Myopia is a reasonable outcome for a highly specialized society. That they're not staunchly individualist, and show willingness to crossover is what's important. A massive problem in modern society has been our inability to recognize specialization. Instead of considering everybody that doesn't think like you an i***t. Also, this notion that being a specialist in one area, makes you able in all the others.
Love your work Appreciated if you can reduce time talking over the guest as it makes really messy to understand what the guest was articulating ( ex around the 1 million debt/bond /3% example) and what you two are trying to say. Thanks for considering and thanks for creating this content
Steve around the 32 minute mark- You just explained the decline in the fertility rate and family formation in large part. That has long term consequences for the future the society we live in.
@@EE-ie9gm Price is too high, has to go down. Debt is too high, backed by real estate, price going down would trigger a crisis. Gotta hit the 'undo' button. Undo button is a debt jubilee, where overleveraged homeowners have some of their debt forgiven, and non-indebted renters get an equal payment to compensate. While this is a big money handout, it doesn't cause inflation because an equal amount of credit gets deleted in the process, so the total money supply doesn't change. You'd have to keep people from over-leveraging again, so probably an interest rate hike at the same time.
The speaking pace of steeve keen is probblematic for non natie english listeners. I request steeve keen to explain a bit slower, so we dont miss the wonderful details.
Steve Keen explains economics more rationally than anyone I’ve heard or read. Unfortunately our two hosts didn’t really want to hear what he had to say and spoke over him including at the appalling end to the interview. Why bother inviting him on the podcast if he’s anti your property selling book?
Keen is saying that the fiat currency is a super power.. The question is for whom it's used. And withholding it from the working poor is a defacto choice that benefits private lenders, possibly to the detriment of the national economy. Or have I misunderstood?
I understand if Chris has a point to get in or wants to move to another question, but it might've been better if he had done something like say "Steve" to prompt Keen to finish up so that Chris could interject without interrupting and making it difficult to hear what either of them are saying. At 48:00 it becomes pretty clear that Chris has stopped listening to Keen while Keen is even still answering Chris' last question and then gets cut off. I don't really understand why he kept doing this, and it doesn't seem productive or courteous. Regardless, thank you for the upload and the interview.
It has taken me years to understand Prof Keen, I think he needs to simplify the language a little. He is right, but he is a professor and uses a lot of that language to the general public which is where podcasts like this are directed at.
Even a 2.5% RBA rate will reduce borrowing capacity by 15% or more. It's why housing is falling already. Some markets are still somewhat affordable, so haven't fallen yet. And may not fall much, if at all.
How is it that the people on this video cannot understand that All government debt has to be paid of by the people in the private sector because the government deficits are a debt for the private sector. Government does not pay off its own deficits or borrowing because government is just a group in the economy named "government" and not some entity outside of the whole economy which can provide wealth for the rest of the economy.
I would think it to be polite to let your guest finish a sentence before interrupting him constantly. IDK, maybe that's just me? But it makes it very frustrating when you are trying to learn. My suggestion would be restraint, you know letting your guest finish answering the damn question you asked him. Just a thought.
Steve: we're on a path for mass destruction of human life. Disasters you can't even conceive of and a state that had kneecapped itself making a real response impossible. Interviewers (after interrupting him): but we can keep making money right?
I liked Steve's point on climate change modelling and economic projections being wildly inaccurate. 70-95% of the earths heat dynamic is determined by water. Carbon is 4-20%. Weather will progressively become more extreme. Affecting insurance, supplies and productivity. Or we could restore water cycles and moderate our weather. How does this affect house prices and interest rates. Well it's supply chains, higher inflation = interest rate rises. Higher taxes etc. Climate and economy are linked closer than most people understand.
This Chris guy is hilarious. Workers will get a pay rise soon or just go and look for a better paying job? 😂 Workers wages are going up at half the rate of inflation, which means workers wages are going down. And he wants more housing debt? 🤦🏼♂️
The best thing about Steve Keen is he understands money and the fact that FIAT currency has no value. It is just using mathematics to create societal class structures. Those that have collected more numbers could never allow those that did not to be seen as equals. Anthropology, far more interesting then real estate agents. Steve still thinks the human race is reasonable when it is not. For example: If you have the number 1 and put 0 next to it things become ten times bigger. The basis of mathematics. This is the basis of physics. Although we can get the answer we want through physics, it does not mean we understand the reasonable harmonics of our actions which in turn creates problems like climate change. We are not really that clever. Chris Bates comments are proof.
I think you mean to say that fiat currency has no 'intrinsic' value. Fiat currencies have relative values to each other - and they have an ultimate value: in that you need them to stop yourself being put in jail whenever the government asks you to pay your taxes. Think of it like an avoid jail card. That's gotta have a value. Only time it wouldn't have a value is if you actually wanted to go to jail.
My hobby is researching climate change, related problems of overshoot of the human endeavor including the apparent reaching of peak oil extraction. Our modern civilization is in trouble. The fossil fuel limits lead to a gradual slow down of economic activity. The causes are overshoot, climate change, peak energy and peak materials. We did NOT have enough respect for nature.
Limits to growth? We're still on the target of 11 billion world population by 2080. And then we will need to aim higher once we get there. Not that I will see that of course.
Just so I'm understanding this right and can someone confirm - He is saying if we allocated 100k to Australians with household debt which makes up 100% worth of GDP debt, we would somehow be better off because people would pay off their debt if not reduce it? Throwing money at a problem by creating money in the first place causes inflation, let alone hyperinflation right? Look at the covid stimulus, that was allocated just for livelihood and now were at an 8% inflation rate because of government stimulus. Throw 100k to every adult Australian and that sounds like something Venezuela would do. Can someone confirm he's really saying that and why you think it would work - not being arrogant just trying to understand he's theory
No, that's not what he said. He said if we allocate 100K to Australians from *reserves* and used that to pay down the bank debt (for those who have it). For those who don't have debt, they're just issued 100K as govnt bonds which they can choose to keep or use. In other words you're trading credit based debt (owned by the banks) to fiat based debt (owned by government). This means people who already have a mortgage pay it off, and people who don't own a home get an asset injection (in the form of bonds) so they don't have to take out as big of a mortgage when looking to buy. Lower mortgages = Lower property prices. > Throwing money at a problem by creating money in the first place causes inflation, let alone hyperinflation right? No it doesn't. Throwing *your own* currency (that is currency your country created and owns) does not do anything in the short term, because unlike 1940's Germany, money is not tied to a physical thing anymore (thankyou Reagan for the accident). With the German thing, money at the time was tied to gold, problem being gold was universal *everywhere*, and so, if you increase the supply of (printed) currency relative to supply of gold which it is measured against, that's how you get inflation. It's also the reason why the Euro as a currency is terrible in principle. As Steve said: - (41:20) "government debt is only a problem when you issue it in someone elses money (currency) i.e. if the Australian government issued issues bonds / money / debt in $US dollars". This is precisely the situation for countries like Argentina, their own currency is practically worthless and they trade in $US and they can't ever pay down their debts because they're not in control of the US dollar. Now having said all this, it has no effect in the short term. It *will* have an effect in the long term, and that's why government will have to pull some other levers to reduce the level of government debt. > Look at the covid stimulus, that was allocated just for livelihood and now were at an 8% inflation rate because of government stimulus. That's because the stimulus wasn't directed solely at people, it was directed at businesses, most of whom didn't need it. Suggest reading about Job Keeper - michaelwest.com.au/?s=job+keeper Why do we get inflation off a stimulus to business? Ever heard of the stock markets where people buy/sell shares? > Can someone confirm he's really saying that and why you think it would work - not being arrogant just trying to understand he's theory Suggest watching some of his other content or reading about the "debt jubilee".
@Matthew Rath wow thanks for clearing up alot of it, appreciate it. Can I play devils advocate and ask: I guess my next question would be even though the mortgage stimulus would come from reserves, how would having a 100k retainer end up lowering house prices if having the option of taking out 20k worth of super ended up being a catalyst for one of the highest housing booms in Australia's history? *I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE MANY VARIABLES SUCH AS MATERIAL SHORTAGES, LOW HOUSING SUPPLY ETC* But a combination of super withdrawals, first home owner grant, new home build grant, stamp duty waived and even 2% deposit for single mums haven't helped bring housing down. Throwing 100k on top of that would only raise the demand? Also, I 100% agree that covid stimulus went to any companies that didn't need it but those funds were still allocated to the people of those companies, it just got deposited into the employers account and into the employees account
> how would having a 100k retainer end up lowering house prices if having the option of taking out 20k worth of super ended up being a catalyst for one of the highest housing booms in Australia's history? That 20k wasn't solely directed at driving mortgage prices down / eliminating bank credit? Covid hit and access to super was provided, not because people were looking to buy houses, but because their *immediate* living situation (loss of job, need to pay utilities / rent, etc) required an injection of funds, i have my views about where those funds should have come from, but nonetheless funding was needed. However what did the housing market see? Oh look people got access to funds. Well we better up our house prices, which leads to higher mortgages, which leads to higher prices, which leads to higher mortgages, ad infinitum... locked in the spiral again. > But a combination of super withdrawals, first home owner grant, new home build grant, stamp duty waived and even 2% deposit for single mums haven't helped bring housing down. Yes you can't just address 1 facet of it, it needs sweeping reform + the financials to get things under control. > Throwing 100k on top of that would only raise the demand? Correct, which is why this cannot be addressed solely by playing with numbers. (21:34) Steve: "If the government pulled out all the bloody props, what do you reckon would happen to the market? Get Rid of negative gearing (increase to supply because people wouldn't be looking to try and own +2 properties for tax purposes). Get rid of first home owners grants (lower house prices / mortgage rates)... [the housing market now] It's a government supported ponzi scheme". There needs to be supporting policy / reforms before the 100K buyout happens. > Also, I 100% agree that covid stimulus went to any companies that didn't need it but those funds were still allocated to the people of those companies, it just got deposited into the employers account and into the employees account What fresh bullshit is this? Don't be trying trickle-down-nomics here. If the companies didn't need it, but they took it anyway, that *would* lead to inflation (the thing you're worrying about). And in fact the companies that had integrity (i.e. the ones that still turned profit regardless) actually returned that money. If they had in fact paid it out to their employees (as you so claim) there would be no way for them to do this. Also you are aware a business is its own financial entity right? That money that was paid to companies didn't need to go anywhere, they could still be hanging on to it. And in fact, most of the companies that did *not* return the funds were? Companies with proprietors from overseas (Harvey Norman, Cartier, etc).
To be quite frank (Veronica here), this whole thing went way over my head, which, I guess, is why I'm not a professor... The way I understood it is that if we devalue money, it's all worth less and we all become just a little more equal. I'm appreciative for the other commenters who have weighed in here
@@theelephantintheroom-podcast I'm not a professor either, in fact i nearly failed economics out of year 12, because the assumptions in the neoclassical dribble they teach, had logical errors to the point where i couldn't reconcile it with other things i was learning like physics. For a better understanding suggest doing 2 things. 1. Look at Steve Keens interview with Lex Fridman. The information is extremely dense, so be prepared to pause and take notes alot, but Steve basically gives a crash course of the history of economics in the world + the political movements they've created. 2. Understand modern monetary theory (MMT). Essentially it's addressing the same viewpoint from a different angle. Stephanie Kelton (economist for Bernie Sanders) has well known work for this (Book: The Deficit Myth) and also gave a presentation at Adelaide University that's worth a look. Once these things "overlap" and you figure out how money gets created by both government and banks, and the distinction between the 2, alot more things start to make sense.
I wish the hosts would just let Steve finish talking before interrupting.
Thanks for your feedback. We have taken it on board...
Steve doesn’t give up because he says the economic truth. Amen 🙏🏼
Steve has the patience of a saint explaining his economics principles to financial toddlers.
Myopia is a reasonable outcome for a highly specialized society. That they're not staunchly individualist, and show willingness to crossover is what's important.
A massive problem in modern society has been our inability to recognize specialization. Instead of considering everybody that doesn't think like you an i***t.
Also, this notion that being a specialist in one area, makes you able in all the others.
Love your work
Appreciated if you can reduce time talking over the guest as it makes really messy to understand what the guest was articulating ( ex around the 1 million debt/bond /3% example) and what you two are trying to say. Thanks for considering and thanks for creating this content
Good interview, but Chris should interrupt less often..
Should be a 2-3 he podcast so there’s not as much pressure to interrupt.
@@anthonygarciaguitar I think I noticed a bit of delay here and there, probably because of the distance between where everyone was
Yes he interrupts and cuts Steve off too many times. Very annoying.
Well explained by an independent mind. Way to go Steve Keen.
let steve speak!
you speak more than your guest.
Steve around the 32 minute mark- You just explained the decline in the fertility rate and family formation in large part. That has long term consequences for the future the society we live in.
Thanks for your feedback. All food for thought...
Please can you make this a weekly show with Steve Keen?
Can u summarize what keen thinks about real estate?
@@EE-ie9gm Price is too high, has to go down. Debt is too high, backed by real estate, price going down would trigger a crisis. Gotta hit the 'undo' button. Undo button is a debt jubilee, where overleveraged homeowners have some of their debt forgiven, and non-indebted renters get an equal payment to compensate. While this is a big money handout, it doesn't cause inflation because an equal amount of credit gets deleted in the process, so the total money supply doesn't change. You'd have to keep people from over-leveraging again, so probably an interest rate hike at the same time.
Steve has his own show called "Steve Keen and Friends" and a podcast with Michael Dobbie on Patreon
Poorly moderated. They were disrupting Prof keen constantly with the end being the punctum maximum of rudeness.
The speaking pace of steeve keen is probblematic for non natie english listeners. I request steeve keen to explain a bit slower, so we dont miss the wonderful details.
ooooooooooh that was such a harsh ending. Oh no poor Steve.
Steve Keen explains economics more rationally than anyone I’ve heard or read. Unfortunately our two hosts didn’t really want to hear what he had to say and spoke over him including at the appalling end to the interview. Why bother inviting him on the podcast if he’s anti your property selling book?
Keen is saying that the fiat currency is a super power.. The question is for whom it's used. And withholding it from the working poor is a defacto choice that benefits private lenders, possibly to the detriment of the national economy. Or have I misunderstood?
I understand if Chris has a point to get in or wants to move to another question, but it might've been better if he had done something like say "Steve" to prompt Keen to finish up so that Chris could interject without interrupting and making it difficult to hear what either of them are saying.
At 48:00 it becomes pretty clear that Chris has stopped listening to Keen while Keen is even still answering Chris' last question and then gets cut off. I don't really understand why he kept doing this, and it doesn't seem productive or courteous.
Regardless, thank you for the upload and the interview.
force our government to listen to Steve KEEN
We're doing our bit to get these messages out there ;)
Please allow the guess to finish his point. Tuning out now...
Thanks for your feedback. This has been taken on board...
It has taken me years to understand Prof Keen, I think he needs to simplify the language a little. He is right, but he is a professor and uses a lot of that language to the general public which is where podcasts like this are directed at.
Unfortunately there is a threshold for knowledge to understand this stuff.
I think the interviewers were the interviewees. These guys need csma/cd to avoid collision while speaking.
Even a 2.5% RBA rate will reduce borrowing capacity by 15% or more.
It's why housing is falling already.
Some markets are still somewhat affordable, so haven't fallen yet. And may not fall much, if at all.
steve keen is a champ
Thanks for your feedback
Interrupting was a bit too much 😊 please next time you have Steve on allow him to finish. Slow it down. 🙏🏼
How is it that the people on this video cannot understand that All government debt has to be paid of by the people in the private sector because the government deficits are a debt for the private sector. Government does not pay off its own deficits or borrowing because government is just a group in the economy named "government" and not some entity outside of the whole economy which can provide wealth for the rest of the economy.
Veronica- “I really want to understand.”
Lol… listen more. Cheers!
I would think it to be polite to let your guest finish a sentence before interrupting him constantly. IDK, maybe that's just me? But it makes it very frustrating when you are trying to learn. My suggestion would be restraint, you know letting your guest finish answering the damn question you asked him. Just a thought.
Thank you for your feedback. It has been taken on board.
Steve: we're on a path for mass destruction of human life. Disasters you can't even conceive of and a state that had kneecapped itself making a real response impossible.
Interviewers (after interrupting him): but we can keep making money right?
Thanks for your comment. Feedback re interruption has been taken on board
I liked Steve's point on climate change modelling and economic projections being wildly inaccurate. 70-95% of the earths heat dynamic is determined by water. Carbon is 4-20%.
Weather will progressively become more extreme. Affecting insurance, supplies and productivity.
Or we could restore water cycles and moderate our weather.
How does this affect house prices and interest rates. Well it's supply chains, higher inflation = interest rate rises. Higher taxes etc. Climate and economy are linked closer than most people understand.
Bates needs to shut up and let Keen speak. What he has to say is far more valuable than Bates stupid interruptions.
Thanks for your feedback. We've taken it on board
Super!
Thank you! Cheers!
(almost all) Economics: material, energy, ecology are infinite resources. Thermodynamics does not exist.
Prof. Keen's models are an exception to this
53:40 mark: I think you should be aware, a cohesive society may not be the goal.
These are all ideas injected by Americans and American academics. Australians need to get the U.S. off their necks.
If this country continues to "prop up " the housing market at the expense of social stability at some point we will have to pay the piper.
We tend to agree - and we don't want a social uprising! It is time for governments to step in with more investment in social housing at a minimum.
Is property to live in? Who’d have thought!
This Chris guy is hilarious. Workers will get a pay rise soon or just go and look for a better paying job? 😂 Workers wages are going up at half the rate of inflation, which means workers wages are going down. And he wants more housing debt? 🤦🏼♂️
Thanks for your feedback
The best thing about Steve Keen is he understands money and the fact that FIAT currency has no value. It is just using mathematics to create societal class structures. Those that have collected more numbers could never allow those that did not to be seen as equals.
Anthropology, far more interesting then real estate agents.
Steve still thinks the human race is reasonable when it is not.
For example: If you have the number 1 and put 0 next to it things become ten times bigger. The basis of mathematics. This is the basis of physics. Although we can get the answer we want through physics, it does not mean we understand the reasonable harmonics of our actions which in turn creates problems like climate change.
We are not really that clever. Chris Bates comments are proof.
I think you mean to say that fiat currency has no 'intrinsic' value. Fiat currencies have relative values to each other - and they have an ultimate value: in that you need them to stop yourself being put in jail whenever the government asks you to pay your taxes. Think of it like an avoid jail card. That's gotta have a value. Only time it wouldn't have a value is if you actually wanted to go to jail.
My hobby is researching climate change, related problems of overshoot of the human endeavor including the apparent reaching of peak oil extraction. Our modern civilization is in trouble. The fossil fuel limits lead to a gradual slow down of economic activity. The causes are overshoot, climate change, peak energy and peak materials. We did NOT have enough respect for nature.
I looked into it and reached the same conclusion. Its a dire situation I don't see being resolved.
I was hoping to enjoy listening to this, but the infantile and amateurish behavior by Mr Bates ruined it for me Veronica.
Sorry to hear that :(. Thanks for your feedback. We have taken it on board.
I find the constant cutting off of Steve part way through a sentence extremely infuriating.
Thanks for your feedback, we have taken it on board.
Limits to growth?
We're still on the target of 11 billion world population by 2080.
And then we will need to aim higher once we get there.
Not that I will see that of course.
I think he means economic growth not population.
We'll never get to 11 billion because the planet will become resource constrained. Max capacity is around 10 billion.
Just so I'm understanding this right and can someone confirm -
He is saying if we allocated 100k to Australians with household debt which makes up 100% worth of GDP debt, we would somehow be better off because people would pay off their debt if not reduce it?
Throwing money at a problem by creating money in the first place causes inflation, let alone hyperinflation right?
Look at the covid stimulus, that was allocated just for livelihood and now were at an 8% inflation rate because of government stimulus. Throw 100k to every adult Australian and that sounds like something Venezuela would do.
Can someone confirm he's really saying that and why you think it would work - not being arrogant just trying to understand he's theory
No, that's not what he said. He said if we allocate 100K to Australians from *reserves* and used that to pay down the bank debt (for those who have it). For those who don't have debt, they're just issued 100K as govnt bonds which they can choose to keep or use.
In other words you're trading credit based debt (owned by the banks) to fiat based debt (owned by government).
This means people who already have a mortgage pay it off, and people who don't own a home get an asset injection (in the form of bonds) so they don't have to take out as big of a mortgage when looking to buy. Lower mortgages = Lower property prices.
> Throwing money at a problem by creating money in the first place causes inflation, let alone hyperinflation right?
No it doesn't. Throwing *your own* currency (that is currency your country created and owns) does not do anything in the short term, because unlike 1940's Germany, money is not tied to a physical thing anymore (thankyou Reagan for the accident).
With the German thing, money at the time was tied to gold, problem being gold was universal *everywhere*, and so, if you increase the supply of (printed) currency relative to supply of gold which it is measured against, that's how you get inflation. It's also the reason why the Euro as a currency is terrible in principle.
As Steve said:
- (41:20) "government debt is only a problem when you issue it in someone elses money (currency) i.e. if the Australian government issued issues bonds / money / debt in $US dollars". This is precisely the situation for countries like Argentina, their own currency is practically worthless and they trade in $US and they can't ever pay down their debts because they're not in control of the US dollar.
Now having said all this, it has no effect in the short term. It *will* have an effect in the long term, and that's why government will have to pull some other levers to reduce the level of government debt.
> Look at the covid stimulus, that was allocated just for livelihood and now were at an 8% inflation rate because of government stimulus.
That's because the stimulus wasn't directed solely at people, it was directed at businesses, most of whom didn't need it. Suggest reading about Job Keeper - michaelwest.com.au/?s=job+keeper
Why do we get inflation off a stimulus to business? Ever heard of the stock markets where people buy/sell shares?
> Can someone confirm he's really saying that and why you think it would work - not being arrogant just trying to understand he's theory
Suggest watching some of his other content or reading about the "debt jubilee".
@Matthew Rath wow thanks for clearing up alot of it, appreciate it. Can I play devils advocate and ask:
I guess my next question would be even though the mortgage stimulus would come from reserves, how would having a 100k retainer end up lowering house prices if having the option of taking out 20k worth of super ended up being a catalyst for one of the highest housing booms in Australia's history?
*I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE MANY VARIABLES SUCH AS MATERIAL SHORTAGES, LOW HOUSING SUPPLY ETC*
But a combination of super withdrawals, first home owner grant, new home build grant, stamp duty waived and even 2% deposit for single mums haven't helped bring housing down.
Throwing 100k on top of that would only raise the demand?
Also, I 100% agree that covid stimulus went to any companies that didn't need it but those funds were still allocated to the people of those companies, it just got deposited into the employers account and into the employees account
> how would having a 100k retainer end up lowering house prices if having the option of taking out 20k worth of super ended up being a catalyst for one of the highest housing booms in Australia's history?
That 20k wasn't solely directed at driving mortgage prices down / eliminating bank credit?
Covid hit and access to super was provided, not because people were looking to buy houses, but because their *immediate* living situation (loss of job, need to pay utilities / rent, etc) required an injection of funds, i have my views about where those funds should have come from, but nonetheless funding was needed.
However what did the housing market see? Oh look people got access to funds. Well we better up our house prices, which leads to higher mortgages, which leads to higher prices, which leads to higher mortgages, ad infinitum... locked in the spiral again.
> But a combination of super withdrawals, first home owner grant, new home build grant, stamp duty waived and even 2% deposit for single mums haven't helped bring housing down.
Yes you can't just address 1 facet of it, it needs sweeping reform + the financials to get things under control.
> Throwing 100k on top of that would only raise the demand?
Correct, which is why this cannot be addressed solely by playing with numbers.
(21:34) Steve: "If the government pulled out all the bloody props, what do you reckon would happen to the market? Get Rid of negative gearing (increase to supply because people wouldn't be looking to try and own +2 properties for tax purposes). Get rid of first home owners grants (lower house prices / mortgage rates)... [the housing market now] It's a government supported ponzi scheme".
There needs to be supporting policy / reforms before the 100K buyout happens.
> Also, I 100% agree that covid stimulus went to any companies that didn't need it but those funds were still allocated to the people of those companies, it just got deposited into the employers account and into the employees account
What fresh bullshit is this? Don't be trying trickle-down-nomics here.
If the companies didn't need it, but they took it anyway, that *would* lead to inflation (the thing you're worrying about). And in fact the companies that had integrity (i.e. the ones that still turned profit regardless) actually returned that money. If they had in fact paid it out to their employees (as you so claim) there would be no way for them to do this.
Also you are aware a business is its own financial entity right? That money that was paid to companies didn't need to go anywhere, they could still be hanging on to it.
And in fact, most of the companies that did *not* return the funds were? Companies with proprietors from overseas (Harvey Norman, Cartier, etc).
To be quite frank (Veronica here), this whole thing went way over my head, which, I guess, is why I'm not a professor...
The way I understood it is that if we devalue money, it's all worth less and we all become just a little more equal. I'm appreciative for the other commenters who have weighed in here
@@theelephantintheroom-podcast I'm not a professor either, in fact i nearly failed economics out of year 12, because the assumptions in the neoclassical dribble they teach, had logical errors to the point where i couldn't reconcile it with other things i was learning like physics.
For a better understanding suggest doing 2 things.
1. Look at Steve Keens interview with Lex Fridman. The information is extremely dense, so be prepared to pause and take notes alot, but Steve basically gives a crash course of the history of economics in the world + the political movements they've created.
2. Understand modern monetary theory (MMT). Essentially it's addressing the same viewpoint from a different angle. Stephanie Kelton (economist for Bernie Sanders) has well known work for this (Book: The Deficit Myth) and also gave a presentation at Adelaide University that's worth a look.
Once these things "overlap" and you figure out how money gets created by both government and banks, and the distinction between the 2, alot more things start to make sense.
Oh god chris mate wtf
Try to avoid speaking over your guests. It's rude. And 99% chance what the guest was saying was way more interesting than what you interrupted with.