Come the revolution, we will. And there should be a grant to a major university to create a department dedicated to making documentaries to illustrate the findings of Michael Hudson's and David Graeber's research.

International Treasure

@@jrshield7793 Can't disagree with that.

World's heritage rather

π

Take a look at Richard Wolff's publications then, or the site, Democracy at Work

Try reading Junk Economics! Or watching his appearance on The Jimmy Dore Show on youtube

Love it!

Yes, what he has to say is always too much to take in at once, I often find myself stopping his videos to reflect on things before I'm able to keep on listening.

R U Experienced?

Yeah, Hudson's definitely on a roll here.

good combo

Trotski's godson, for real! 😂

The world is nothing like we are told - so true. I feel so upset that I spent years going to school and college and working to get graduation and then post graduation but all of it is such a waste to me right now as I realize I know very little about the world affairs and world economy. Schools are only training us to be dumb and never know the reality about our world. I am 26 and hold two degrees but all that is such a waste.

ozwhistles Keep posting on DFA Walk the World. It needs your informed voice. So many there are Business School grads. who believe in Capitalist Free Market , purely for their own rentier financial advantage. They can’t think further than their own accumulation of wealth without real work. Very brain washed with a shrivelled concept of society and economy. Believe they are free thinkers and arrogant in their self-assurance.

@@nyb_ok you can upgrade your knoledge ifonly you want to.... Schools are training youg people to be brainwashed... Because of it you should read and learn on your oun...

Isn't it funny how that works

@@Mrch33ky Is it really just mindless greed? We've come to the end of another economic cycle. The rich have long prepared for this time.

At least.

genius, what clarity

Very interesting point he made. I always wondered about this situation. It makes sense.

Business land debt accumulation

@@maurgi17 Thank you for your kind answer. I still do not get it. Can you expand it further, please? Have you got a link for it, for example?

@@windokeluanda yes, hope you’ve been good! the business took on so much debt in the name of their land assets that the debt is larger than the land value, they’re underwater, they are more in debt than the value of the land the own

@TheCanMan Can Since 1990 What do you mean, please?

@@maurgi17 Ok! Now I think I got it. The business took debt and gave real estate as guarantee. Real estate is based on land as well. The business kept on expanding debt and if value of the land in terms of accounting keeps on being recorded in historic cost (such as acquisition cost) than such effect can happens. Thank you for educating me. It makes sense. Stay healthy.

Varoufakis makes a similar point to this when discussing the role of money in ancient Greece where he points out that bankers were - beside slaves - people of lower value so they could be ripped off or even killed for wrong-doing because they weren't legally recognized as human beings

@@kosmosfaber6534 bold comment too. I think I heard this before, by one or both, but maybe forgot. And you put that in tight context.

u want to marry him? u betta have a big ring saheeb!

For this, you have to understand the 4th function of money: transfers. When a monetary transaction enters a private bank's spreadsheet, it ceases to be money. It is transferred into the account as a balance of claims: assets, liabilities and equity. For the purpose of the bank, only equity has any value. The quantity accounted only begins by the monetary measure, from there on down it is a transfer claim until issued in currency in a later transaction, at which point the monetary quantification is used. It helps to look at Steve Keen's work. In simplistic terms, the owners of property are those who can defend it long enough to gain its benefit. (Traditionally, transfer claims are enforced at gunpoint. "Primitive accumulation") Human beings produce nothing but human flesh (the definition of the fiscal deficit). At best, we are enablers .. stewards at the service of the non-human. If you add livestock, human flesh exceeded 90% of total vertebrate tonnage on Earth in about 1985. The livestock component is our hedge which we defend. This makes human flesh the cheapest commodity on the planet. The global market of planet Earth is aware of this. We lack equity. As it draws to zero, there will be a foreclosure.

Obviously the former is the correct answer no matter the technics. The latter is a secondary parasite.

"When a monetary transaction enters a private bank's spreadsheet, it ceases to be money. It is transferred into the account as a balance of claims: assets, liabilities and equity. For the purpose of the bank, only equity has any value. The quantity accounted only begins by the monetary measure, from there on down it is a transfer claim until issued in currency in a later transaction, at which point the monetary quantification is used." -say this again but differently and break down the process and spell out the insights

I'm still trawling through the meaning of it myself. The usual definition of money has 3 components: means of exchange, unit of account and store of value. But there is a 4th component - a vehicle of transfer. That transfer happens in legal definition and is used by banks. When you deposit money in a bank, you are essentially exchanging it for a legal claim on an asset account. You cease to be the owner of that money. Within the bank itself, the notion of money evaporates into 3 classes of account: asset, liability and equity. These must balance to zero in double-entry book keeping. I Assume that a deposit enters a liability account for the bank - but it has to be balanced by either an equity or an asset. Since only loans appear as assets on a bank spreadsheet, it is most likely that the balance is done by entering the funds as equity. To do that, the depositor loses legal claim on what was once money. Cash is treated very differently to the main accounts. It is not used in inter-bank settlements .. from what I gather, it is only used for cash withdrawals and as a physical dialogue with treasury - governed by separate accounts. The notion of transfers was suggested to me by a fellow who does work for the European central bank, but the idea allows some crevice of understanding into what banks are up to. Stuff that happens in legal definitions rather than monetary reality. Another side of the thing can be understood through Steve Keen's work - the "money-multiplier" thing is a total myth, shoving treasury claims into a bank's reserve has little or no effect because it is not really money - it is units of transfer. These are used to settle the asset/liability balances between banks and are recorded in accounts of central banks. They are not purposed for converting to currency to purchase anything and should never enter the general economy. But if a bank has a surplus of such credits, it may transfer them to asset accounts and transfer them with other banks to gain legal title over physical assets such as property, stocks or bonds. It never really becomes money. The idea that banks must keep 10% of reserves may be legislated, but it has nil affect on the bank's loans procedure - that is a totally separate legal act. A bank may lend infinite "money" which is created by an entry into assets and an entry into equity. However, bank money has a legal path to repayment which reduces both accounts. to zero as the money is retired with interest. It is "mortal" money. Treasury money, on the other hand, is immortal. EXCEPT for bank-interest which may only originate from treasury. Treasury is the true source of money - it is by money-supply that treasury matches economic demand with monetary supply - too much is inflation, too little is deflation .. but they must feed the banks their interest. IF you have private banks, all sovereign money-printing must be in deficit. When the deficit exceeds GDP of the state, the banks essentially own the state if the state economy is not growing. (Last edit) If a sovereign taxes, it is only to reduce money-supply. It may also be used as a way to curb income inequality - otherwise, tax is unecessary. For a vassal state it is different - you must tax to fill any shortfall from sovereign grants. And if your state has any private banks - you will need to tax to feed their interest burden.

You write; "Since only loans appear as assets on a bank spreadsheet, it is most likely that the balance is done by entering the funds as equity." This is not the case. At least, not the case when I managed the residential mortgage lending group for a U.S. commercial bank. Cash held by the bank is an asset. The bank's equity is the amount by which assets exceed liabilities. Of course, there are many regulatory and accounting rules that affect the recorded asset and liability totals. For example, the amount of reserves that must be set aside based on asset risk and asset liquidity. A commercial bank in the U.S. cannot simply create monetary balances out of thin air. This occurs at the level of the central bank, which can then transfer cash balances to member banks. The systemic risk is inflation, which to some extent governs the central bank's entry into the credit markets to buy or sell government securities, to increase or decrease the discount rate and to raise or lower reserve requirements against commercial bank asset classes (e.g., whole loans versus mortgage-backed securities). I have not studied the charters of the central banks of other countries. It may be that some of these banks have the authority to create monetary balances out of thin air AND directly lend to private interests.

That is what I was thinking. I guess she didn't knew who was sitting right next to her while she languidly smacked on her bulgur salad

Idk. It feels like being in a grad student powwow. Lol

Britain wasn't christian at the time

@@felixii4931 I'm sorry but you're wrong. It was Christian prior to the Norman Conquest, and William I actually sought a papal blessing for his English adventure in 1066. To speak of Britain and England interchangeably is also imprecise. It's a mistake Americans usually make.

@@simonsmith3030 I live in the UK not America. As for Hudson talking about georgism, he has written plenty on Henry George elsewhere, google search should help you find plenty of material on this. For example, commonground-usa.net/hudson-michael_has-georgism-been-hijacked-by-special-interests-2003.htm

Matheus Mendonça The problem is that if our public infrastructure is run through private interests, you will get prices to be of increase beyond their actual production cost value. This causes even more less money to spend and invest on goods and services and instead we are paying unnecessary fees and monopoly prices for basic needs (healthcare, education, roads, bridges, transportation). All in all a free way to make money just by privileged ability to charge things that are essential for the economy of production and consumption to flourish.

Broad (national) metrics put UK health care far in front of US health care. The problem is the inefficiency of intermediation (of insurance) in the name of competition. Competition is sometimes but not always useful.

Love the way this professor is able to integrate economic theories and thinkers with the many actual examples from history, linking it back to practical understanding in a way most people could understand. If more people were exposed to his integrated discourse maybe we could also come up with a way to undo the damage. I used to think just jailing and penalizing the banisters from 2008 meltdown would send a message but now it seems clear the entire Wall St. system is a toxic financial operation that took more than 50 years to fully develop. How can we now possibly remake that? Could Dr.Hudson focus his brilliant mind on that?

unproductive in what sense? what's unproductive about a post office,......?

Alexander Hamilton is the Father of American Socialism, or what many of today's right wing libertarian conservatives would say is "socialism". That is, govt investing in the Commons for industry and Commerce, investing in infrastructure and paying to develop cutting edge technology. It was called The American System. Hudson doesn't oppose industrial competition. The rentier forces tend to be a near monopoly and impose monopolies.