[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
economics

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 5897)
Message
File  []
close
942.jpg
589758975897
>> No. 5897 Anonymous
28th October 2015
Wednesday 1:40 pm
5897 "Debt and what the government doesn’t want you to know"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/28/2008-crash-government-economic-growth-budgetary-surplus?CMP=share_btn_tw

Is this (especially the stuff in the video) true?

The stuff about money being an IOU obviously is but what about the rest of these claims by the guy famous for the 'bullshit jobs' thesis?
Expand all images.
>> No. 5898 Anonymous
28th October 2015
Wednesday 2:17 pm
5898 spacer
>>5897

Yes, it's true. He's an ideological opponent of Graeber (and a despicable human being who counts Kissinger among his heroes) but Neil Ferguson explains all of this in his series The Ascent of Money. It's actually quite good and explains the origins of this system in a fairly comprehensive way.
>> No. 5899 Anonymous
28th October 2015
Wednesday 2:29 pm
5899 spacer
Yep. See >>5817
>> No. 5900 Anonymous
28th October 2015
Wednesday 2:34 pm
5900 spacer
>>5899

I was going to post it in that thread, but I thought the points made were about more than just money creation. I apologise if I've gotten the wrong end of the stick.
>> No. 5901 Anonymous
28th October 2015
Wednesday 2:43 pm
5901 spacer
>>5897
I keep telling this every time some idiot talks about "balancing thebooks" or "living within our means". A government deficit means we get more out than we put in. A government surplus means they're taking our money and not spending it, and therefore losing value.
>> No. 5902 Anonymous
28th October 2015
Wednesday 2:46 pm
5902 spacer

hhd.png
590259025902
The economics behind a government running a surplus are the exact opposite of what most people think. People think "state gets slimmer, taxes go down, more money in my pocket". Except you can't just think about it on an individual level. What happens on the macro level is that the government takes money out of the economy and does not spend it. They are a drain on the private sector. In order for the economy to keep growing, we have to either get the money from overseas by running a trade surplus (which we don't and haven't done in a long, long time, and it should be pretty obvious that this can't be a policy pursued by governments everywhere, as for one country to have a trade surplus, others have to run a trade deficit) or borrow the money from banks. So the burden of debt is shifted from the public to private sector. Oh, and somewhere down the line, the banks realise that they can't keep lending, these loans are starting to look a bit dodgy and the arse falls out of the whole system again. Great stuff Gideon.
>> No. 5903 Anonymous
28th October 2015
Wednesday 2:48 pm
5903 spacer
>>5900
Money creation is what a lot of it comes down to. When the money supply is mostly determined by the expansion of credit, you will inevitably end up with an economy built on debt.
>> No. 6045 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 10:42 pm
6045 spacer
So what does this all really mean?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/spending-review-and-autumn-statement-2015-documents/spending-review-and-autumn-statement-2015
>> No. 6046 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 11:32 pm
6046 spacer
>>6045
Not a lot, really. Not a very interesting Autumn statement.

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password