Відео

My friend Abe knows, but he said it's strictly on the Q.T. "Because the thin air is free", he said, whatever that means.

That's really interesting. I like the example of being asked what would you do if there was no money. Of course I would barter, but this is because I'm used to using money for transactions. Yet in cultures that never had money, a credit or favor system (not bartering) is used. Credit then money then barter, not barter then money then credit.

Williams Frank Miller Deborah Hernandez Patricia

Warren Mosler has zero idea about how a gold standard worked. Couldn't be more misled.

Disappointing lecture. Didn't learn anything new.

General public: write down the full names of these people for when the shortages, crashes, and panics start.

The short answer: the federal reserve

That’s not how it started. That’s how you think it got started.

It's so obvious if you just sit back and observe how your own family operates, people have an informal ledger running in their heads that figures out how fair or unfair their own labor load is in relation to others in the family and everyone tries to keep it somewhat fair.

The sinister minds of avarice?

In communist China there were occasionally trades for eggs and chives

Where’s the unedited version of this? why was it edited ?

We're so dumb in the year 2000+ that half the comments are worried about the guys coffee cup rather than his words. Lol rip us we are definitely done for.

Holy moly, this guy is absolutely unbearable to listen to. The sharp breaths, the mouth smacking, the self-satisfied chuckling, and the ponderous rambling that even after being cut down for this video would still put me to sleep were it not for every irritating mannerism above.

I really enjoy how he explains things, but I vehemently disagree with the basis of his statement. He's proposing that the barter system didn't really exist (which I guess I can get behind), but instead, people used a form of social indebtedness? That's an alarming theory to propose. To suggest that I'd distance myself from a posession because I 1. Never really cherished it enough (cow example), or 2. Assume I'm going to need something from said neighbor in the future (and that they'll certainly have that thing) is naive to say the least.

Most people believe that money is real wealth. Yet, everything we spend money on requires energy to mine, create, deliver, run, maintain, and dispose of. In this way, money is ultimately a direct claim on energy and resources. Our economic stories assert that with more money we can create more of anything. The truth is we cannot create energy. We both extract and burn it faster by using technology and printing money. Natural capital -particularly energy-is the true foundation of our monetary systems. As we create more money we don’t create more resources, we merely access them faster.

Being greedy is part of human nature. Who wouldn't be, given the opportunity? This can only happen when you have the power to print money with no limits. No one in this universe should have this type of power, as that is where the true danger lies.

From Alan Greenspan in 1966: “In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation.”

Taxes gives value to nothing.. Taxes are basically money required to pay for interest rates on borrowing money that come out from nothing!! The whole things is a FARCE!!

MONEY IS NOT ONLY A UNIT OF MEASURE, WHICH IS AN IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTIC LIKE METERS, LITERS, KILOS ETC BUT MUST SATISFY OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS TOO... STORE OF ENERGY VALUE, SCARCITY, TANGIBLE ETC THIS GIVES THE "INTRINSIC VALUE TO MONEY"

MONEY CAME OUT OF THE AUTHORITIES NOPE THE OTHER WAY AROUND. AUTHORITIES JUST COPIED WHAT PEOPLE USE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT MONEY WAS.. MONEY WAS AN ORGANIG PROCESS BORN AMONGST AND AROUND PEOPLE NEEDS...

On Usury and Other Dishonest Profits VIX PREVENIT The Papal Bull. Pope Benedict XIV - 1745 Pope Benedict XIV issued the papal bull On Usury and Other Dishonest Profits on August 1, 1745. He was the 247th Pope of the Catholic Church, and he reigned from 1740 to 1758. The papal bull was issued in response to a controversy that had arisen in Italy about the definition of usury. The controversy was over whether or not it was permissible to charge interest on a loan, even if the interest rate was moderate. Which prohibited the charging of interest on loans. The bull was issued in response to the growing practice of usury, which is the lending of money at an excessive rate of interest. The bull declared that usury was a sin and that those who engaged in it would be excommunicated. The prohibition on usury was not universally accepted, and there were many challenges to it over the years. The bull was not enforceable in all jurisdictions. The bull was only enforceable in areas that were under the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church. However, it did have a significant impact on the development of the financial system. It helped to make lending more accessible to borrowers and it also helped to protect borrowers from exploitation. The prohibition on usury was eventually lifted in the 19th century, but it still has some influence on the way that interest is charged today. For example, many countries have usury laws that limit the amount of interest that can be charged on loans. The papal bull Vix Pervenit was issued because the Catholic Church believed that charging interest on loans was a form of usury, which was considered a sin. The prohibition on usury was intended to protect borrowers from exploitation and to ensure that everyone had access to affordable loans. The prohibition on usury did not apply to Jews, who were not subject to the same religious restrictions as Christians. This created a situation where Jews were often the only ones who could lend money with interest, which gave them a significant advantage in the financial markets. One of the most famous examples of Jews involved in lending money with usury in the Middle Ages is the Rothschild family. The Rothschilds were a German Jewish family who became one of the most powerful banking families in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. Mayer Amschel Rothschild, the founder of the Rothschild dynasty, was a successful merchant banker who made a lot of money through lending money to princes and nobles at high rates of interest. He sent his sons to different parts of Europe, and they established branches of the Rothschild bank in London, Paris, Frankfurt, and Vienna. The Rothschilds became one of the most powerful families in Europe, and they played a major role in the financial markets of the 19th century. The Rothschilds' success was partly due to the fact that they were able to take advantage of the prohibition on usury. As Jews, they were not subject to the same religious restrictions as Christians, and they were therefore able to lend money with interest. This gave them a significant advantage in the financial markets, and it helped them to build their vast fortune. The Rothschild story is a reminder of the complex history of usury and the role that Jews played in lending money with interest in the Middle Ages. It also shows how the prohibition on usury could be used to give one group of people an advantage over another. Here are some references that you can check for more information: • "The Papal Bulls on Usury" by John T. Noonan, Jr. (1957) • "The History of Usury" by Raymond de Roover (1964) • "The Economics of Usury" by Thomas Sowell (1980)

On Usury and Other Dishonest Profits VIX PREVENIT The Papal Bull. Pope Benedict XIV - 1745 Pope Benedict XIV issued the papal bull On Usury and Other Dishonest Profits on August 1, 1745. He was the 247th Pope of the Catholic Church, and he reigned from 1740 to 1758. The papal bull was issued in response to a controversy that had arisen in Italy about the definition of usury. The controversy was over whether or not it was permissible to charge interest on a loan, even if the interest rate was moderate. Which prohibited the charging of interest on loans. The bull was issued in response to the growing practice of usury, which is the lending of money at an excessive rate of interest. The bull declared that usury was a sin and that those who engaged in it would be excommunicated. The prohibition on usury was not universally accepted, and there were many challenges to it over the years. The bull was not enforceable in all jurisdictions. The bull was only enforceable in areas that were under the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church. However, it did have a significant impact on the development of the financial system. It helped to make lending more accessible to borrowers and it also helped to protect borrowers from exploitation. The prohibition on usury was eventually lifted in the 19th century, but it still has some influence on the way that interest is charged today. For example, many countries have usury laws that limit the amount of interest that can be charged on loans. The papal bull Vix Pervenit was issued because the Catholic Church believed that charging interest on loans was a form of usury, which was considered a sin. The prohibition on usury was intended to protect borrowers from exploitation and to ensure that everyone had access to affordable loans. The prohibition on usury did not apply to Jews, who were not subject to the same religious restrictions as Christians. This created a situation where Jews were often the only ones who could lend money with interest, which gave them a significant advantage in the financial markets. One of the most famous examples of Jews involved in lending money with usury in the Middle Ages is the Rothschild family. The Rothschilds were a German Jewish family who became one of the most powerful banking families in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. Mayer Amschel Rothschild, the founder of the Rothschild dynasty, was a successful merchant banker who made a lot of money through lending money to princes and nobles at high rates of interest. He sent his sons to different parts of Europe, and they established branches of the Rothschild bank in London, Paris, Frankfurt, and Vienna. The Rothschilds became one of the most powerful families in Europe, and they played a major role in the financial markets of the 19th century. The Rothschilds' success was partly due to the fact that they were able to take advantage of the prohibition on usury. As Jews, they were not subject to the same religious restrictions as Christians, and they were therefore able to lend money with interest. This gave them a significant advantage in the financial markets, and it helped them to build their vast fortune. The Rothschild story is a reminder of the complex history of usury and the role that Jews played in lending money with interest in the Middle Ages. It also shows how the prohibition on usury could be used to give one group of people an advantage over another. Here are some references that you can check for more information: • "The Papal Bulls on Usury" by John T. Noonan, Jr. (1957) • "The History of Usury" by Raymond de Roover (1964) • "The Economics of Usury" by Thomas Sowell (1980)

SILVER WAS A RELIGION FOR THE MING DINASTY

Someone help me understand- in the example he gives about taxes and the minting of money from governments he says this enables armies to be capable of feeding themselves. I'm not clear how a state issuing currency helps an army feed itself any differently than without.

QE is not money, these days it is automated de-risk-oriented spreadsheet manipulation, Warren Mosler was a banker at Bankers Trust during Bankers Trust chairman Charles Stanford, he knows well, better than most!

Whatever system we may come up with, we shall find a way to corrupt it to the same extent as we have the current capitalist system. Its brains behind the system and using the system to "blame", not the system itself. Lot of these philosophers, and I really like David's writing, somehow fail to take into account the less fancy elements of humanity like greed and obsession to lord over the other. Its a part of our genetic history owing to evolution from ape-like beings who lived in a survival of the fittest setting. Not easy to shrug off those internal instincts for everyone.

how is it the same? bond sales remove money from economy. so convert cash to bonds. so par for par. but printing money does not remove money from the economy it adds to it. ceteris paribus you've added money into the economy.

Something to think about is the the individual income tax could be structured to capture mostly unearned income (i.e., income from rent-seeking privileges and speculation rather than production). Some earned income at the highest level might be captured, but this would have no impact on the earner's lifestyle. What might this look like? First, exempt all individual incomes up to the national median income. Eliminate all other exemptions and deductions. Above the exempt amount, impose an increasing rate of taxation on higher ranges of income. The rates and ranges could be set based on the objective of achieving a balanced budget. What about business profits taxation? Replace this with a low, graduated rate of taxation on gross revenue. This structure would benefit efficiency and remove the benefit to companies of being able to expense lucrative compensation packages to senior executives. To encourage small business, the first, say, $5 million of revenue could be exempt.

Living in a small farming community is interesting. Capitalism is for everyone we don't know. All of our neighbors just give. We coordinate our gardens and skills. Cam grows garlic and lettuce, we grow berries and mushrooms, Bob and Sue do meat birds. We help old people for little or nothing and kids help with neighborhood chores. We really only need money for fuel, coffee and taxes.

#TraitorTrumps game plan: "If you tell a lie, and if you repeat it often enough, eventually the people will come to believe it." - Joseph Goebbels - Nazi Minister of Propaganda 🤔 #VoteBlue

Not an expert in these kinds of things, but I believe one does not have to be. System is broken, it doesn't work, everyone can see it clearly and there's nothing to argue here. We need to find something better, more inclusive and in line with modern days.

I don’t think bretton woods fell apart when there has not been a world war in 80 years

Finally, someone talking sense.

when he is going to take a sip from that cup?

that is not true, barter did happen first, just not with the communities you people think about.

the banks are happy? we are in a debt and spending based system. The moment big banks and big hedge funds (main private sector Treasury buyers) stop buying is the moment the system crumbles. Thats the exact reason why there are government mandated buyers, the Fed and other countries central banks. that shows you how backwards thinking of economists and the current establishment

Graeber said all of this, and much more, much better, and his book is so eminently readable. Not to have read does not reflect well on this fellow as an academic. Coinage only existed after 600 BCE. Credit came first. The metals kept in Mesopotamian temples only was a way of counting contributions to the temple, taxes. What we consider money is intimately related to violence, conquering armies. Read some anthropology. This guy does not define money. Debt existed long before coinage or paper money. The fact that he uses the word "Tribal" as an academic term pretty much devalues his credentials. You can have all kinds of restitution of blood feud without money units.

US bond or dollar is backed by nothing..it's just a instrument to export US inflation to outside world

His description is correct. His interpretation is wrong, wrong, really wrong. Banks create money-dollars to buy notes or other assets. It sounds the same, but there is a huge difference. The note obligates the payor to repay with dollars some time in the future. The money-dollar liability represents an immediate claim. It makes a big difference.

and marxists will espouse cringe adam smith crap

What a load of nonsense long term bond sales don't impact overnight interest rates

The Interest payment on the fictional national debt just returns to the Economy side of the Ledger, The Economy is part of the Government, not just some independent thing.

SIP PLEASE

3:47

So basically in short; the fiat system removes governments' solvency risk? Or in other words, insolvent governments just have to switch to a fiat system to continue effortless operation?

Relevant today as people are tellint me Yellen went to China to beg for debt forgiveness

This guy is obviously in denial.

"There is no possibility of government going "bankrupt," or being unable to spend, or being forced to raise taxes on account of any ratio of outstanding Treasury Bonds to anything else." This is correct..but say like the gov prints and spends into a sector.. this could cause inflation in this sector without an increase in production or demand...

The question is; How can we motivate billionaires to spend in a similar propensity as the poor does?