Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "Richard J Murphy" channel.

I'd adjust that slightly. 40% greed, 40% peer pressure and 40% stupidity with a dash of SBF Musk!
9
Go look up a lecture Scottish Political-Economist Mark Blyth did in July 2019 at McMaster in Canada. Its here on YouTube. During the Q&A He's asked to comment on Bitcoin (the answer starts at 1:17:50) Listen for what the Chinese have labelled it.
6
@paulhargreaves1497 Yes agreed
3
@george11419 NO the problem is there are good politicians. Its just that the rest of the animals in politics prey on them because for those animals there's nothing more dangerous than a person with morals or ethics who might expose them for what they are. I have a friend who was once very involved in politics while at university. What it took for him to escape with his self esteem intact is a long story. But he and his mentor were both chased out because they actually had good intentions and understood that morals and ethics matter.
2
@bobfg3130 Yeah but that means the US classified cryptos in a similar way but with different words. Remember commodities trading is in many ways another form of gambling. The main point is that at the level of nation states they DO NOT consider cryptos as money or currency.
2
For anyone doubting this go and watch the interview with Rachel Reeves with Rory Stewart & Alistair Campbell. Its BEFORE she became Chancellor of the Exchequer. But during that interview she spoke economics straight from the Margret Thatcher playbook. Anyone who's watched any of Stephanie Kelton's explanations of MMT knows that Margret Thatcher likened the British Economy to a household and that you needed to "tax before you spend" Go listen to how many times Rachel Reeves makes that same claim.
1
@diabl2master Its almost identical to what happened in Australia. I'm an engineer who's been informally studying economics for a while because I wanted to know WHY our energy sector wasn't building any new power stations. Its actually a consequence of Neoliberal privatisation ideology. One of the things I found was it doesn't matter who anybody votes for these days ECONOMICS don't change. This is part of why Trump got elected. The "more of the same" mentality is why established parties everywhere are being dumped for radicals BOTH Left & Right. Almost every politician is either an economist or has an economics advisor and the only thing that's been taught in Economics education for the last 40years is Neoliberal Market Economics. So there's only 1 theme in any discussion no matter who's speaking. PLUS we all have INDEPENDENT central banks which are run by economists. This is why no matter who gets elected NOTHING CHANGES. If you go watch the interview Rachel Reeves gave on the YT Channel Leading with Rory Stewart and Alastair Campbell. She was spouting PURE Margret Thatcherism masked as something NEW.
1
@MrMarinus18 good point
1
@poulwinther YES - a few people have been pointing this part of the Bitcoin algorithm. It has this control aspect to the transaction rate and part of that control reflects back on how much power is needed to do the transaction confirmation. IT GOES UP and will continue to go up. I'm an engineer and there's an inherent flaw in the way Bitcoin and the block chain functions. Every time it updates ledger the amount of data that has to move about GROWS. I asked an IT expert a couple of years ago what happens when that data gets too large to move about easily. He shrugged and just said "Yeah we know about that!" He had no answer to what might happen. So other than all the other BS there's also an inherent technical flaw but if you try and tell the crypto-bros that they freak out.
1
And anyone who reads your comment should think long and hard on what its based on and then look at the evidence of what it has delivered. 1) The claim that governments can't do anything right comes straight from the mind of Milton Freidman who for some inexplicable reason was regarded as smart. He wasn't he was an IGN0RANT CLOWN of epic proportions. There's a fantastic interview where Phil Donahue challenges Freidman on his basic claim that "greed is good." Freidman claimed that all innovation is driven by greed. The problem with that is the greatest single project in human history for driving innovation the Apollo program had been successful. In Kennedy's famous speech announcing the plan to send a man to the Moon safely return him to the Earth the end of the decade INCLUDED remarks about developing methods and materials not even under consideration at the time. Out of Apollo came miniaturised electronics, practical digital computers, many alloys, many other materials including Teflon... etc. By the late 80s every dollar spent during Apollo had been returned over 9 times via taxes on wages and profits from companies exploiting Apollo spin-off technologies. That came out in a report following the Challenger disaster. I know about that because I'm an aerospace engineer. Other than that there's the incredible success of public education programs, public health care systems, road, bridges and other infrastructure all of which has enabled the private sector to grow and make money. Simple fact governments can do great things and can run economies. Its a matter of electing people who are competent rather than the clown brigades to many nations elect. 2) The claim that modern economics has delivered tremendous growth, wealth and prosperity is also bunk (to say the least). The correct way to describe neoliberal economics is that it has delivered tremendous growth, wealth and prosperity FOR SOME while leaving large slabs of society broken. In late 2022 Bernie Sanders had a report commissioned by the Congressional Budget Office on family wealth. It clearly showed that the Top 10% of America have done well, the Middle 40% of America have done O.k. while the bottom 50% have been utterly smashed and pulverised economically. If you extrapolate that information to the rest of the developed world where there are approximately 1.2 Billion people then what neoliberalism has done is throw around 600 million people under the economic bus like ahs happened to most of the other 6.8 Billion people on the planet while around 120 million people (~1.5% of the human race) has made enough money and gained enough wealth to afford to pay for the environmental damage they have done making that money. Those 2 things alone should get people like yourself to SHUT UP or WAKE UP, but your so called correction of money and debt is one of the stupidest explanations I have seen yet. Anyone who's read this far please go and watch Gary Stevenson's video on "What is Money."
1
RICHARD I know your an economics professor and that you know your stuff. I'm an engineer who's been informally studying economics for a couple of years. I have listed to many podcasts and regularly participate in the Steve Keen & Friends. You, Steve, Stephanie Kelton all know your stuff and can explain the crap out of almost anything on economics. HOWEVER - YOU ALL SUCK at explaining money creation because you all think we took basic money theory. MMTers like Yourself and Steph Kelton explain quite well that NATION STATES are toe sole provider of currency. Seve Keen and others explain quite well that BANKS create money through loans. What all of you DO NOT realise it that it confuses a lot of people because they here 2 halves of the story. Nation States produce EXOGENIC money Banks produce ENDOGENOUS money Wikipedia has a great opening paragraph on the page for Endogenous Money. it reads: "Endogenous money is an economy’s supply of money that is determined endogenously—that is, as a result of the interactions of other economic variables, rather than exogenously (autonomously) by an external authority such as a central bank." Nation States produce EXOGENIC money when they have their assigned institution (treasury or central bank) either print new currency or put money into accounts. Steph Kelton explains that well. Banks produce ENDOGENOUS money by placing 2 equal numbers into their ledgers AS A LOAN. One number is in their assets and the other is in the account of the customer. Steve Keen explains that well. What you have explained well is that ITS THE NATION STATE that decides the VALUE of CURRENCY. YOU GUYS ALL NEED TO EXPLAIN THAT BETTER Instead of in pieces.
1
For anyone doubting this go and watch the interview with Rachel Reeves with Rory Stewart & Alistair Campbell. Its BEFORE she became Chancellor of the Exchequer. But during that interview she spoke economics straight from the Margret Thatcher playbook. Anyone who's watched any of Stephanie Kelton's explanations of MMT knows that Margret Thatcher likened the British Economy to a household and that you needed to "tax before you spend" Go listen to how many times Rachel Reeves makes that same claim.
1
AUSTALIAN ENGINEER HERE: 1) This is NOT just a problem for Britain its a problem across the entire developed world including Australia. 2) This is 100% THE FAULT OF ECONOMISTS This started with American Economist Milton Freidman who's view was Governments are the problem and markets are the solution. 2 of his greatest acolytes were Margret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who famously said "Governments are NOT the solution. Governments are the problem." Milton Friedman also_"argued that a company has no social responsibility to the public or society; its only responsibility is to its shareholders."_ (Wikipedia) and to maximise profits. The argument that deregulated markets would deliver "cheaper energy with better services" IS ILLOGICAL How can anyone expect there to be any stable market for anything when the OBLIGATION of every CEO in that market is to maximise profits. EITHER they collude to raise prices and lower costs OR they fight it out Hunger Games style until a single victor emerges and then there's no competition and the victor can do whatever they like. I will grant to any economist that in the case of fast moving consumer goods where there are many suppliers, many product options and many options to buy those goods from then Freidman's ideology can work. The problem is that things like infrastructure, water and energy ARE NOT LIKE fast moving consumer goods. They are ESSENTIAL SERVICES to society and the costs involved in DO NOT HAVE a market solution. This is also why economists have made a mess of public education and public health care across the world in recent decades. Economists can't comprehend that there are these ESSENTIAL functions and services that need to be manged by government, NOT so the government can make money but so that the private sector can make money. Roads & bridges DO NOT need to make money they need to enable everyone else to move about and move stuff and make money. Education systems DO NOT need to make money they need to supply private industry with educated workers or with people who can make money and buy their goods and services. Hospitals DO NOT need to make money they need to get people healthy so they can go back to making money. In Britain right now is Hinkley Point C. It took 7 years to approve & design with a 10 year construction period. Even at higher energy prices it will take close to a decade to pay off and then start earning money. How does anyone ask a banker or CEO in the 50s to spend £40+ Billion knowing they wont be making a positive return until they are in there 70s? However if you ask the representative of a nation state to invest in something where over the next 80 years your nation shall grow and prosper from that investment then its a completely different matter. I have done the math of this and depending on how much the French STATE OWNED entity EDF can earn from Hinkley Point C then the French shall not only get their money back but PAY FOR at least 2, possibly 3 and if they work it well enough 4 power stations (8 x EPR 2 reactors in total). This is why Mr Macron could safely order 8 EPR 2 reactors because he know the British Economists are to stupid to do the math and it will NOT be the French people paying for those reactors it will be the British people paying for those reactors. So yeah right now the French people might be asking why are we paying for a power station in Britain. The answer is very simple: So it can pay for the next 2, 3 or 4 in France. AND before you ask. YES Australia is being just as stupid with its energy sector because like the British Economists advising the British Government our Economists advising our Government went to Oxford and Cambridge too. Except for the ones who went to Harvard and Yale.
1
AUSTALIAN ENGINEER HERE: Below is my overall comment but since you mentioned Maggie Thatch I thought I'd let you know. 1) This is NOT just a problem for Britain its a problem across the entire developed world including Australia. 2) This is 100% THE FAULT OF ECONOMISTS This started with American Economist Milton Freidman who's view was Governments are the problem and markets are the solution. 2 of his greatest acolytes were Margret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who famously said "Governments are NOT the solution. Governments are the problem." Milton Friedman also_"argued that a company has no social responsibility to the public or society; its only responsibility is to its shareholders."_ (Wikipedia) and to maximise profits. The argument that deregulated markets would deliver "cheaper energy with better services" IS ILLOGICAL How can anyone expect there to be any stable market for anything when the OBLIGATION of every CEO in that market is to maximise profits. EITHER they collude to raise prices and lower costs OR they fight it out Hunger Games style until a single victor emerges and then there's no competition and the victor can do whatever they like. I will grant to any economist that in the case of fast moving consumer goods where there are many suppliers, many product options and many options to buy those goods from then Freidman's ideology can work. The problem is that things like infrastructure, water and energy ARE NOT LIKE fast moving consumer goods. They are ESSENTIAL SERVICES to society and the costs involved in DO NOT HAVE a market solution. This is also why economists have made a mess of public education and public health care across the world in recent decades. Economists can't comprehend that there are these ESSENTIAL functions and services that need to be manged by government, NOT so the government can make money but so that the private sector can make money. Roads & bridges DO NOT need to make money they need to enable everyone else to move about and move stuff and make money. Education systems DO NOT need to make money they need to supply private industry with educated workers or with people who can make money and buy their goods and services. Hospitals DO NOT need to make money they need to get people healthy so they can go back to making money. In Britain right now is Hinkley Point C. It took 7 years to approve & design with a 10 year construction period. Even at higher energy prices it will take close to a decade to pay off and then start earning money. How does anyone ask a banker or CEO in the 50s to spend £40+ Billion knowing they wont be making a positive return until they are in there 70s? However if you ask the representative of a nation state to invest in something where over the next 80 years your nation shall grow and prosper from that investment then its a completely different matter. I have done the math of this and depending on how much the French STATE OWNED entity EDF can earn from Hinkley Point C then the French shall not only get their money back but PAY FOR at least 2, possibly 3 and if they work it well enough 4 power stations (8 x EPR 2 reactors in total). This is why Mr Macron could safely order 8 EPR 2 reactors because he know the British Economists are to stupid to do the math and it will NOT be the French people paying for those reactors it will be the British people paying for those reactors. So yeah right now the French people might be asking why are we paying for a power station in Britain. The answer is very simple: So it can pay for the next 2, 3 or 4 in France. AND before you ask. YES Australia is being just as stupid with its energy sector because like the British Economists advising the British Government our Economists advising our Government went to Oxford and Cambridge too. Except for the ones who went to Harvard and Yale.
1
Go look up a lecture Scottish Political-Economist Mark Blyth did in July 2019 at McMaster in Canada. Its here on YouTube. During the Q&A He's asked to comment on Bitcoin (the answer starts at 1:17:50) Listen for what the Chinese have labelled it.
1
@seed_drill7135 great line
1
@duewhit310 Oh dude you are so, so, so,......... utterly WRONG. Its a shame nobody ever taught you sarcasm. Crypto like all Ponzi schemes is a fantasy based on FALSE and MISLEADING math. They really do think you can convince people 1 + 1 = 3. Have you seen the Hollywood actor Terrence Howard trying to convince people 1 x 1 = 2???? There are people who believe him.
1
@KeithHays-ek4vr yeah imagine what those NFTs are going to be worth in the future. All this stuff relies on the same thing as every other trading orientated Scam. You need someone to pay you MORE than what you paid for whatever "it is." Go watch Pawn Stars and see what people think their stuff is worth. Some of its insane and some of its even more insane.
1
@KeithHays-ek4vr thanks
1