MMT is the understanding of money as a public good that has been privately appropriated through decades of neoliberal policy and the financialization of the economy.
Money is not a good but the whip, which makes people work. Money is a bookkeeping system of debt. The government creates debt by demanding a tax from the citizens. How much the goverments demands for taxes defines, how much money it can create and spend. The demanded tax makes the citizens demand the money the government intends to spend. Who does not want to demand the currency of the state has to refuse to pay taxes too. Who does, has to go to jail. So the governments currency is founded in violence. Who wants to escape this violence must demand the money of the state. Where the state spends it, it lets the people work for it. And whoever gets a surplus of money after taxation lets those, who are still in need for money, work them too, when he spends it. So money is not a good but a whip.
Money is a commodity...people seeking to acquire money are capitalists as money is capital. Das Kapital v1 p27, p63, p 104-107 At the moment there is NO MONEY and there hasn't been since 1934. The effects are obvious...or would be if words had any meaning... Most people are engaged in the destruction of meaning...
@@Max0r847 this is one of the reason, why a UBI does not make any sense. Money is a tool to force people to work. A UBI contradicts why a country does have a currency and uses money. The FJG is the working alternative, since it forces people to work too. Money origins in credit, which means it has a debtor on one side which must sell to a creditor on the other side (the bank is only an intermediate: the bank owes to sell to the creditor and the debtor owes to sell to the bank, which is why the debtor has to return the money to the bank). With a UBI money is not an IOU anymore, since when everybody gets a UBI and by this is in the role of a creditor, there is nobody left, who will be the debtor, who must sell to the creditors - which means money is not money anymore. With a UBI no one needs to work anymore which means there will nothing be produced you can buy from the money given to you. Money transfer to the old/disabled creates a creditor-debtor-relation between the old/disabled and all others, which forces all others to help the old/disabled by selling to them. The old/disabled are the losers of a UBI since they cannot help themself in a collapsing economy, which will be the result of a UBI.
Great explanation of MMT. What do you want money spent on? Never ending war and finance speculation? Or spending it into the economy creating thousands of jobs in healthcare, education, infrustructure, social housing, etc. If its the latter, then you need to wrestle with Wall Street and the City of London to stop their stranglehold over their country's politics.
My greatest concern is how to recover from all these economic and global troubles and stay afloat especially with the political power tussle going on in US.
Inflation already have a significant impact on individuals and their cost of living. As a result, it can cause negative market sentiment. It is important for individuals and businesses to find ways to navigate and potentially mitigate the effects of inflation on their finances. The current economic climate, including underperformance of financial markets due to fear of inflation, has led to a decrease in the value of my portfolio. I would appreciate any recommendations on how to potentially increase returns during this market downturn.
Stocks are pretty unstable at the moment, but if you do the right math, you should be just fine. Bloomberg and other finance media have been recording cases of folks gaining over $250k just in a matter of weeks/couple months, so I think there are a lot of wealth transfer in this downtime if you know where to look.
I learned from past mistakes not to rely on rumors and hearsay for market judgments. In 2020, I held worthless positions until I revamped my portfolio with the help of an advisor. Since then, I've scaled up $450k in 2 years, regardless of market conditions. It's all about where you're looking.
Having a counselor is essential for portfolio diversification. My advisor is Vivian Carol Gioia who is easily searchable and has extensive knowledge of the financial markets.
To be fair, the European Social Democrats were never socialists. They were, never, anything more than disenchanted liberals, and always functioned as, merely, the 'progressive' wing of the bourgeoisie. Industrial Capitalism's morphology into modern Financial Capitalism was discussed, most presciently, in Lenin's "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalsm." Lenin, in 1916, accurately predicted what Libertarians, and followers of the Austrian School, would be saying, about Capitalism as it marched into a new epoch. He predicted that they would yearn for an earlier time, in the development of Capitalism, and would decry financialization as "not Real Capitalism." (We've all heard that comment before, haven't we?)
liberal means more open to other liberals on globalised top and less open to the majority with their local identities under them, Libertarians want freedom of action ignoring that it never happens in void but in circumstances of already existing structure and elites, their ideals are highjacked by this old capital, by more connected part of society, by more savy big interests and frontrunnering manipulators and politics, and absorb chosen ones to their group isolating them from the rest, keeping the structure unchanging, the rest is living delusions as 99.99% lottery gamers...but get more effective by working ass out for nonexisting dream... increasing productivity but decreasing humaneness in society... Libertarians are a bit like Taoists beliving in a spirit of the world driving things, some ghost of enlightment and forever rebelion against system while helping the system with their inaction, disorganisation and silent approval... they never challenge the system for real, they pretend it doesnt exist... and that they live in their ideal world. They would be disastrous for society when gaining even only 20% of political power as they with their stance would help predatory authoritarian globalist left or soft populist dictatorship just to not help majority voting to keep their roots, group interests, local customs and beliefs - being intolerant or simply being themselves with courage. Even when they want to decentralize anything it ends with a one general solution for everyone and less choise LOL even if its effective and works its an easy target and tool for synchronising everyone politically. Look at digital money being controlled despite idea of more freedom of money usage... look at bitcoin freedom money for all and who actually owns it, look at who hoards land after forcing people to cities by accumulating all economical activity there and in future forcing them to live in virtual reality also loosing their own estates cages even in city's dirty shithole. They dream about less competition by more freedom to do new things, having more opportunities but it never comes true as always one guy gets smarter than everyone else in the room or has most money in room and buys up best idea before others can implement it. Then he is smart enough to buy up anything threatening his business and being in it first means also that he has best shot at figuring out majority of next big things in his field lowering competition by building great wall of costly entry barrier.
At the heart of the issues described here by Professor Hudson is the success of centuries of privilege under law to effect an immediate redistribution of wealth from producers to non-producing rentier interests. In the United States (and in some other countries) rentier elites have secured public support by providing the means for a majority of households to acquire ownership of a residential property and thereby profit by the resulting increase in land values. Today, the equity in residential land value represents a significant portion of net worth for the majority of households. Compare this to the net worth of households who have never achieved ownership of a residential property.
As an economics and finance major in college (BS) who has been studying economics and finance for years since since graduation, I approve of this message. PS: just started reading Hudson's book ' Super Imperialism'.
Some pertinent points by Hudson. In particular what is important is what are we creating money for. So really it is about the allocation of money. This is a good point. And should be emphasised. I find it instructive how he refers to "the neo-liberal left". A contradiction? Not at all. It is rooted in neo-classical economic theory which likes the market mechanism to allocate resources but with "winners compensating the losers". It does not like things like credit rationing which we see in industrial socialist countries like China, or even Japan and Germany before the neo-liberal era. But I am not totally sold on MMT. Especially for counties with large external deficits who do not have a reserve currency. The fact is "maintaing the currency of a currency" is crucial for many, if not most countries. They have to buy dollars to get oil or vital non-substitutable imports for example. If the terms of trade goes against them they are in big trouble. The US as the reserve currency power does not have to worry. Countries which are net-creditors are also OK. But the idea you can just print money to fund budget deficits in a globalised world at the mercy of international capital markets if you are a small import-dependent country is a dangerous one. Even in Britain with the Kwarteng budget we see what can happen.
Thank you for this superb analysis Michael Hudson! A question. I understand that the exploitation of proletarians by industrial capital derives not from a price "markup" but through forcing workers to work surplus labor time producing a surplus product the value of which, upon being sold, is capitalist profits. For example, in the first 4 hours of an 8 hour shift, workers produce enough fresh value to cover the costs of wages, raw materials, overhead, etc. (the cost price) so that during the last 4 hours workers are producing pure surplus value/capitalist profit.
@@anopinionatedlaymanappears9052 - Is the source of capitalist profits generally, through the appropriation of surplus labour time/surplus product/surplus value or a price "markup"?
@@d.russellmoros7841 Profits come from the surplus value for industrial capital under "normal conditions", the price markup for monopolies, but most importantly through financial schemes as he describes in the video.
We are really fortunate in the west in that we are part of a wider civilzation.... In the past when a civization embarked on Roman style impiralism and rent seaking they were isolated from other civilztions and desolved... This time we are so plugged into the wider world that when we finaly colapse we will have production modles we can pick up.
@@vaska1999 It is a matter of the ruiing class failing and the whole neoliberal expeirment going bad. Then we will be able to plug into the rest of the capitalist world...
It would be interesting to hear what Prof. Hudson thinks of French early socialist Pierre-Josephe Proudhon. Economist Silvio Gesell was quite inspired by him and stated in his writings that it was even dandy among the bohemian financial elites to be marxist, as Marx was too utopian and therefore never posed a real threat to their status, whereas Proudhon is totally cancelled and never mentioned, as his concept and practicable actions to undermine capitalism and exploitation were d a n g e r o u s .
In UK we have NHS, which is 100% stated funded. But we wait a long time for treatment. 3 years for Hernia surgery for example. Similar times for hip replacement. Large numbers if folk are forced to go private and either borrow use savings or sell a house to fund these procedures. It seems to me that providing state money for health care is not a total solution: For every pound/dollar spent creates even more demand. This seems to be what has happened in the UK with the NHS. For example years ago there where no hip replacement operations. These where invented now there is significant demand. The limitations are as MMT says resource limits, doctors surgeons etc which must ultimately be limited to population. Must we all become health care professionals?
My cousin in Scotland Tells me they have no problem getting any necessary surgeries through the NHS??? he was born in the United States 70 years ago and would never deal with our system here in the states, he's a citizen of Scotland he's been there for 50 years and is in great health...
I agree with everything said by Michael. However, there is a point that is not being talked about: China is dependent on grain imports from the US, Brazil and Argentina (and India, but India is a separate issue). The US can block these exports any time they want. Furthermore, if in the long run, Russia loses the war on Ukraine, either utilizing Putin's assassination by a drone strike, missile strike or whatever, or by finally choking the Russian economy, or by any other means, then China will be in trouble regarding their energy sector. That's the moment when the US will resort to the blockade of grains. At that point, China will be struggling to feed its own population and to keep its industries going. Then at that point, the US will strike China militarily.
A flat tax makes our system in the west the most extreme form of capitalism ever invented, a system that sets no limit whatsoever on income and is a game of monopoly with a few winners ruling over a population of losers. A progressive tax system at the very least has the ability to set limits on income, if income is set so private individuals cannot get too rich from money they invest -not earn- then a true form of capitalism can grow without monopolisation of the few. The first step is stop the monopolists outrageous incomes, only then can we close the loopholes they use to accumulate wealth, don't be fooled into thinking it can be the other way around like--- let corporations have endless income then try to control them.
The fact that he haltingly states the obvious is very disturbing. Splain yourself Lucy. Im suspicious of people like this. I personally believe that the widespread acceptance of non dairy creamer is behind all of this nonsense. Just food for thought. BTW i live in a trailer park in Kansas. And kinda lonely. I think i need a hug 🤔
At 16.50 he is wrong about Libertarian being more centralized...maybe so in this fiat debt based money system but that isnt libertarian at all. In a hard miney standard there is a much better distribution of poqer and resources however you cant just immediately change economic systems and hope with a few years for things to have changed. There needs to be long term planned changes. But qith the current political system that is nearly impossible
You need to provide the "actual" transcript...as you did before...rather than having it in the chat box. Grasping the rentier effect and Marx's understanding of it has to be one of the biggest blind spots of the "socialists". This flaw has led to the distortion of what "capitalism" is...and all the doublespeak used to render any intelligent analysis futile.
Sounds like Hudson thinks capitalism can work! Marx talked about the development of the tools of production being primary. Well the tools today are electronic and are eliminating labor. When a “lights out” factory produces products with little to no labor then there is no basis for exchange. Capitalism can no longer function and there is a revolution in the means of production. The corporations are ruling now ie fascism and attempting to keep their private property with out capitalism. Half of humanity can not survive in any kind of meaningful and satisfying way unless we can take over production and distribute the necessities to all. I agree with so much Hudson says and I have definitely learned from him but it appears that a muddle has entered the analysis. Hopefully not and I missed something.
The government taking up more debt is not money creaton, it doesn't raise the amount of M2 in the system because private entities have a limited capacity to purchase government debt, thus at some point issuing more debt as the government becomes prohibitively expensive, unless it gets monetized by the central bank itself. Which is the one thing that is forbidden in monetary policy because any serious economist knows unbacked money printing leads to hyperinflation. MMT is tremendously stupid. Btw China is sitting on an enourmous housing bubble ready to explode that will take down their banking sector because of the oh so great central planning, clearly the economy needed all those empty ghost cities with unfinished skeleton houses nobody will ever live in, all of this to prop up those sweet annual GDP growth numbers.
Gov "borrowing" is just an asset swap: reserves created thru deficits are (unnecessarily) swapped for gov bonds. The true limit of gov spending is inflation. Gov interest payment is voluntary and should be dropped.
seems a bit utopian, MMT assumes the government manages the economy for the benefit of society at large. But history is littered with examples of government making horrendous decisions such as confiscation of property, denying thw preferences of large swaths of society etc. Large and small corps can make stupid mistakes and we used to let them fail, but then we introduced "to large to fail" and now we juat accept everything giv does as a "good".
I enjoy listening to Mr Hudson.
😀 Beautiful Intelligent Brother of Heart Michael Hudson 😃
as always thank you so much Michael Hudson for the IQ boost
MMT is the understanding of money as a public good that has been privately appropriated through decades of neoliberal policy and the financialization of the economy.
In theory; in practice it’s used to justify reckless and irresponsible Federal spending (printing) on behalf of the oligarchs and corporate elites.
@@gwills9337 That is the issuing money side. The other side is knowing that, the answer to the query: "What is better or effective?"
Money is not a good but the whip, which makes people work.
Money is a bookkeeping system of debt. The government creates debt by demanding a tax from the citizens. How much the goverments demands for taxes defines, how much money it can create and spend. The demanded tax makes the citizens demand the money the government intends to spend. Who does not want to demand the currency of the state has to refuse to pay taxes too. Who does, has to go to jail. So the governments currency is founded in violence.
Who wants to escape this violence must demand the money of the state. Where the state spends it, it lets the people work for it. And whoever gets a surplus of money after taxation lets those, who are still in need for money, work them too, when he spends it.
So money is not a good but a whip.
Money is a commodity...people seeking to acquire money are capitalists as money is capital.
Das Kapital v1 p27, p63, p 104-107
At the moment there is NO MONEY and there hasn't been since 1934.
The effects are obvious...or would be if words had any meaning...
Most people are engaged in the destruction of meaning...
@@Max0r847 this is one of the reason, why a UBI does not make any sense. Money is a tool to force people to work. A UBI contradicts why a country does have a currency and uses money. The FJG is the working alternative, since it forces people to work too.
Money origins in credit, which means it has a debtor on one side which must sell to a creditor on the other side (the bank is only an intermediate: the bank owes to sell to the creditor and the debtor owes to sell to the bank, which is why the debtor has to return the money to the bank).
With a UBI money is not an IOU anymore, since when everybody gets a UBI and by this is in the role of a creditor, there is nobody left, who will be the debtor, who must sell to the creditors - which means money is not money anymore.
With a UBI no one needs to work anymore which means there will nothing be produced you can buy from the money given to you.
Money transfer to the old/disabled creates a creditor-debtor-relation between the old/disabled and all others, which forces all others to help the old/disabled by selling to them. The old/disabled are the losers of a UBI since they cannot help themself in a collapsing economy, which will be the result of a UBI.
Michael Hudson the most beautiful human being on planet Earth. You gotta problem with that? :+)
Thanks very Michael Hudson
Michael cuts through the miazma of bs. He has helped many young people see through and navigate ... a clear voice ...
Love Professor Hudson. Love your show.
I love how mr. Hudson interviews himself 😂. He knows exactly what to say and how to follow it up to anchor the point thoroughly. Genius.
Great to hear someone talking sense about MMT for a change.
Michael Hudson is the greatest living economist.
Excellent piece. Much appreciated 🙏
Great explanation of MMT. What do you want money spent on? Never ending war and finance speculation? Or spending it into the economy creating thousands of jobs in healthcare, education, infrustructure, social housing, etc. If its the latter, then you need to wrestle with Wall Street and the City of London to stop their stranglehold over their country's politics.
But it is not Wall Street or City that have the stranglehold
@@mareksicinski3726yes it is
My greatest concern is how to recover from all these economic and global troubles and stay afloat especially with the political power tussle going on in US.
Inflation already have a significant impact on individuals and their cost of living. As a result, it can cause negative market sentiment. It is important for individuals and businesses to find ways to navigate and potentially mitigate the effects of inflation on their finances. The current economic climate, including underperformance of financial markets due to fear of inflation, has led to a decrease in the value of my portfolio. I would appreciate any recommendations on how to potentially increase returns during this market downturn.
Stocks are pretty unstable at the moment, but if you do the right math, you should be just fine. Bloomberg and other finance media have been recording cases of folks gaining over $250k just in a matter of weeks/couple months, so I think there are a lot of wealth transfer in this downtime if you know where to look.
I learned from past mistakes not to rely on rumors and hearsay for market judgments. In 2020, I held worthless positions until I revamped my portfolio with the help of an advisor. Since then, I've scaled up $450k in 2 years, regardless of market conditions. It's all about where you're looking.
I’m in dire need of guidance so i can salvage my portfolio due to the massive dips and come up with better strategies. How can I reach this advisor?
Having a counselor is essential for portfolio diversification. My advisor is Vivian Carol Gioia who is easily searchable and has extensive knowledge of the financial markets.
Wow thanks Mr. Hudson for your wisdom on this topic very much appreciated sir
Thanks Michael
Thank for this presentation.
Thank you and grateful for information
Thank You for all you programmed voices. Thanks. Fantastic
Well done!!!
It's an amazing exposition of macroeconomics and geopolitical information !
Thanks for sharing this
Modern financial capitalism favors the liquidation of productive assets in favor of the appreciation of abstract financial instruments
You are the young Michael Hudson. And that's saying something.
Michael has become a master of concussion, which makes his nonpareil expertise even more powerful.
Does he hit people on the head...😵 🔨➡️🤕...?
Good analysis
Brilliant - thanks
To be fair, the European Social Democrats were never socialists. They were, never, anything more than disenchanted liberals, and always functioned as, merely, the 'progressive' wing of the bourgeoisie. Industrial Capitalism's morphology into modern Financial Capitalism was discussed, most presciently, in Lenin's "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalsm."
Lenin, in 1916, accurately predicted what Libertarians, and followers of the Austrian School, would be saying, about Capitalism as it marched into a new epoch. He predicted that they would yearn for an earlier time, in the development of Capitalism, and would decry financialization as "not Real Capitalism." (We've all heard that comment before, haven't we?)
liberal means more open to other liberals on globalised top and less open to the majority with their local identities under them, Libertarians want freedom of action ignoring that it never happens in void but in circumstances of already existing structure and elites, their ideals are highjacked by this old capital, by more connected part of society, by more savy big interests and frontrunnering manipulators and politics, and absorb chosen ones to their group isolating them from the rest, keeping the structure unchanging,
the rest is living delusions as 99.99% lottery gamers...but get more effective by working ass out for nonexisting dream... increasing productivity but decreasing humaneness in society...
Libertarians are a bit like Taoists beliving in a spirit of the world driving things, some ghost of enlightment and forever rebelion against system while helping the system with their inaction, disorganisation and silent approval... they never challenge the system for real, they pretend it doesnt exist... and that they live in their ideal world.
They would be disastrous for society when gaining even only 20% of political power as they with their stance would help predatory authoritarian globalist left or soft populist dictatorship just to not help majority voting to keep their roots, group interests, local customs and beliefs - being intolerant or simply being themselves with courage. Even when they want to decentralize anything it ends with a one general solution for everyone and less choise LOL even if its effective and works its an easy target and tool for synchronising everyone politically. Look at digital money being controlled despite idea of more freedom of money usage... look at bitcoin freedom money for all and who actually owns it, look at who hoards land after forcing people to cities by accumulating all economical activity there and in future forcing them to live in virtual reality also loosing their own estates cages even in city's dirty shithole.
They dream about less competition by more freedom to do new things, having more opportunities but it never comes true as always one guy gets smarter than everyone else in the room or has most money in room and buys up best idea before others can implement it. Then he is smart enough to buy up anything threatening his business and being in it first means also that he has best shot at figuring out majority of next big things in his field lowering competition by building great wall of costly entry barrier.
This is exactly the information not spelled out directly in other aspects of MMT observation, even the Savings and Loans crime wave included.
At the heart of the issues described here by Professor Hudson is the success of centuries of privilege under law to effect an immediate redistribution of wealth from producers to non-producing rentier interests. In the United States (and in some other countries) rentier elites have secured public support by providing the means for a majority of households to acquire ownership of a residential property and thereby profit by the resulting increase in land values. Today, the equity in residential land value represents a significant portion of net worth for the majority of households. Compare this to the net worth of households who have never achieved ownership of a residential property.
As an economics and finance major in college (BS) who has been studying economics and finance for years since since graduation, I approve of this message. PS: just started reading Hudson's book ' Super Imperialism'.
Michael Hudson would be in charge of the economy if we had a meritocracy ❤
Always good stuff with Prof Hudson.
Some pertinent points by Hudson. In particular what is important is what are we creating money for. So really it is about the allocation of money. This is a good point. And should be emphasised. I find it instructive how he refers to "the neo-liberal left". A contradiction? Not at all. It is rooted in neo-classical economic theory which likes the market mechanism to allocate resources but with "winners compensating the losers". It does not like things like credit rationing which we see in industrial socialist countries like China, or even Japan and Germany before the neo-liberal era.
But I am not totally sold on MMT. Especially for counties with large external deficits who do not have a reserve currency. The fact is "maintaing the currency of a currency" is crucial for many, if not most countries. They have to buy dollars to get oil or vital non-substitutable imports for example. If the terms of trade goes against them they are in big trouble.
The US as the reserve currency power does not have to worry. Countries which are net-creditors are also OK. But the idea you can just print money to fund budget deficits in a globalised world at the mercy of international capital markets if you are a small import-dependent country is a dangerous one. Even in Britain with the Kwarteng budget we see what can happen.
Very inspiring
China also got trapped by speculative bubbles: in real estate.
wow very good analysis
Thank you for this superb analysis Michael Hudson! A question. I understand that the exploitation of proletarians by industrial capital derives not from a price "markup" but through forcing workers to work surplus labor time producing a surplus product the value of which, upon being sold, is capitalist profits. For example, in the first 4 hours of an 8 hour shift, workers produce enough fresh value to cover the costs of wages, raw materials, overhead, etc. (the cost price) so that during the last 4 hours workers are producing pure surplus value/capitalist profit.
What's the question?
@@anopinionatedlaymanappears9052 - Is the source of capitalist profits generally, through the appropriation of surplus labour time/surplus product/surplus value or a price "markup"?
@@d.russellmoros7841 The source is he surplus labour, but all the rest will affect the amount of profit
@@d.russellmoros7841
Profits come from the surplus value for industrial capital under "normal conditions", the price markup for monopolies, but most importantly through financial schemes as he describes in the video.
@@mgartz - That's it, thanks.
Govt. Created money should prime the pump, get resource making, and offering available for productive work planned by locales, not centralized
The laws/rules are written by the rich, for the rich.
Michael Hudson for US President 2024
Thank you Michael ....What is the difference between Rentier Capitalism and Financial Capitalism?
Paying for the maintenance of civil servants is the mechanism of sustainable values, some of which are monetary reserves and Civilization.
We are really fortunate in the west in that we are part of a wider civilzation.... In the past when a civization embarked on Roman style impiralism and rent seaking they were isolated from other civilztions and desolved... This time we are so plugged into the wider world that when we finaly colapse we will have production modles we can pick up.
No part of the Western ruling class is plugged into how other models work.
@@vaska1999 The Roman empire compleatly colapsed.... Not only did they colapse but they were compleatly isolated.... We arn't...
@@vaska1999 It is a matter of the ruiing class failing and the whole neoliberal expeirment going bad. Then we will be able to plug into the rest of the capitalist world...
Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is primarily a descriptive theory, that is, it merely describes how money and monetary systems functions.
💎💎💎
Def right about the parasitic financialization rent seeking economy
But can we get him a microphone 🎙️
wheres all the new videos?? 😢
It would be interesting to hear what Prof. Hudson thinks of French early socialist Pierre-Josephe Proudhon.
Economist Silvio Gesell was quite inspired by him and stated in his writings that it was even dandy among the bohemian financial elites to be marxist, as Marx was too utopian and therefore never posed a real threat to their status, whereas Proudhon is totally cancelled and never mentioned, as his concept and practicable actions to undermine capitalism and exploitation were d a n g e r o u s .
Wr educate ourselves ... Proudhon had some blind spots too
Financialization is the last stage of capitalism.
In UK we have NHS, which is 100% stated funded. But we wait a long time for treatment.
3 years for Hernia surgery for example. Similar times for hip replacement. Large numbers if folk are forced to go private and either borrow use savings or sell a house to fund these procedures.
It seems to me that providing state money for health care is not a total solution:
For every pound/dollar spent creates even more demand. This seems to be what has happened in the UK with the NHS. For example years ago there where no hip replacement operations. These where invented now there is significant demand. The limitations are as MMT says resource limits, doctors surgeons etc which must ultimately be limited to population. Must we all become health care professionals?
My cousin in Scotland Tells me they have no problem getting any necessary surgeries through the NHS??? he was born in the United States 70 years ago and would never deal with our system here in the states, he's a citizen of Scotland he's been there for 50 years and is in great health...
I agree with everything said by Michael. However, there is a point that is not being talked about: China is dependent on grain imports from the US, Brazil and Argentina (and India, but India is a separate issue). The US can block these exports any time they want. Furthermore, if in the long run, Russia loses the war on Ukraine, either utilizing Putin's assassination by a drone strike, missile strike or whatever, or by finally choking the Russian economy, or by any other means, then China will be in trouble regarding their energy sector. That's the moment when the US will resort to the blockade of grains. At that point, China will be struggling to feed its own population and to keep its industries going. Then at that point, the US will strike China militarily.
Your analysis will end with a lot of very Bright flashes throughout the night sky...
quite the fantasy novel
😮
Why did the US turn to finance capital? Maybe we should go back and read Lenin's book on imperialism?
Carroll Quigley can also explain
A flat tax makes our system in the west the most extreme form of capitalism ever invented, a system that sets no limit whatsoever on income and is a game of monopoly with a few winners ruling over a population of losers. A progressive tax system at the very least has the ability to set limits on income, if income is set so private individuals cannot get too rich from money they invest -not earn- then a true form of capitalism can grow without monopolisation of the few.
The first step is stop the monopolists outrageous incomes, only then can we close the loopholes they use to accumulate wealth, don't be fooled into thinking it can be the other way around like--- let corporations have endless income then try to control them.
All goes to prove, Marx was right.
Tax the rich.
Free Assange
Algorithm
The fact that he haltingly states the obvious is very disturbing. Splain yourself Lucy. Im suspicious of people like this. I personally believe that the widespread acceptance of non dairy creamer is behind all of this nonsense. Just food for thought. BTW i live in a trailer park in Kansas. And kinda lonely. I think i need a hug 🤔
How very canadian
At 16.50 he is wrong about Libertarian being more centralized...maybe so in this fiat debt based money system but that isnt libertarian at all.
In a hard miney standard there is a much better distribution of poqer and resources however you cant just immediately change economic systems and hope with a few years for things to have changed. There needs to be long term planned changes. But qith the current political system that is nearly impossible
Dr. Hutson must be or would be fun to party with under mild drug influence.
Vote libertarian 💯 n00bs 🔥🔥🔥
You need to provide the "actual" transcript...as you did before...rather than
having it in the chat box.
Grasping the rentier effect and Marx's understanding of it has to be one of
the biggest blind spots of the "socialists".
This flaw has led to the distortion of what "capitalism" is...and all
the doublespeak used to render any intelligent analysis futile.
Same stupid cycle in so many ways. Financialization sucks the money out of the middle class.
Sounds like Hudson thinks capitalism can work! Marx talked about the development of the tools of production being primary. Well the tools today are electronic and are eliminating labor. When a “lights out” factory produces products with little to no labor then there is no basis for exchange. Capitalism can no longer function and there is a revolution in the means of production. The corporations are ruling now ie fascism and attempting to keep their private property with out capitalism. Half of humanity can not survive in any kind of meaningful and satisfying way unless we can take over production and distribute the necessities to all. I agree with so much Hudson says and I have definitely learned from him but it appears that a muddle has entered the analysis. Hopefully not and I missed something.
Harris Donald Young Jose Lee Betty
capitalist exploiters... ❤
The government taking up more debt is not money creaton, it doesn't raise the amount of M2 in the system because private entities have a limited capacity to purchase government debt, thus at some point issuing more debt as the government becomes prohibitively expensive, unless it gets monetized by the central bank itself. Which is the one thing that is forbidden in monetary policy because any serious economist knows unbacked money printing leads to hyperinflation. MMT is tremendously stupid.
Btw China is sitting on an enourmous housing bubble ready to explode that will take down their banking sector because of the oh so great central planning, clearly the economy needed all those empty ghost cities with unfinished skeleton houses nobody will ever live in, all of this to prop up those sweet annual GDP growth numbers.
Gov "borrowing" is just an asset swap: reserves created thru deficits are (unnecessarily) swapped for gov bonds. The true limit of gov spending is inflation. Gov interest payment is voluntary and should be dropped.
seems a bit utopian, MMT assumes the government manages the economy for the benefit of society at large. But history is littered with examples of government making horrendous decisions such as confiscation of property, denying thw preferences of large swaths of society etc. Large and small corps can make stupid mistakes and we used to let them fail, but then we introduced "to large to fail" and now we juat accept everything giv does as a "good".
What tools cannot be misused? Do you think Hudson thinks MMT should be used to bail-out big banks?
That';s a problem of democracy deficit, not an economic one.
Grazie