There was something very interesting about Don Quixote's journey. While he roams the world in search of adventures whose main characteristic is the difference between what really happens and what the sad figure knight perceives to be happening, there is NO economic concern. Only Sancho Panza really cares about amassing a fortune. Eventually he succeeds in doing so, but that is not the main theme of the story. The beauty of Cervantes' work actually emerges precisely from the fact that Don Quixote wastes his energy and resources in crazy, illusory, ridiculous and therefore comic and tragicomic combats. Originally, capitalism valued the pragmatic Sancho Panza: he accompanies Don Quixote, but tries to save some money and never loses sight of his petty personal interests. But now everyone (including ordinary Americans who are supposed to emulate Sancho Panza) has gone berserk and is acting like Don Quixote. At the end of his journey, Cervantes' character regains his senses just before he dies. I suppose millions of Americans will die without realizing the bad trip and tragicomic journey they jumped on.
I recall a conversation I had with someone in 2016 who believed that Trump was incorruptible because "he has his own money to campaign with." So while I agree with this vid's premise that "a lack of confidence in the system" led to Trump, I think of equal importance is a lack of understanding about the system itself. The Financial Crisis Commission Report concluded that deregulation was the core driver of the 2008 crisis. The SEC was blocked from regulating the speculative instruments that allowed banks to abandon lending standards. Trump didn't run on an oversight platform, and in fact exacerbated deregulation along with passing massive tax cuts for the wealthy that created no new jobs. So, clarifying the narrative of what actually causes financial turmoil from a textbook standpoint is a significant hurdle that should be overcome.
tuberific Banks "abandoned lending standards" NOT because of "deregulation" but because of two factors. No1, they erroneously concluded that inasmuch as house prices had not sustained a meaningful decline within any of those banker's lifetimes, that they never would, and No2, because Chris Dodd and Barney Frank pressured them to loan to poor people in order to move them into the middle class (social engineering).
The problem with the idea of 'incorruptibility' is that the underlying assumption is that people are interested in some level at creating a functioning society, and Trump was never about that. He has always been about self interest at any cost, including the cost of democracy.
@Clare Stucki The Financial Crisis Commission Report debunked the urban legend that programs for the poor "forced banks to make bad loans." The toxic assets that started the meltdown were underwritten by lenders not even part of those programs. Also, it was the credit default swaps market that incentivized investment banks to take on toxic securities because those swaps acted as a fake insurance policy. The SEC was blocked from regulating them and without them the most toxic lending would never have materialized. It isn't about Dems or GOP. It's about money in politics and the mistaken belief that regulations are bad even when they've been around for nearly a century and in response to the crash of 1929 that prompted the great depression. This is all common knowledge now but it's always interesting to see who still hangs on to that old partisan talking point from 2008.
I hadn't thought about single payer healthcare saving social security before. All those savings plans would be inherited instead of going to healthcare, nursing and end of life care.
China also raised its impoverished out of poverty. The people still have work to do, but the improvement can't be denied. That's the shovel digging in the ground literally.
I am not sure which is more disconcerting, the conversation about the potential loss of (presumably civil) freedom if/when the digital/crypto currencies are further brought into line (not that I feel they should be), or the calmness and and acceptance displayed during the conversation. A very interesting conversation, about which I understand too little.
Interesting that China's two sessions happening now is featured on CGTN China's TH-cam channel. Watched bits here and there. The main focus seemed to be education, more engineers,
Very educational presentation Rob. While austerity tears 180 million working class families apart, the financial sector, Black Rock, Vanguard and Safe Street continue to make trillions for their shareholders in what is clearly an attempt to one day become the only and wealthiest private equity firm on earth. The financiers of this abominable, class war being perpetrated upon the working poor and the environment is unsustainable, and the $31 trillion national debt along with the $200 trillion dollar corporate and household debt is unserviceable.
Why does Jim Chanos recommend that China move on to the Western economic model which is failing so badly to deliver growth and subject to so much fraud as Jim so eloquently explained. The Chinese model has been peforming spectacularly with certain exceptions such as in the real estate sector which ironically happened because of lack of regulation. The latest crackdown on tech moguls is a very healthy development as it is workibg against the new wave of monopolisation which is now undermining America's economy. Last but not least, China's debt is not the same as Japan's was. Jim Chanos conveniently forgot to mention that a major proportion of China's debt has arisen from public investment in infrastructure, innovation, etc. all of which is generating major benefits to China's economy and society.
US has been involved in over 240 conflicts including three hot wars over last 25 years. Iraq was an illegal war. Would argue US has been externalizing forty years of bad decisions blaming others. Endless movies etc attacking our enemies dujour. China needs massive quantities of fossil fuels, Russian friendship in spite of hundreds of years of hate and animosity inevitable
@39:00 that is incorrect. The macroeconomics is Savings is an accounting record of past Investment, not _the_ accounting record. So, S ≠ I. Read your basics, Kalecki or Mitchell, et al., G - T = C + S - I + M - X. If the apartments do not deteriorate too much, the Chinese at least have built housing for future use. They're still idiots, because to focus on GDP alone is for knaves and fools. (I do understand the insanity of the realpolitik you have to show GDP↑ or "tsk, tsk, no votes for you".)
Chanos is so overrated. Chanos & Company isn't doing well. In terms of AUM from $6 billion in 2010 to $405 million in 2020. Chanos does seem to be able to charm journalists because I never see them ask hard questions about his fund's poor performance and track record since Enron of a lot of bad calls. He has been predicting calamity for China since 2009.
@42:15 it is not a bad signal it is a good signal ! No one is above the law, not even the billionaires! Even munger said it was stupid for Jack Ma to confront the government !
Governance is providing for peoples needs ,housing jobs stability and being able to have a sustainable future.Coprations and external government organisations for profit do not care for people's needs . Corruption in banking systems and corruption in industry means your government has been inflitrated by the latter which only damages your country further.Poitical parties should meeting the needs of people not thier own self interests.
The Chinese economy will not go into a Japanese stagnation mode but will continue to power ahead. Why? Because of its dynamic planning and public finance / innovation driven system which is a new and unique model not previously tried before. Japan failed precisely because it abandoned its old developmental model under US coercion and adopted a neoliberal model.
China will continue to grow not so much because of its dynamic systems but instead because it is still a developing nation and simply has room to grow. In the long term, its status as a fascist totalitarian police state will inhibit its growth, as there are no developed nations that are fascist police states. As living standards increase, so will public demand for autonomy and equality. If the ruling class wishes to remain in power, then it must come at a cost of economic growth. That is, it will be forced to choose between self determinant markets and fascist control. What's more is that like with any police state, racial, gender, and socioeconomic inequality will always acts as constraints along with systemic opacity of governance.
This was a great programme until it went on to China when all the American imperalist propaganda tropes came out. Sadly the moderator just went along with it.
I am no expert nor I consider my self to be one in any area, but, I wanted to mention that pointing out the Taiwan situation merely as being a threat from China is untrue, even if the consequences as described are in fact true. Taiwan was supposed to have been returned to China (or is supposed to in the future), and both Europe and US accepted that in the past. This is even clarified in Taiwan's Ministry of Foreing website: en.mofa.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=1329&s=32322. So China is, in theory, within its own rights get part of its country back under its control, and it is because of Taiwan's current strategic value in the global supply chain that US is worried. The trouble is that the country that was supposed to ensure that happened peacefully, the US, now seemingly wants none of that! Due to economic reasons, obviously. It is unfair to say "China is threatening to invade Taiwan" or that "China wants to control Taiwan for this or that reason", because even tho the consequences of this happening might be true, it doesnt change the fact that it is legal, and to use an oversimplified and biased discourse like that does nothing to help the US or Europe face the challenges to come. It only serves to paint China as the "bad guy", and we gotta be careful with that simplistic rhetoric, for besides being untrue, it is in fact dangerous.
There was something very interesting about Don Quixote's journey. While he roams the world in search of adventures whose main characteristic is the difference between what really happens and what the sad figure knight perceives to be happening, there is NO economic concern. Only Sancho Panza really cares about amassing a fortune. Eventually he succeeds in doing so, but that is not the main theme of the story. The beauty of Cervantes' work actually emerges precisely from the fact that Don Quixote wastes his energy and resources in crazy, illusory, ridiculous and therefore comic and tragicomic combats. Originally, capitalism valued the pragmatic Sancho Panza: he accompanies Don Quixote, but tries to save some money and never loses sight of his petty personal interests. But now everyone (including ordinary Americans who are supposed to emulate Sancho Panza) has gone berserk and is acting like Don Quixote. At the end of his journey, Cervantes' character regains his senses just before he dies. I suppose millions of Americans will die without realizing the bad trip and tragicomic journey they jumped on.
I recall a conversation I had with someone in 2016 who believed that Trump was incorruptible because "he has his own money to campaign with." So while I agree with this vid's premise that "a lack of confidence in the system" led to Trump, I think of equal importance is a lack of understanding about the system itself. The Financial Crisis Commission Report concluded that deregulation was the core driver of the 2008 crisis. The SEC was blocked from regulating the speculative instruments that allowed banks to abandon lending standards. Trump didn't run on an oversight platform, and in fact exacerbated deregulation along with passing massive tax cuts for the wealthy that created no new jobs. So, clarifying the narrative of what actually causes financial turmoil from a textbook standpoint is a significant hurdle that should be overcome.
tuberific Banks "abandoned lending standards" NOT because of "deregulation" but because of two factors. No1, they erroneously concluded that inasmuch as house prices had not sustained a meaningful decline within any of those banker's lifetimes, that they never would, and No2, because Chris Dodd and Barney Frank pressured them to loan to poor people in order to move them into the middle class (social engineering).
The problem with the idea of 'incorruptibility' is that the underlying assumption is that people are interested in some level at creating a functioning society, and Trump was never about that. He has always been about self interest at any cost, including the cost of democracy.
@Clare Stucki The Financial Crisis Commission Report debunked the urban legend that programs for the poor "forced banks to make bad loans." The toxic assets that started the meltdown were underwritten by lenders not even part of those programs. Also, it was the credit default swaps market that incentivized investment banks to take on toxic securities because those swaps acted as a fake insurance policy. The SEC was blocked from regulating them and without them the most toxic lending would never have materialized. It isn't about Dems or GOP. It's about money in politics and the mistaken belief that regulations are bad even when they've been around for nearly a century and in response to the crash of 1929 that prompted the great depression. This is all common knowledge now but it's always interesting to see who still hangs on to that old partisan talking point from 2008.
Matt Taibbi's book on this is good.
There's a brief description of the book here on Wikipedia.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griftopia
I hadn't thought about single payer healthcare saving social security before. All those savings plans would be inherited instead of going to healthcare, nursing and end of life care.
China also raised its impoverished out of poverty. The people still have work to do, but the improvement can't be denied. That's the shovel digging in the ground literally.
Outstanding discussion more of this please
Two words ring true! MONEY POLITICS! NO REGARDS FOR US!
10:00 One way to get back at monopolies (ponsi schemes) is to use were possible local independents.
I am not sure which is more disconcerting, the conversation about the potential loss of (presumably civil) freedom if/when the digital/crypto currencies are further brought into line (not that I feel they should be), or the calmness and and acceptance displayed during the conversation.
A very interesting conversation, about which I understand too little.
When it comes to our politics these days, things are always worse than what we think they are, unfortunately.
Great discussion. Thanks for sharing. Just the item on the chinese issue is strange. Some are really good insight and some really off the chart.
Some phenomena are so important that they cause very different people to transcend personality and ideological differences. Worth watching to the end.
Money changers
Money launderers
What's the difference
All play with other people's money
Bankers have always been the criminals.
@@1848revolt you know that all this can be resolved by abolishing interest and debt based fiat money and return to the gold standard
45:10 forward brilliant and interest point to investigate and understand.
Interesting that China's two sessions happening now is featured on CGTN China's TH-cam channel. Watched bits here and there. The main focus seemed to be education, more engineers,
Very educational presentation Rob. While austerity tears 180 million working class families apart, the financial sector, Black Rock, Vanguard and Safe Street continue to make trillions for their shareholders in what is clearly an attempt to one day become the only and wealthiest private equity firm on earth. The financiers of this abominable, class war being perpetrated upon the working poor and the environment is unsustainable, and the $31 trillion national debt along with the $200 trillion dollar corporate and household debt is unserviceable.
“God wasn’t born in Detroit or Pittsburgh but he ended up vacationing in Davos” brilliant from Chanos
Why does Jim Chanos recommend that China move on to the Western economic model which is failing so badly to deliver growth and subject to so much fraud as Jim so eloquently explained. The Chinese model has been peforming spectacularly with certain exceptions such as in the real estate sector which ironically happened because of lack of regulation. The latest crackdown on tech moguls is a very healthy development as it is workibg against the new wave of monopolisation which is now undermining America's economy.
Last but not least, China's debt is not the same as Japan's was. Jim Chanos conveniently forgot to mention that a major proportion of China's debt has arisen from public investment in infrastructure, innovation, etc. all of which is generating major benefits to China's economy and society.
US has been involved in over 240 conflicts including three hot wars over last 25 years. Iraq was an illegal war. Would argue US has been externalizing forty years of bad decisions blaming others. Endless movies etc attacking our enemies dujour. China needs massive quantities of fossil fuels, Russian friendship in spite of hundreds of years of hate and animosity inevitable
How does US book $$$Pentagon money? Does $31 trillion US debt have any consequences?
@39:00 that is incorrect. The macroeconomics is Savings is an accounting record of past Investment, not _the_ accounting record.
So, S ≠ I. Read your basics, Kalecki or Mitchell, et al., G - T = C + S - I + M - X. If the apartments do not deteriorate too much, the Chinese at least have built housing for future use. They're still idiots, because to focus on GDP alone is for knaves and fools. (I do understand the insanity of the realpolitik you have to show GDP↑ or "tsk, tsk, no votes for you".)
Chanos is so overrated. Chanos & Company isn't doing well. In terms of AUM from $6 billion in 2010 to $405 million in 2020. Chanos does seem to be able to charm journalists because I never see them ask hard questions about his fund's poor performance and track record since Enron of a lot of bad calls. He has been predicting calamity for China since 2009.
Jim Chanos, one of the few sane investors with solid analysis in this market.
@42:15 it is not a bad signal it is a good signal ! No one is above the law, not even the billionaires! Even munger said it was stupid for Jack Ma to confront the government !
Governance is providing for peoples needs ,housing jobs stability and being able to have a sustainable future.Coprations and external government organisations for profit do not care for people's needs . Corruption in banking systems and corruption in industry means your government has been inflitrated by the latter which only damages your country further.Poitical parties should meeting the needs of people not thier own self interests.
I didn't know that Jim Chanos was still alive. Video a year old, ok.
😆 I just Googled him and saw an article that said "I'm not dead yet".
Americans really do worship Mammon(but go to a Christian church on Sunday).
The Chinese economy will not go into a Japanese stagnation mode but will continue to power ahead. Why? Because of its dynamic planning and public finance / innovation driven system which is a new and unique model not previously tried before. Japan failed precisely because it abandoned its old developmental model under US coercion and adopted a neoliberal model.
China will continue to grow not so much because of its dynamic systems but instead because it is still a developing nation and simply has room to grow. In the long term, its status as a fascist totalitarian police state will inhibit its growth, as there are no developed nations that are fascist police states. As living standards increase, so will public demand for autonomy and equality. If the ruling class wishes to remain in power, then it must come at a cost of economic growth. That is, it will be forced to choose between self determinant markets and fascist control. What's more is that like with any police state, racial, gender, and socioeconomic inequality will always acts as constraints along with systemic opacity of governance.
Rob to bad you allowed him to get away with his propaganda and defense of shareholders.
Stockholm Syndrome.
😍
🤣🤣🤣they were good until they talked about China and then they become full of BS😝😝😝
These guys are over propagandized and disillusional 💯🤣
😎
Your society has lost it values and ethics.
everwhere.
Let’s move to Russia
This was a great programme until it went on to China when all the American imperalist propaganda tropes came out. Sadly the moderator just went along with it.
please elaborate ?
@@COMMUNITYRAINYCITY don't ask a Wumao to elaborate. They get paid $0.50 per comment to spread pro China sentiment on the internet for the CCP.
Wasted hour listening to this commentary.
Is it garbage?
I think you can never understand China or any other Asian countries, because you have only American point of view.
I just know lost lots of money in China stocks while making lots in U.S. stocks. Don’t invest in communist country unless you like losing money.
👍👍👍🇧🇷🇷🇺🇮🇳🇨🇳🇿🇦👌👌👌😃😃😃👏👏👏✌️✌️✌️
I am no expert nor I consider my self to be one in any area, but, I wanted to mention that pointing out the Taiwan situation merely as being a threat from China is untrue, even if the consequences as described are in fact true. Taiwan was supposed to have been returned to China (or is supposed to in the future), and both Europe and US accepted that in the past. This is even clarified in Taiwan's Ministry of Foreing website: en.mofa.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=1329&s=32322.
So China is, in theory, within its own rights get part of its country back under its control, and it is because of Taiwan's current strategic value in the global supply chain that US is worried. The trouble is that the country that was supposed to ensure that happened peacefully, the US, now seemingly wants none of that! Due to economic reasons, obviously.
It is unfair to say "China is threatening to invade Taiwan" or that "China wants to control Taiwan for this or that reason", because even tho the consequences of this happening might be true, it doesnt change the fact that it is legal, and to use an oversimplified and biased discourse like that does nothing to help the US or Europe face the challenges to come. It only serves to paint China as the "bad guy", and we gotta be careful with that simplistic rhetoric, for besides being untrue, it is in fact dangerous.