04:19 : What is financialisation? 07:25 : A brief history of financialisation. 22:30 : The financialisation of the state. 27:42 : A property-owning democracy. 36:13 : Why neoliberalism relies on debt and leads to crisis. 41:10 : The Alternative. 46:20 : Abolish capitalism? 49:30 : Class War Social Democracy Vs Democratic Socialism. 59:00 : Who reflects Grace’s views in politics and economics right now. 1:06:30 : Audience Questions.
45:30 "Do human beings have the capacity to come together, talk about ideas, understand where we are at the moment and build power to change things?" I don't think enough people can do this to fight the aggressive and ignorant mercenaries the rich employ to defend their nefarious interests. Specially now, aided by technology and the smartest PhDs. Also worth mentioning it takes many of us to unite to fight against their weakest point, which means they only have to make our leadership betray ourselves and we are done. That said, any ideas?
Grateful for a book on financialisation. But there is a shorter and simpler message we need to spread: the true wealth of a nation cannot ever rest upon a financial sector, finance is the servant of production, not it's master, and when we see the reverse dependency we have inherent instability and impending collapse.
Great interview. I particularly liked the way the interviewer didn't feel the need to talk down Grace Blakeley and let us hear her views rather than his. Refreshing. =
She's definitely going in the right direction in terms of analysis, similar to Mark Blyth's. I'd love to hear her views on growth models in a closed system, as regards consumer capitalism, given the fact that world farming production figures make depressing reading when you take into account the effect of climate change on future farming yields & available viable land and any kind of population growth in the long term.
Great discussion, love you guys. Just a thought, one thing that I don't hear mentioned as much as I believe it should be in these progressive discussions, is how the nature of Capitalism, or more accurately, Neo-liberal Capitalism, values and promotes sociopathic, ruthless behaviour. Throughout history, we admired and rewarded those who dared to be the most ruthless and win by any means necessary, as people needed constant protection from outside invaders, so those that fought off invaders, killed the most people, would then be crowned king, own more land, amass more riches, etc. And more recently, especially now with our current form of unbridled Capitalism, we admire those at the top, "they got there through hard work and talent", but tacitly accept their ruthlessness to get there, and assume they are right, they know best, look at them! -they're super wealthy, they're billionaires. However, these values of "winner take all" are now in severe conflict with our survival as a species, and therefore we must have a real rethink in our values as humans as to who we admire and what we, as a society, reward. I think this is intrinsic to finding new socio-economic systems that work better for all, and crucially the planet, and will be instrumental in forcing these changes.
@Brown Bear Not exactly what I was saying. However, said ruthless leader could and most likely would, take control of the means of production of fishing and berry picking to enrich himself and his honchos, killing all others who disobey. (And possibly even exploiting the fish and berries until the supply runs out.) Certainly this sort of thing has happened regularly in the past, and still happens in the present.
I certainly agree with the dangerous fact of financialisation, and that a change must come, or we’ll crash into a change forced upon us. But there’s a fundamental problem with the proposed solution. If we focus on “power” for a class or group, we’ll repeat the very mistake made every time ideology is the basis of a “revolution”. Either the “winning” class ends up in some sort of dictatorship, or the “losing” class gains enough power to fight back, leading to a civil war. Unlike Marx’s 1880 or Keynes’ 1930, we have globalized unprecedented access to information. We have more knowledge and education than ever before. A solution should be found to create leadership, as opposed to power. A system that enables empirically “wiser” people to govern, as opposed to “politicians”, who will inevitably fail, due to human nature. Nationalism can not be the counterweight to globalization, the latter is a fact due to more reasons than financialisation alone. We need some sort of regulated capitalism, and a tax financed state for welfare and safety. We should never - again - mix the two neo-liberally OR fully empower the state alone leading to communism. History shows it won’t work. Rather, policy and leadership must be based on knowledge and to isolate same leadership from the possibility of serving itself. Breach of leadership contract leads to immediate change and possible punishment. The “whole” people should be able to hold its leadership fully responsible, with immediate effect, like any government has always done with its people. Raw power leads to dissatisfaction for some. Empirical leadership can be understood and respected by most. A sort of dynamic-pragmatic progressive capitalist democracy. 💛
Professor Vernon Bogdanor, whilst holding a questionable interpretation of history at the best of times, makes a good point about referring to the 'post-war consensus' as the 'post-war settlement' - since it was a hodge-podge political, social, and economic arrangement that, whilst tacitly agreed upon out of necessity, faced conflict and critique from all facets of the political spectrum from day one. The NHS, perhaps, is the most salient figuration of this relationship with the settlement.
24:00 that documentary she refers to is well worth a look. Basically spells out the difference between Thatcher's approach and previous Conservative government's relationship with the unions. Previously it was seen as the role of the government/powers that be to negotiate with the unions - a necessary back and forth. Whereas Thatcher just abandoned that and decided to smash them. But she did so apparently off the back of the advice from a systems analysist who drew up a system diagram of all the relationships in the british economy - concluding it was the unions standing in the way of everything. You can find the original system diagram Thatcher used on line pretty easily. Edit; don't know whether it's the same documentary she's referring to but I was thinking of 'Tory! Tory! Tory!' (BBC 2006) which was a three part documentary - the systems approach (the systems diagram) is featured in episode 2 'path to power'. I would naively argue the balance between functional approaches - i.e. systems approaches - and qualitative approaches was upset. In product terms qualities and functions are quite easy to understand - like how (quality) do you make a light blub and why (function) does the light bulb exist? How always being in past tense. And Why always being in future tense. In societal terms I think qualities refer to people's quality of life (Needs). Whereas functions refer to why people do what they do? Can be thought of in terms of 'why?'s' coming from a top-down hierarchy. And 'how?'s' (qualities) coming from flat hierarchical pressure's. So qualities work at the expense of hierarchies - for example product quality being at odds with company profits. I think post modernists went to town in criticism of 'functions' in ways that are beyond me at the moment - I guess James and Ash would be able to explain as they live and breath this stuff. Despite my naivety, this way of seeing things paints a picture of industry that is malleable to change by prioritising quality over function. "What is your major malfunction?" - Full Metal Jacket... and/or mental health approaches, and any justification of discrimination against LGBT people (what is the function of same sex relationships for example? - i.e. functions serve as a moral code). Relates to Philosophy Tube's video on Transphobia I guess - where he brought up the opposition to gay people on moral grounds, whereas the current opposition to trans people is metaphysical (i.e. relating to 'qualities' - or how does someone become transgender and why do people think it is impossible?). I guess Marx observed that morality under capitalism had been reduced to a numerical expression? 11001101100011... LOL
Grace is right on about 52 minutes in. Interviewer implies that no “system” can be stable which is perniciously unverifiable. Can a system be more stable than is current “financial global capital” yeah. It can. Question is, what would that alternative be (distillation of power, workplace democracy and freedom and “open source” access to important institutional information and universal basic rights, services and securities
I wished we didn't use the term "capital" to refer to the top 5%. I prefer the terms "bourgeoisie", "financiers", and "bosses". "Owning/Ruling/Investing class" also works if two-word phrases are fine.
it seems like it's because it's really more about the capital itself rather than just a group of bad people. I mean it's more about a system that creates these class inequalities.
@@unclassedmedia and probably the fact that if you remove this top class they will appear again on their own due to human inherent immoral rendition to their god, power
Interesting thoughts about housing. Removing the ability to buy or sell housing by law might go a long way in tackling the issue. Compensation payments could offered over the lifetime of the landlord or mortgage owner and would be more stable than that of unstable and inflated market.
Graces staccato, high speed talk coupled with economic jargon makes comprehension much more difficult than it needs to be, essentially hard to listen to and hard to grasp. If she was hoping to engage interest in her book and maybe a convert or two to new economic and social thinking, this interview did not do it for anyone but the most determined. I am pretty sure that there were some interesting new perspectives on what is already understood, such as how our societies have been abandoned by obscenely wealthy elites and corrupted the structures of good governance leaving us all on the fast road to Armageddon but that surety is because I waded through the interview with gritted determination and the pause rewind button.
Grace mischaracterises financialisation in the opening I think. The real problem is when most of the increase in employment and GDP figures is financial services growth. It's a problem because that is not real material and technological growth, it is essentially vapour. It should not be used in deriving GDP.
GDP is just an outdated measure and not really fit for purpose anymore, just like unemployment figures, it's straying further and further from the material reality it looks to be a proxy for.
Agree with you because a lot of people classed as employed may be on part time jobs, zero hour contracts and agency work. And I would say it's almost impossible to survive on those jobs as agency work usually pays minimum wages and doesn't guarantee wotk every day or wk, zero hr contract jobs the same problems. Job agencies are just a middle man, making money out of us workers. They treat the workers like a commodity, not like human beings. The job agency is basically money for old rope taking their cut of the money for doing bugger all, just like parisites
My dreams maybe the plugs within some missing links & would fit in well in many communities in Ireland & UK where in so that the over-Wealthy may get a chance to invest within their Youth or new arrivals !!
I second cooperatives. The more successful ones there are, the more it can propogate into a moment. Also we need more voices highlighting the problems with capitalism even on a very basic level, and opening people's eyes to the possibility of an alternative system. Smart people like Grace who are experts, and also ordinary people who are passionate and dedicated. Many people don't have even a basic understanding that things don't have to be this way. The propaganda if capitalism is pushed into our brains our whole lives and many people simply aren't aware that anything could be different. Novara and lefty TH-cam are amazing, but we need as many voices from as many different people as possible. Practically, cooperatives or at the very least unionising are the best paths I think. But far greater minds then mine may have other ideas :)
I have a question and yes I know that you aren't Wikipedia but just wait, please, if money as trade/transaction currency started to be use in Lydia(part of modern Turkey) around 600 BC and Democracy, as a political system, started in Athens around 508BC, did the citizens of Athens know about it? Because if not, the problem is not in the economy as such it's in the political system being based on a particular economic model.
I have a strong interest in social funding & how such can be bought on to the big boys table ?? & by social funding I do not mean Government local or otherwise handouts but Communities acting in combo to pool their varying earnings & resources with a return guarenteed to some extents ?? Which may out run other investments because of strong community involvement & much volunteer activity in the middlle ground but also at the coalface !!
@47:15 why the ffing equivocation? It is irrelevant that neoliberal capitalism has failed. Capitalism is inherently unjust on first principles. That's the only argument needed, an argument from morality. Every worker deserves an equal share and say in how their workplace is structured. Managers work for the workers, not the other way around, but neither one as slaves of the other, rather as equal partners. It is not a difficult question to argue when asked, "why abolish capitalism?". Capitalism is just wrong, period. The only decent argument pro-capitalism is private enterprise, but privately worker owned cooperatives (and co-op conglomerates) allow all the private enterprise we will ever need at all the transnational scale we will ever need. Venture capital entrepreneurs are fine too, they are not inherent to capitalism, in a social democracy entrepreneurs would thrive, they just wouldn't be making obscene money by exploiting start-ups. Capital (money and machinery) has nothing especially to do with Capitalist political economy.
Bitcoin is a speculative financial instrument that consumes a lot of electricity to hash new coins that can then be exchanged for sex slaves, fentanyl, snuff films, and as a way to launder the money from organised crime.
Blah, blah, blah. How many eons have we been complaining about this, you have always paid to exist. The system was created so most of the people would service the few. It is that simple. Those few people do almost no work. Yet, you give them all of your sweat equity. That is the way it has always been. Until we define public utility, you will always lose. If we are going to have a monetary system, the stock market must go. People must earn their way.
@43:00 whoa Grace! Easy on the Marx. Marx is good but way outdated. People are driven by much more than class antagonism. There is an amazing diversity of human drives and motives, some people love justice, some love invention, some love creativity, some people love hedonism, it's a huge arena, and these drive cross class boundaries. But JUSTICE is a key, it is what will eventually bring down class hierarchies. But you see, the way to get there form here is to exploit all the wonderful drivers that power people to do good. Marxist historical materialism driving forces are a tiny part of the whole.
Yes socialism or barbarism, and Russia October 1917, an example of workers in power, recap, unprecedented freedoms for women in particular, the backbone of the revolution was women, therefore don't quite understand why this not mentioned. Ie question on whether socialism can work. And the most pressing issue is full wage and conditions compensation for workers displaced by the complete stop on fossil fuel extraction. Do we really need to recap, the Stone Age didn't end because of a lack of stones. This path of trying to rescue capitalism, is desperately dangerous, research surplus value. You will inevitably end up on the wrong side of a firing squad, beware the class enemy Nabsolutely ruthless.
04:19 : What is financialisation?
07:25 : A brief history of financialisation.
22:30 : The financialisation of the state.
27:42 : A property-owning democracy.
36:13 : Why neoliberalism relies on debt and leads to crisis.
41:10 : The Alternative.
46:20 : Abolish capitalism?
49:30 : Class War Social Democracy Vs Democratic Socialism.
59:00 : Who reflects Grace’s views in politics and economics right now.
1:06:30 : Audience Questions.
45:30 "Do human beings have the capacity to come together, talk about ideas, understand where we are at the moment and build power to change things?"
I don't think enough people can do this to fight the aggressive and ignorant mercenaries the rich employ to defend their nefarious interests.
Specially now, aided by technology and the smartest PhDs.
Also worth mentioning it takes many of us to unite to fight against their weakest point, which means they only have to make our leadership betray ourselves and we are done.
That said, any ideas?
Grateful for a book on financialisation. But there is a shorter and simpler message we need to spread: the true wealth of a nation cannot ever rest upon a financial sector, finance is the servant of production, not it's master, and when we see the reverse dependency we have inherent instability and impending collapse.
I love Grace Blakely.
Great interview. I particularly liked the way the interviewer didn't feel the need to talk down Grace Blakeley and let us hear her views rather than his. Refreshing.
=
What a wonderful woman Grace is! 😲
Great work lads. Must get Grace's book - great clarity on such a convoluted subject.
I am fully in love with Grace Blakely
She's definitely going in the right direction in terms of analysis, similar to Mark Blyth's. I'd love to hear her views on growth models in a closed system, as regards consumer capitalism, given the fact that world farming production figures make depressing reading when you take into account the effect of climate change on future farming yields & available viable land and any kind of population growth in the long term.
super engaging and informative. i'm going to have to listen to this twice. all of your content is outstanding.
Superb interview.
Breath of fresh air
Grace is my hero
thanks for covering this
Great discussion, love you guys.
Just a thought, one thing that I don't hear mentioned as much as I believe it should be in these progressive discussions, is how the nature of Capitalism, or more accurately, Neo-liberal Capitalism, values and promotes sociopathic, ruthless behaviour.
Throughout history, we admired and rewarded those who dared to be the most ruthless and win by any means necessary, as people needed constant protection from outside invaders, so those that fought off invaders, killed the most people, would then be crowned king, own more land, amass more riches, etc.
And more recently, especially now with our current form of unbridled Capitalism, we admire those at the top, "they got there through hard work and talent", but tacitly accept their ruthlessness to get there, and assume they are right, they know best, look at them! -they're super wealthy, they're billionaires.
However, these values of "winner take all" are now in severe conflict with our survival as a species, and therefore we must have a real rethink in our values as humans as to who we admire and what we, as a society, reward.
I think this is intrinsic to finding new socio-economic systems that work better for all, and crucially the planet, and will be instrumental in forcing these changes.
@Brown Bear Not exactly what I was saying. However, said ruthless leader could and most likely would, take control of the means of production of fishing and berry picking to enrich himself and his honchos, killing all others who disobey. (And possibly even exploiting the fish and berries until the supply runs out.) Certainly this sort of thing has happened regularly in the past, and still happens in the present.
@Brown Bear I don't think you're getting this.
@Brown Bear Quite. No idea what you think that has to do with what I was saying. It is not a supply and demand question I was addressing.
They got there thru their work and talent???? Perhaps you should watch Stephen Fry's videos
@@elainewaldron that appears to already b happening for some time now with the fish in the Mediterranean Sea
I certainly agree with the dangerous fact of financialisation, and that a change must come, or we’ll crash into a change forced upon us. But there’s a fundamental problem with the proposed solution. If we focus on “power” for a class or group, we’ll repeat the very mistake made every time ideology is the basis of a “revolution”. Either the “winning” class ends up in some sort of dictatorship, or the “losing” class gains enough power to fight back, leading to a civil war. Unlike Marx’s 1880 or Keynes’ 1930, we have globalized unprecedented access to information. We have more knowledge and education than ever before. A solution should be found to create leadership, as opposed to power. A system that enables empirically “wiser” people to govern, as opposed to “politicians”, who will inevitably fail, due to human nature. Nationalism can not be the counterweight to globalization, the latter is a fact due to more reasons than financialisation alone. We need some sort of regulated capitalism, and a tax financed state for welfare and safety. We should never - again - mix the two neo-liberally OR fully empower the state alone leading to communism. History shows it won’t work. Rather, policy and leadership must be based on knowledge and to isolate same leadership from the possibility of serving itself. Breach of leadership contract leads to immediate change and possible punishment. The “whole” people should be able to hold its leadership fully responsible, with immediate effect, like any government has always done with its people. Raw power leads to dissatisfaction for some. Empirical leadership can be understood and respected by most. A sort of dynamic-pragmatic progressive capitalist democracy. 💛
Professor Vernon Bogdanor, whilst holding a questionable interpretation of history at the best of times, makes a good point about referring to the 'post-war consensus' as the 'post-war settlement' - since it was a hodge-podge political, social, and economic arrangement that, whilst tacitly agreed upon out of necessity, faced conflict and critique from all facets of the political spectrum from day one.
The NHS, perhaps, is the most salient figuration of this relationship with the settlement.
Great interview . Basically " Junk Economics" Michael Hudson thanks
24:00 that documentary she refers to is well worth a look. Basically spells out the difference between Thatcher's approach and previous Conservative government's relationship with the unions. Previously it was seen as the role of the government/powers that be to negotiate with the unions - a necessary back and forth. Whereas Thatcher just abandoned that and decided to smash them. But she did so apparently off the back of the advice from a systems analysist who drew up a system diagram of all the relationships in the british economy - concluding it was the unions standing in the way of everything. You can find the original system diagram Thatcher used on line pretty easily. Edit; don't know whether it's the same documentary she's referring to but I was thinking of 'Tory! Tory! Tory!' (BBC 2006) which was a three part documentary - the systems approach (the systems diagram) is featured in episode 2 'path to power'.
I would naively argue the balance between functional approaches - i.e. systems approaches - and qualitative approaches was upset. In product terms qualities and functions are quite easy to understand - like how (quality) do you make a light blub and why (function) does the light bulb exist? How always being in past tense. And Why always being in future tense. In societal terms I think qualities refer to people's quality of life (Needs). Whereas functions refer to why people do what they do? Can be thought of in terms of 'why?'s' coming from a top-down hierarchy. And 'how?'s' (qualities) coming from flat hierarchical pressure's. So qualities work at the expense of hierarchies - for example product quality being at odds with company profits. I think post modernists went to town in criticism of 'functions' in ways that are beyond me at the moment - I guess James and Ash would be able to explain as they live and breath this stuff. Despite my naivety, this way of seeing things paints a picture of industry that is malleable to change by prioritising quality over function. "What is your major malfunction?" - Full Metal Jacket... and/or mental health approaches, and any justification of discrimination against LGBT people (what is the function of same sex relationships for example? - i.e. functions serve as a moral code). Relates to Philosophy Tube's video on Transphobia I guess - where he brought up the opposition to gay people on moral grounds, whereas the current opposition to trans people is metaphysical (i.e. relating to 'qualities' - or how does someone become transgender and why do people think it is impossible?).
I guess Marx observed that morality under capitalism had been reduced to a numerical expression? 11001101100011... LOL
Grace is right on about 52 minutes in. Interviewer implies that no “system” can be stable which is perniciously unverifiable. Can a system be more stable than is current “financial global capital” yeah. It can. Question is, what would that alternative be (distillation of power, workplace democracy and freedom and “open source” access to important institutional information and universal basic rights, services and securities
press like to up the views!
I wished we didn't use the term "capital" to refer to the top 5%. I prefer the terms "bourgeoisie", "financiers", and "bosses".
"Owning/Ruling/Investing class" also works if two-word phrases are fine.
it seems like it's because it's really more about the capital itself rather than just a group of bad people. I mean it's more about a system that creates these class inequalities.
@@unclassedmedia and probably the fact that if you remove this top class they will appear again on their own due to human inherent immoral rendition to their god, power
mark blyth covers a lot of this territory in global trumpism vid. it/he are well worth watching.
@@tangledfish by that do you mean pikkety's capital? if so, i think blyth's google talk predates hs book.
I thought we were making Ms Blakely and her book the focus today. Don't get me wrong I very much enjoy listening to Dr Blyth too
USA's finance and economic journalist - Rana Foroohar has published books on the scurge of financialisation but Grace does it much better.
Interesting thoughts about housing. Removing the ability to buy or sell housing by law might go a long way in tackling the issue. Compensation payments could offered over the lifetime of the landlord or mortgage owner and would be more stable than that of unstable and inflated market.
Graces staccato, high speed talk coupled with economic jargon makes comprehension much more difficult than it needs to be, essentially hard to listen to and hard to grasp. If she was hoping to engage interest in her book and maybe a convert or two to new economic and social thinking, this interview did not do it for anyone but the most determined. I am pretty sure that there were some interesting new perspectives on what is already understood, such as how our societies have been abandoned by obscenely wealthy elites and corrupted the structures of good governance leaving us all on the fast road to Armageddon but that surety is because I waded through the interview with gritted determination and the pause rewind button.
Grace mischaracterises financialisation in the opening I think. The real problem is when most of the increase in employment and GDP figures is financial services growth. It's a problem because that is not real material and technological growth, it is essentially vapour. It should not be used in deriving GDP.
GDP is just an outdated measure and not really fit for purpose anymore, just like unemployment figures, it's straying further and further from the material reality it looks to be a proxy for.
Agree with you because a lot of people classed as employed may be on part time jobs, zero hour contracts and agency work. And I would say it's almost impossible to survive on those jobs as agency work usually pays minimum wages and doesn't guarantee wotk every day or wk, zero hr contract jobs the same problems. Job agencies are just a middle man, making money out of us workers. They treat the workers like a commodity, not like human beings. The job agency is basically money for old rope taking their cut of the money for doing bugger all, just like parisites
My dreams maybe the plugs within some missing links & would fit in well in many communities in Ireland & UK where in so that the over-Wealthy may get a chance to invest within their Youth or new arrivals !!
Last answer is interesting. Lefties often talk about capitalism as a monolith that we are against. How do lefties exploit these fragmentations?
Cooperatives: Market competitive cooperatives that can displace capitalist firms. These will need solidarity to nurture and sustain
I second cooperatives. The more successful ones there are, the more it can propogate into a moment. Also we need more voices highlighting the problems with capitalism even on a very basic level, and opening people's eyes to the possibility of an alternative system. Smart people like Grace who are experts, and also ordinary people who are passionate and dedicated. Many people don't have even a basic understanding that things don't have to be this way. The propaganda if capitalism is pushed into our brains our whole lives and many people simply aren't aware that anything could be different. Novara and lefty TH-cam are amazing, but we need as many voices from as many different people as possible.
Practically, cooperatives or at the very least unionising are the best paths I think. But far greater minds then mine may have other ideas :)
I have a question and yes I know that you aren't Wikipedia but just wait, please, if money as trade/transaction currency started to be use in Lydia(part of modern Turkey) around 600 BC and Democracy, as a political system, started in Athens around 508BC, did the citizens of Athens know about it? Because if not, the problem is not in the economy as such it's in the political system being based on a particular economic model.
A really enjoyable interview, thanks both! If there was more content like this and less attachment to Corbyn, I would sign up to support.
Catch is Project Corbyn (and successors) are the only ones on side to deliver this vision
I have a strong interest in social funding & how such can be bought on to the big boys table ?? & by social funding I do not mean Government local or otherwise handouts but Communities acting in combo to pool their varying earnings & resources with a return guarenteed to some extents ?? Which may out run other investments because of strong community involvement & much volunteer activity in the middlle ground but also at the coalface !!
I just found out she went to the same school as me(LWC).
@47:15 why the ffing equivocation? It is irrelevant that neoliberal capitalism has failed. Capitalism is inherently unjust on first principles. That's the only argument needed, an argument from morality. Every worker deserves an equal share and say in how their workplace is structured. Managers work for the workers, not the other way around, but neither one as slaves of the other, rather as equal partners. It is not a difficult question to argue when asked, "why abolish capitalism?". Capitalism is just wrong, period. The only decent argument pro-capitalism is private enterprise, but privately worker owned cooperatives (and co-op conglomerates) allow all the private enterprise we will ever need at all the transnational scale we will ever need. Venture capital entrepreneurs are fine too, they are not inherent to capitalism, in a social democracy entrepreneurs would thrive, they just wouldn't be making obscene money by exploiting start-ups. Capital (money and machinery) has nothing especially to do with Capitalist political economy.
Trivial as all hell, but it looks like both cameras are slightly out of focus. I need my social democracy in pristine 4k damnit!
Books are in focus, Grace is not.
I'm not wearing my glasses so everything looks equally fine to me
Come on camera ops, focus!
Great vid, Love Grace but clearly she doesn't understand Bitcoin
Bitcoin is a speculative financial instrument that consumes a lot of electricity to hash new coins that can then be exchanged for sex slaves, fentanyl, snuff films, and as a way to launder the money from organised crime.
Grace Blakeley is the thinking man's crumpet(forgive me).
Blah, blah, blah. How many eons have we been complaining about this, you have always paid to exist. The system was created so most of the people would service the few. It is that simple. Those few people do almost no work. Yet, you give them all of your sweat equity. That is the way it has always been.
Until we define public utility, you will always lose. If we are going to have a monetary system, the stock market must go. People must earn their way.
@43:00 whoa Grace! Easy on the Marx. Marx is good but way outdated. People are driven by much more than class antagonism. There is an amazing diversity of human drives and motives, some people love justice, some love invention, some love creativity, some people love hedonism, it's a huge arena, and these drive cross class boundaries. But JUSTICE is a key, it is what will eventually bring down class hierarchies. But you see, the way to get there form here is to exploit all the wonderful drivers that power people to do good. Marxist historical materialism driving forces are a tiny part of the whole.
Anyone can buy assets, just set up a brokerage account. Takes five minutes.....
Yeah let's further inflate the dominant financial sector with money we don't have
Yes socialism or barbarism, and Russia October 1917, an example of workers in power, recap, unprecedented freedoms for women in particular, the backbone of the revolution was women, therefore don't quite understand why this not mentioned. Ie question on whether socialism can work. And the most pressing issue is full wage and conditions compensation for workers displaced by the complete stop on fossil fuel extraction. Do we really need to recap, the Stone Age didn't end because of a lack of stones. This path of trying to rescue capitalism, is desperately dangerous, research surplus value. You will inevitably end up on the wrong side of a firing squad, beware the class enemy
Nabsolutely ruthless.
What is this? A good looking left wing liberal? Thats very rare!
It is so clear that she doesn't know what she is talking about here. Pseudo-intellect indeed. I wish that defined benefit schemes were still a thing.