want, yes there might be a trickle down with the things they buy but mostly they buy assets which make money, like a business or property, that we are paying rent to. As more money ( debt) enters the system, then prices for these assets are an indication of the amount of debt that has gone through the property. All money in the world is based on debt and the prices for property, that money does not actually exist, as all money is debt, as soon as the loan is taken out and paid off that money does not exist. Then what can happen is a place might have a fire, it might be a windy day, 8 or 9 fires might somehow start at the same time in different places, the state insurance company will cancel fire insurance a few months before, the reservoir that has had funding for ten years remains undone and unfilled even though last year was the wettest and they would all be full. Then during a drought and major warnings from all fire departments the mayor will go away on a goodwill trip to Ghana, after donating all spare fire equipment to Ukraine. Along with that the Governor will be trying to make the place multi density for high-rises but of course was getting a lot of pushback considering the area and the neighbours, then what can happen is the banks or Blackrock because that's what has happened in Hawaii after the fires, will either repossess or give a low ball offer and because a company like Blackrock, the 1% rich people, they can then get loans for more debt, which we peasants call money. Rich people do not hoard or store money depriving us, because they know it is debt and debt always has an interest rate applied so it must be working for you or it devalues
1
Money is debt you have to understand where it originates 1st, rich people can get into debt a lot easier because they have other assets, money is inputted into the system through loans that they can get any time they want, yes there might be a trickle down with the things they buy but mostly they buy assets which make money, like a business or property, that we are paying rent to. As more money ( debt) enters the system, then prices for these assets are an indication of the amount of debt that has gone through the property. All money in the world is based on debt and the prices for property, that money does not actually exist, as all money is debt, as soon as the loan is taken out and paid off that money does not exist. Then what can happen is a place might have a fire, it might be a windy day, 8 or 9 fires might somehow start at the same time in different places, the state insurance company will cancel fire insurance a few months before, the reservoir that has had funding for ten years remains undone and unfilled even though last year was the wettest and they would all be full. Then during a drought and major warnings from all fire departments the mayor will go away on a goodwill trip to Ghana, after donating all spare fire equipment to Ukraine. Along with that the Governor will be trying to make the place multi density for high-rises but of course was getting a lot of pushback considering the area and the neighbours, then what can happen is the banks or Blackrock because that's what has happened in Hawaii after the fires, will either repossess or give a low ball offer and because a company like Blackrock, the 1% rich people, they can then get loans for more debt, which we peasants call money. Rich people do not hoard or store money depriving us, because they know it is debt and debt always has an interest rate applied so it must be working for you or it devalues.
1
Money is debt, rich people can get into debt a lot easier because they have other assets, money is inputted into the system through loans that they can get any time they want, yes there might be a trickle down with the things they buy but mostly they buy assets which make money, like a business or property, that we are paying rent to. As more money ( debt) enters the system, then prices for these assets are an indication of the amount of debt that has gone through the property. All money in the world is based on debt and the prices for property, that money does not actually exist, as all money is debt, as soon as the loan is taken out and paid off that money does not exist. Then what can happen is a place might have a fire, it might be a windy day, 8 or 9 fires might somehow start at the same time in different places, the state insurance company will cancel fire insurance a few months before, the reservoir that has had funding for ten years remains undone and unfilled even though last year was the wettest and they would all be full. Then during a drought and major warnings from all fire departments the mayor will go away on a goodwill trip to Ghana, after donating all spare fire equipment to Ukraine. Along with that the Governor will be trying to make the place multi density for high-rises but of course was getting a lot of pushback considering the area and the neighbours, then what can happen is the banks or Blackrock because that's what has happened in Hawaii after the fires, will either repossess or give a low ball offer and because a company like Blackrock, the 1% rich people, they can then get loans for more debt, which we peasants call money. Rich people do not hoard or store money depriving us, because they know it is debt and debt always has an interest rate applied so it must be working for you or it devalues.
1
@rakdur This complete deflection doesn't answer the point Nick made about how you were incorrect in your first comment. He's not projecting and you could have just said "yes you are right" and then attempted to answer his question instead of asking another.
1
@rakdur "Given how wealthier the already wealthy have gotten since the start of QE 15 years back, we have to either accept they are doing a bloody good job of investing it sensibly & efficiently, or else the government is to blame & have incentivized bad manner in which for the rich to invest." ". I have question for you: what do you think is their main criteria when selecting their investment vehicles? Is their their own gain? Or is it the gain of society at large? " You are saying the same thing and instead of understanding you are trying to be right with your rhetoric. "I believe he was trying to challenge a detail in the way I was trying to articulate my point." Your point was wrong, are you not able to be challenged over it? " I am interested in progressing the point made in the video, not in debating rethorical technicalities. And I believe my attempts mostly fulfill that intent." You are still involved with your ego instead of listening to the point made because you didn't progress his point when he answered you. You just keep trying to be right. "Online rethoric is often about technicalities" You offered no technicalities.
1
@rakdur "Given how wealthier the already wealthy have gotten since the start of QE 15 years back, we have to either accept they are doing a bloody good job of investing it sensibly & efficiently, or else the government is to blame & have incentivized bad manner in which for the rich to invest." ". I have question for you: what do you think is their main criteria when selecting their investment vehicles? Is their their own gain? Or is it the gain of society at large? " You are saying the same thing and instead of understanding you are trying to be right with your rhetoric. "I believe he was trying to challenge a detail in the way I was trying to articulate my point." Your point was wrong, are you not able to be challenged over it? " I am interested in progressing the point made in the video, not in debating rethorical technicalities. And I believe my attempts mostly fulfill that intent." You are still involved with your ego instead of listening to the point made because you didn't progress his point when he answered you. You just keep trying to be right. "Online rethoric is often about technicalities" You offered no technicalities.
1
@rakdur @rakdur "Given how wealthier the already wealthy have gotten since the start of QE 15 years back, we have to either accept they are doing a bloody good job of investing it sensibly & efficiently, or else the government is to blame & have incentivized bad manner in which for the rich to invest." ". I have question for you: what do you think is their main criteria when selecting their investment vehicles? Is their their own gain? Or is it the gain of society at large? " You are saying the same thing and instead of understanding you are trying to be right with your rhetoric. "I believe he was trying to challenge a detail in the way I was trying to articulate my point." Your point was wrong, are you not able to be challenged over it? " I am interested in progressing the point made in the video, not in debating rethorical technicalities. And I believe my attempts mostly fulfill that intent." You are still involved with your ego instead of listening to the point made because you didn't progress his point when he answered you. You just keep trying to be right. "Online rethoric is often about technicalities" You offered no technicalities.
1
@rakdur "Given how wealthier the already wealthy have gotten since the start of QE 15 years back, we have to either accept they are doing a bloody good job of investing it sensibly & efficiently, or else the government is to blame & have incentivized bad manner in which for the rich to invest." ". I have question for you: what do you think is their main criteria when selecting their investment vehicles? Is their their own gain? Or is it the gain of society at large? " You are saying the same thing and instead of understanding you are trying to be right with your rhetoric. "I believe he was trying to challenge a detail in the way I was trying to articulate my point." Your point was wrong, are you not able to be challenged over it? " I am interested in progressing the point made in the video, not in debating rethorical technicalities. And I believe my attempts mostly fulfill that intent." You are still involved with your ego instead of listening to the point made because you didn't progress his point when he answered you. You just keep trying to be right. "Online rethoric is often about technicalities" You offered no technicalities.
1
@rakdur "Online rethoric is often about technicalities" You offered no technicalities. "Given how wealthier the already wealthy have gotten since the start of QE 15 years back, we have to either accept they are doing a bloody good job of investing it sensibly & efficiently, or else the government is to blame & have incentivized bad manner in which for the rich to invest." ". I have question for you: what do you think is their main criteria when selecting their investment vehicles? Is their their own gain? Or is it the gain of society at large? " You are saying the same thing and instead of understanding you are trying to be right with your rhetoric. "I believe he was trying to challenge a detail in the way I was trying to articulate my point." Your point was wrong, are you not able to be challenged over it? " I am interested in progressing the point made in the video, not in debating rethorical technicalities. And I believe my attempts mostly fulfill that intent." You are still involved with your ego instead of listening to the point made because you didn't progress his point when he answered you. You just keep trying to be right.
1
@rakdur "Online rethoric is often about technicalities" You offered no technicalities.
1
@edheldude Define an asset that produces value if money isn't wealth?
1
@edheldude It was more a mental exercise, you mention roofing etc, the issue is they all get paid money and money might not be able to buy the same amount of energy in the future. Having a business that does these things doesn't really add value, it means more people can consume and then we still have to agree on what value is. Everybody having jobs could be seen as a negative if they have freehold consumption.
1
If 1% are wealthy and do or don't spend according to some people, and the 99% get this wealth, will this lower overall consumption or increase it?
1
Where do overseas rich people invest?
1
As a pensioner you are a debt instrument and therefore a way for money to enter the system through the money the govt borrows, by spending all that they give you, then you are doing your fair share already. The money you spend of the rich, does not help the government input money into the system and would be detrimental to the economy in your instance.
1
If all money has a corresponding amount of debt as all money is debt based and if all debts were paid back there would be no money in the system, how is this not a zero sum game? Edit : If all banks and govts are always negative zero and we are always trying to stay above it, and the resting place is zero, how again is it not?
1
@charlesw852 Did you upvote your own comment? " But they are dispelling the rather silly fallacy that there HAS to be a ‘winner’ and a ‘loser’ to every transaction." If somebody has to be in debt before other people can hold money could you dispel the notion for me because calling it silly or what you described is not what a zero sum game means as far as the system is concerned, which is a zero sun=m game afaik and your explanation hasn't dispelled that.
1
@sososoprano1 Chales or OP is wrong and has not proven anything and Richard is right in that it is a zero sum game imo.
1
@charlesw852 We are talking about two different things. You are talking about the benefits to each, I am talking about the zero sum of the debts, that money does not build up in society, that prices are not an indication of the amount of money in society, merely an indication of how much debt has passed through it, that all debt being paid back there would be zero money in the economy, hence a zero sum game. You saying there is benefits to each would mean they cancel each other out.
1