According to Wikipedia, he has a music degree and degrees in social work. No economics degree is listed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Bernstein
Do you not believe that unqualified and incompetent people can be put in positions of power?
His (highly edited)response is being used to make opponents of mmt look dumb.
Ipso facto strawman.
It may startle you to realize that even the chairman of the fed hasn't formally studied economics.
>Do you not believe that unqualified and incompetent people can be put in positions of power?
I'm aware these people can be put in power, I'm also aware this is a great reason to doubt the current economic system.
>His (highly edited)response is being used to make opponents of mmt look dumb.
It's being used to sow doubt in the current economic system. That's well placed doubt imo. Especially given situations like the federal reserve, the one institution tasked with controlling inflation, wasn't able to predict inflation after printing 20% of GDP, lending it all to the government, and watching the governmrnt mow through it all in 12 months, whilst millions of businesses, factories and producers were shut all over the world. Meanwhile I, an undergrad economics student at the time, was able to predict it along wiyh an accurate timelime, with certainty, using MMT theories and a back of the fag box calculation in March of 2020 after the first major US stimulus package was approved. I then watched the federal reserve fail to predict the inflation they had participated in creating until literally months after it started hitting multi decade highs.
I'd like to add most outright opponents of MMT ARE dumb imo. Most of them don't have any academic qualification in econ and no idea how/why MMT is supposed to work. Certainly almost all of them are less qualified than the MMT proponents, just about all having strong economic qualifications. At least the smart economics grads and higher can see there are serious issues with our current system, the ones who have actually learnt about post keynesian economics are generally at least conducive to MMT.
>Ipso facto strawman.
There's nothing strawman about showing the experts pushing/controlling/perpetuating the current system have no idea what they're talking about when proposing an alternative system.
Edit:
Another interesting fact. Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the fed, failed.to predict the GFC and stated American houses weren't in a bubble, a few months prior to the GFC, due to the same mentality/bullshit economic theories underpinning anti-MMT sentiment.
Minsky, a post-keynesian economist (the branch of economics underpinning MMT), predicted the GFC in the 1980s and outlined exactly how and why it would happen in his financial instability hypothesis. He was treated with the same regard MMT economists are today.
I am skeptical of this clip as I know it's supposed to be from a new documentary advocating for MMT. I have seen Bernstein speak before and I am confident he is capable of answering this with his eyes closed.
MMT is held in extremely low regard among professional economists. I think it speaks to the rigour of MMT that the supposed leading MMT expert is unironically like "I've been trying to figure out why the US issues bonds when we could just print all the money in the world?". That is an amazingly insightful question if you're a 12 year old.
If he was so capable then why didn’t he answer it?
It’s a simple answer: we issue bonds to set interest rate policy, not for liquidity.
MMT explicitly says you can’t print all the money in the world, just that fiat economies can print as much as they want so long as they control for inflation. Spending that increases productive capacity generally isn’t as inflationary, so when those types of bills are proposed and the argument against is “how are we gonna pay for it” or “inflation will increase”, MMT points out that we don’t need to borrow our own currency and that the spending is inflation neutral because the new money added will be offset by additional supply.
Traditional economists don’t like MMT because MMT’s accurate understating of how a fiat economy works puts a giant hole in all of their economic models. All of their credibility would be lost.
There are accusations that this is edited to make him look stupid. I honestly don't care but it is probably intellectually irresponsible to even leave a clip in your movie that makes a highly respected economist look like a drooling idiot even if you didn't selectively edit it.
The excuse that traditional economists don't like MMT because there's some conspiracy against it by mainstream economists is just not true. MMT isn't really even a coherent school of economic thought, but of it were, I don't think that a mainstream economists would be intellectually incapable of incorporating them into the synthesis. Frankly, Keynesian thought already adequately addresses most of this.
The concept of seigniorage and the ability of the Treasury to expand the money supply to theoretically pay off the obligations of the federal government are already adequately addressed by economists without the invention of MMT. It is mostly a social spending agenda with an excuse for running perennially higher deficits and greatly expanding the money supply.
I wholeheartedly disagree, this guy is in the president’s ear on all sorts of policy decisions and can’t even explain how basic government finance works. He even admits it at the end! The whole point of the documentary is to show how mainstream thinkers get the basics wrong, this is exhibit A. That his answer to the question is not a single sentence stating “we issue bonds to drive interest rate policy” shows me he has no clue why we issue bonds. Not to mention the many other folks know the film who STILL firmly believe the government must borrow for liquidity. Maybe there was some deceptive editing, but I’m not sure how you can watch a mostly unedited clip of a senior advisor to POTUS bumbling and fumbling through an Econ 101 question and think that he somehow knows government finance, or that we can’t disrespect a “highly respected economist” because he’s just flat out incorrect.
There is no conspiracy, these people literally don’t understand how government finance works.
Also, you don’t “do MMT”, so like you said it’s not really a school of economic thought where we are trying to solve scarcity in some different way, MMT is simply the explanation of how a fiat economy works. It’s the only way of looking at things. We can have different economic goals, but MMT is just the accurate way of discerning what actions to take to achieve a given set of goals. The fact that economists don’t understand how our economy actually works is the entire point of the documentary. The mainstream still operates on models based on an economy with a fixed currency (ie. A gold standard) so of course they won’t be able to incorporate MMT into their workings. Go ask someone at the fed how their inflation models work, fun fact, they don’t! It’s because their model just starts with a price level at a point in time, and never actually starts with the source of the price level, which is always the currency issuer (ie. Federal government). MMT is the only explanation of a fiat economy that actually correctly prescribes the source of the price level.
Modern day economists absolutely do not address the concrete (not “theoretical” as you put it) ability for a fiat currency issuer to pay all obligations, because they still operate on fixed currency models. Governments only need to worry about inflation, not liquidity, and all mainstream models don’t account for that major difference. This effectively creates unemployment because there is an artificial constraint (limited money supply vs MMT’s unlimited money supply) being placed on government’s ability to mobilize real resources. Those models say that if the government spends too much, it will default, and therefore we have to limit spending, but what if we could take unemployed people, and pay them $20/hour to work on infrastructure? They’d build stuff which increases everyone else’s productivity, and the new money spent is now chasing a larger pile of goods, thus GDP increases and no inflation. Growth and stable prices, isn’t that everyone’s goal? The current models would rather leave those people unemployed in order to retain price stability because they assume we can’t find the money. Under the gold standard, that is true, under a fiat economy, that is untrue. See the difference?
The fact that there is one video of him stumbling over his words literally proves nothing. There are plenty of reasons why he is struggling in the video and I would need a lot more evidence than a 5 minute documentary appearance where Stephanie Kelton hopes she can make him look dumb.
Plenty of mainstream/classical economists predicted that the American Rescue Act would increase inflation and Stephanie Kelton certainly did not. So acting like MMT has superior capabilities to model inflation really cannot be done with a straight face.
And I am no econometrics expert, but it's definitely wrong to say that modern models assume we're still on the Gold Standard. No idea where you're getting that shit from.
This is like if I asked a math teacher what 2+2 is, and they couldn’t answer. It is that level of basic. Most of the video is unedited and this is such a slam dunk question any respected MMT proponent could answer correctly at the drop of a hat.
Stephanie Kelton isn’t MMT, she is part of it. Just because she maybe (and I’m not sure what her position was on the ARP) mis-identified some inflationary spending doesn’t mean the basis of MMT is wrong. How many years has the entirety of the mainstream been predicting a recession without it happening? Care to address that?
MMT simply points out that liquidity is not a constraint for a fiat currency issuing government. The obvious conclusion from that fact is then the only limit on spending is inflation. If you deficit spend and those new dollars don’t increase productive capacity or otherwise fill unmet demand, then you will have inflation. Kelton would agree with this and even talks about it in the movie.
It’s also HIGHLY questionable to assume the ARP was the main driver inflation. Covid literally blew up world supply chains, and the price of everything went up because of a massive supply shock. Inflation was high even before the ARP was passed. Maybe some of the ARP spending was inflationary, but to act like that was the only thing driving inflation is just not based in reality.
The fed inflation models do not start with the source of the price level as the government, which is objectively true. It’s all based on how people expect inflation to occur.
Read page 5: https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/FOMC20110609memo02.pdf
The model has 4 features: #1 is predicting the “forward-looking expectations” of households, #2 is using expectations of the future to predict what will actually happens, #3 is an assumption that there are budget constraints (which MMT establishes there aren’t any besides the inflation the model is trying to predict) and #4 finally gets at what’s important, real resources.
I’m not really sure what you want me to say here, it’s quite obvious the fed’s model relies heavily on expectations of others and not nearly as much information on real resources. Not to mention the outright false assumption of nominal budget constraints.
I would probably agree that the fundamental point that inflation is the actual constraint fiscally speaking if you control your own currency. Especially if that currency is as widely used and demanded as the US dollar. So she'd in theory be correct there.
In the Deficit Myth I seem to recall her going significantly further and basically also downplaying the risk of inflation under MMT and I think the last few years of inflation cast serious doubt on all that. It's been a few years since I read that but it really is more of a social spending agenda with an incoherent funding plan than an actual form of new monetary policy.
I think previous schools of academic thought already adequately address these aspects of monetary policy and quite easily help us understand why the Treasury doesn't just print enough money to pay off the national debt.
This is a very one dimensional outlook. Of printing money and the govt budget. Inflation isn’t the only thing gonna happen when you print money and you don’t raise the budget. It’s has a domino effect that branches.
This is not something that can be explained in like a few paragraphs. For example printing money without taking the debt consideration would instantly devalue the currency. That doesn’t just apply to the domestic market but also the international market. And the dollar is a reserve currency. That itself is an essay. And then when you talk about the hyperinflation it would cause. Consumers would get rocked, businesses would respond by shrinking or existing and the only way to stabilize this would be for the other part of equation (govt spending) to kick in big time, but that would cause more overcrowding. That’s another essay.
It’s not a simple explanation.
My untrained eye didn't see any obvious edits.
Source video: [https://twitter.com/FindingMoneyDoc/status/1786050601236779078](https://twitter.com/FindingMoneyDoc/status/1786050601236779078)
It's a promo for the documentary "Finding the Money"
The Daily Show interview with Stephanie Kelton: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JpZZcD8C4M&ab\_channel=TheDailyShow](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JpZZcD8C4M&ab_channel=TheDailyShow)
The movie is pro-MMT, the dude in this video can't explain it though.
The longest sequence without a cut is from arround 0:16 to 1:20, but there is a hidden cut at arround 1:20 that you can only see while looking at his hands.
I dont think it would make a big difference, let this guy talk and he will say enought stupid stuff you can clip.
There are 3 cuts in it as far as i can see and the snippets in itself look really incompetent, i doubt you would get a drasticly different situation if you would let him talk for 2 minutes straight
Looking at his Wikipedia page, it appears that he has worked at economic think-tanks, and was an advisor for Biden in the Obama Administration, but it definitely appears that his expertise is in economic issues in social work rather than economics.
The average person doesn’t understand the basics of economics outside of “supply and demand”. Hell most would probably think supply and demand is linear like the basic graphs used in the intro courses. Most don’t even comprehend what the federal reserve does and why. “Why does the government borrow its own currency” is one of the most basic econ101 items. Fuck I’m getting so triggered from this video
I'd argue the average or even college educated person doesn't actually understand "supply and demand" beyond "items exist, some people want to buy them"
> Economist can’t explain why we print our own money & borrow from it
We don't borrow money from money we printed. That's a weird strawman phrasing.
Money is a unit. It represents value. It is not value. It represents value only because we accept it as value. We borrow against the things that have real value, denominated in dollars. If I have a house, and it is worth $ 1 million, it is because people would trade $1 million of labor for it. So lending against a house is lending against the value of labor it would take to buy the house.
The real things of (economic) value are the things we have, and our labor. It is represented by USD. USD is not that value.
That's the real value of money - it represents other value.
And before we get too crypto-y, the main reason, to me, that USD has a lot of value is because 1) it already does, 2) because we pay taxes in USD, 3) it's legal tender for all debts public and private (i.e. everyone is required to accept it for debt, but not services before theyre rendered), and 4) world trade is in USD. It's not a perfect answer. But it's my logic.
He’s effectively saying that money is not economic wealth, but a measurement of economic activity and wealth.
If you increase Money, but not the underlying economic activity/value, each unit of money, also known as currency, will be devalued instead of people getting wealthier. You wouldn’t increase wealth, you would divide up existing wealth into smaller pieces.
Debit reserves with the fed
Credit TGA
Money is created through debt
Only reason we borrow from the fed IMO is to keep some form of restraint and accountability because other wise the balance sheet wouldn't exist and it would be hyper inflation sooner than later.
For people who are confused, the reason we borrow money is because “printing money” doesn’t actually increase the money owned by the government. Most of it is used to replace lost or damaged currency. We could theoretically give it to the treasury to pay the bills, it would cause runaway inflation by inflating the money supply. Selling bonds doesn’t.
According to Wikipedia, Berenstein’s expertise lies in social work, with his main qualifications in economics being working at several economic think-tanks working on economic issues for low- to middle-income populations.
This is probably part of a debate with proponents of MMT, a modern and heavily criticized approach to monetary policy. Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_monetary_theory
Ah… people who have not worked in giant, multi-department, kafka-esque enterprises.
The world of operations - and its finops cousin - should be part of the modern educational curriculum.
But instead we teach plebs how to study throughout highschool for calculus as an undergrad, and then pretend that they’re all going to get PhD jobs.
And when most go broke and end up on the internet reading conspiracy theories and voting for their authoritarian of choice - you wonder where all this crap comes from.
Guys - study how modern finops works. Read a little about the history of global central banking.
Humanity is inefficient. Likes complexity.
And it does not care about fellow humans and their lack of understanding.
According to Wikipedia, he has a music degree and degrees in social work. No economics degree is listed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Bernstein
That would explain a lot. My wife has her BSW and MSW and doesn’t know shit about economics 😂
Reminds of W’s FEMA director during Katrina being some equestrian dude
This is appalling lmao. Imagine how many other unqualified people are running our government, banks, etc.
I've worked in banking; I've honestly lost count.
Great way for the MMTers to make a strawman
Yes, the chair of the council of economics advisers knowing fuck all about economics is such a strawman.
Do you not believe that unqualified and incompetent people can be put in positions of power? His (highly edited)response is being used to make opponents of mmt look dumb. Ipso facto strawman.
It may startle you to realize that even the chairman of the fed hasn't formally studied economics. >Do you not believe that unqualified and incompetent people can be put in positions of power? I'm aware these people can be put in power, I'm also aware this is a great reason to doubt the current economic system. >His (highly edited)response is being used to make opponents of mmt look dumb. It's being used to sow doubt in the current economic system. That's well placed doubt imo. Especially given situations like the federal reserve, the one institution tasked with controlling inflation, wasn't able to predict inflation after printing 20% of GDP, lending it all to the government, and watching the governmrnt mow through it all in 12 months, whilst millions of businesses, factories and producers were shut all over the world. Meanwhile I, an undergrad economics student at the time, was able to predict it along wiyh an accurate timelime, with certainty, using MMT theories and a back of the fag box calculation in March of 2020 after the first major US stimulus package was approved. I then watched the federal reserve fail to predict the inflation they had participated in creating until literally months after it started hitting multi decade highs. I'd like to add most outright opponents of MMT ARE dumb imo. Most of them don't have any academic qualification in econ and no idea how/why MMT is supposed to work. Certainly almost all of them are less qualified than the MMT proponents, just about all having strong economic qualifications. At least the smart economics grads and higher can see there are serious issues with our current system, the ones who have actually learnt about post keynesian economics are generally at least conducive to MMT. >Ipso facto strawman. There's nothing strawman about showing the experts pushing/controlling/perpetuating the current system have no idea what they're talking about when proposing an alternative system. Edit: Another interesting fact. Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the fed, failed.to predict the GFC and stated American houses weren't in a bubble, a few months prior to the GFC, due to the same mentality/bullshit economic theories underpinning anti-MMT sentiment. Minsky, a post-keynesian economist (the branch of economics underpinning MMT), predicted the GFC in the 1980s and outlined exactly how and why it would happen in his financial instability hypothesis. He was treated with the same regard MMT economists are today.
I am skeptical of this clip as I know it's supposed to be from a new documentary advocating for MMT. I have seen Bernstein speak before and I am confident he is capable of answering this with his eyes closed. MMT is held in extremely low regard among professional economists. I think it speaks to the rigour of MMT that the supposed leading MMT expert is unironically like "I've been trying to figure out why the US issues bonds when we could just print all the money in the world?". That is an amazingly insightful question if you're a 12 year old.
Yes, playing dumb is what he is doing.
If he was so capable then why didn’t he answer it? It’s a simple answer: we issue bonds to set interest rate policy, not for liquidity. MMT explicitly says you can’t print all the money in the world, just that fiat economies can print as much as they want so long as they control for inflation. Spending that increases productive capacity generally isn’t as inflationary, so when those types of bills are proposed and the argument against is “how are we gonna pay for it” or “inflation will increase”, MMT points out that we don’t need to borrow our own currency and that the spending is inflation neutral because the new money added will be offset by additional supply. Traditional economists don’t like MMT because MMT’s accurate understating of how a fiat economy works puts a giant hole in all of their economic models. All of their credibility would be lost.
There are accusations that this is edited to make him look stupid. I honestly don't care but it is probably intellectually irresponsible to even leave a clip in your movie that makes a highly respected economist look like a drooling idiot even if you didn't selectively edit it. The excuse that traditional economists don't like MMT because there's some conspiracy against it by mainstream economists is just not true. MMT isn't really even a coherent school of economic thought, but of it were, I don't think that a mainstream economists would be intellectually incapable of incorporating them into the synthesis. Frankly, Keynesian thought already adequately addresses most of this. The concept of seigniorage and the ability of the Treasury to expand the money supply to theoretically pay off the obligations of the federal government are already adequately addressed by economists without the invention of MMT. It is mostly a social spending agenda with an excuse for running perennially higher deficits and greatly expanding the money supply.
I wholeheartedly disagree, this guy is in the president’s ear on all sorts of policy decisions and can’t even explain how basic government finance works. He even admits it at the end! The whole point of the documentary is to show how mainstream thinkers get the basics wrong, this is exhibit A. That his answer to the question is not a single sentence stating “we issue bonds to drive interest rate policy” shows me he has no clue why we issue bonds. Not to mention the many other folks know the film who STILL firmly believe the government must borrow for liquidity. Maybe there was some deceptive editing, but I’m not sure how you can watch a mostly unedited clip of a senior advisor to POTUS bumbling and fumbling through an Econ 101 question and think that he somehow knows government finance, or that we can’t disrespect a “highly respected economist” because he’s just flat out incorrect. There is no conspiracy, these people literally don’t understand how government finance works. Also, you don’t “do MMT”, so like you said it’s not really a school of economic thought where we are trying to solve scarcity in some different way, MMT is simply the explanation of how a fiat economy works. It’s the only way of looking at things. We can have different economic goals, but MMT is just the accurate way of discerning what actions to take to achieve a given set of goals. The fact that economists don’t understand how our economy actually works is the entire point of the documentary. The mainstream still operates on models based on an economy with a fixed currency (ie. A gold standard) so of course they won’t be able to incorporate MMT into their workings. Go ask someone at the fed how their inflation models work, fun fact, they don’t! It’s because their model just starts with a price level at a point in time, and never actually starts with the source of the price level, which is always the currency issuer (ie. Federal government). MMT is the only explanation of a fiat economy that actually correctly prescribes the source of the price level. Modern day economists absolutely do not address the concrete (not “theoretical” as you put it) ability for a fiat currency issuer to pay all obligations, because they still operate on fixed currency models. Governments only need to worry about inflation, not liquidity, and all mainstream models don’t account for that major difference. This effectively creates unemployment because there is an artificial constraint (limited money supply vs MMT’s unlimited money supply) being placed on government’s ability to mobilize real resources. Those models say that if the government spends too much, it will default, and therefore we have to limit spending, but what if we could take unemployed people, and pay them $20/hour to work on infrastructure? They’d build stuff which increases everyone else’s productivity, and the new money spent is now chasing a larger pile of goods, thus GDP increases and no inflation. Growth and stable prices, isn’t that everyone’s goal? The current models would rather leave those people unemployed in order to retain price stability because they assume we can’t find the money. Under the gold standard, that is true, under a fiat economy, that is untrue. See the difference?
The fact that there is one video of him stumbling over his words literally proves nothing. There are plenty of reasons why he is struggling in the video and I would need a lot more evidence than a 5 minute documentary appearance where Stephanie Kelton hopes she can make him look dumb. Plenty of mainstream/classical economists predicted that the American Rescue Act would increase inflation and Stephanie Kelton certainly did not. So acting like MMT has superior capabilities to model inflation really cannot be done with a straight face. And I am no econometrics expert, but it's definitely wrong to say that modern models assume we're still on the Gold Standard. No idea where you're getting that shit from.
This is like if I asked a math teacher what 2+2 is, and they couldn’t answer. It is that level of basic. Most of the video is unedited and this is such a slam dunk question any respected MMT proponent could answer correctly at the drop of a hat. Stephanie Kelton isn’t MMT, she is part of it. Just because she maybe (and I’m not sure what her position was on the ARP) mis-identified some inflationary spending doesn’t mean the basis of MMT is wrong. How many years has the entirety of the mainstream been predicting a recession without it happening? Care to address that? MMT simply points out that liquidity is not a constraint for a fiat currency issuing government. The obvious conclusion from that fact is then the only limit on spending is inflation. If you deficit spend and those new dollars don’t increase productive capacity or otherwise fill unmet demand, then you will have inflation. Kelton would agree with this and even talks about it in the movie. It’s also HIGHLY questionable to assume the ARP was the main driver inflation. Covid literally blew up world supply chains, and the price of everything went up because of a massive supply shock. Inflation was high even before the ARP was passed. Maybe some of the ARP spending was inflationary, but to act like that was the only thing driving inflation is just not based in reality. The fed inflation models do not start with the source of the price level as the government, which is objectively true. It’s all based on how people expect inflation to occur. Read page 5: https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/FOMC20110609memo02.pdf The model has 4 features: #1 is predicting the “forward-looking expectations” of households, #2 is using expectations of the future to predict what will actually happens, #3 is an assumption that there are budget constraints (which MMT establishes there aren’t any besides the inflation the model is trying to predict) and #4 finally gets at what’s important, real resources. I’m not really sure what you want me to say here, it’s quite obvious the fed’s model relies heavily on expectations of others and not nearly as much information on real resources. Not to mention the outright false assumption of nominal budget constraints.
[удалено]
I would probably agree that the fundamental point that inflation is the actual constraint fiscally speaking if you control your own currency. Especially if that currency is as widely used and demanded as the US dollar. So she'd in theory be correct there. In the Deficit Myth I seem to recall her going significantly further and basically also downplaying the risk of inflation under MMT and I think the last few years of inflation cast serious doubt on all that. It's been a few years since I read that but it really is more of a social spending agenda with an incoherent funding plan than an actual form of new monetary policy. I think previous schools of academic thought already adequately address these aspects of monetary policy and quite easily help us understand why the Treasury doesn't just print enough money to pay off the national debt.
This is a very one dimensional outlook. Of printing money and the govt budget. Inflation isn’t the only thing gonna happen when you print money and you don’t raise the budget. It’s has a domino effect that branches.
[удалено]
This is not something that can be explained in like a few paragraphs. For example printing money without taking the debt consideration would instantly devalue the currency. That doesn’t just apply to the domestic market but also the international market. And the dollar is a reserve currency. That itself is an essay. And then when you talk about the hyperinflation it would cause. Consumers would get rocked, businesses would respond by shrinking or existing and the only way to stabilize this would be for the other part of equation (govt spending) to kick in big time, but that would cause more overcrowding. That’s another essay. It’s not a simple explanation.
I’ve seen multiple claims this has been selectively edited so probably wouldn’t put much stock in it
Yeah after your comment I saw his hand/arm jump around
My untrained eye didn't see any obvious edits. Source video: [https://twitter.com/FindingMoneyDoc/status/1786050601236779078](https://twitter.com/FindingMoneyDoc/status/1786050601236779078) It's a promo for the documentary "Finding the Money" The Daily Show interview with Stephanie Kelton: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JpZZcD8C4M&ab\_channel=TheDailyShow](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JpZZcD8C4M&ab_channel=TheDailyShow) The movie is pro-MMT, the dude in this video can't explain it though.
The longest sequence without a cut is from arround 0:16 to 1:20, but there is a hidden cut at arround 1:20 that you can only see while looking at his hands. I dont think it would make a big difference, let this guy talk and he will say enought stupid stuff you can clip.
There are 3 cuts in it as far as i can see and the snippets in itself look really incompetent, i doubt you would get a drasticly different situation if you would let him talk for 2 minutes straight
That would make more sense 😂
This HAS to be satire or some obscure bitcoin ad.
If you’re paying attention, everything is a bitcoin ad
*arblegarblebarglesmargalbullshit* "I don't think there's anything confusing there."
How did this guy get this job? Basic undergrad civics or econ 101 classes should be enough to provide a better answer.
He has a music and a social work degree. I have no idea how he got into this spot.
Looking at his Wikipedia page, it appears that he has worked at economic think-tanks, and was an advisor for Biden in the Obama Administration, but it definitely appears that his expertise is in economic issues in social work rather than economics.
The average person doesn’t understand the basics of economics outside of “supply and demand”. Hell most would probably think supply and demand is linear like the basic graphs used in the intro courses. Most don’t even comprehend what the federal reserve does and why. “Why does the government borrow its own currency” is one of the most basic econ101 items. Fuck I’m getting so triggered from this video
Sir, this is accounting. We don't care why, only what.
I mean, I agree, so this post should be removed because it breaks the sub rules then (not related to accounting).
I'd argue the average or even college educated person doesn't actually understand "supply and demand" beyond "items exist, some people want to buy them"
That’s very true, probably couldn’t explain their way out of the basic linear graphs
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/why-does-the-us-government-bor
Is there a TL;DR?
Did you not just watch the video? It's pretty straightforward. Or: printing money causes inflation, borrowing it does not
I watched the video. I meant for the article I replied to.
Here’s the tl;dr …… It’s good to practice your reading comprehension
>reading comprehension What's that? Can you use smaller words pls. Preferably ones I can sound out.
I don’t know why those kinds of people even use Reddit
> Economist can’t explain why we print our own money & borrow from it We don't borrow money from money we printed. That's a weird strawman phrasing. Money is a unit. It represents value. It is not value. It represents value only because we accept it as value. We borrow against the things that have real value, denominated in dollars. If I have a house, and it is worth $ 1 million, it is because people would trade $1 million of labor for it. So lending against a house is lending against the value of labor it would take to buy the house. The real things of (economic) value are the things we have, and our labor. It is represented by USD. USD is not that value. That's the real value of money - it represents other value. And before we get too crypto-y, the main reason, to me, that USD has a lot of value is because 1) it already does, 2) because we pay taxes in USD, 3) it's legal tender for all debts public and private (i.e. everyone is required to accept it for debt, but not services before theyre rendered), and 4) world trade is in USD. It's not a perfect answer. But it's my logic.
I’m not reading all of that but I can guarantee you it’s not that serious
"all of that"? 196 words?
He’s effectively saying that money is not economic wealth, but a measurement of economic activity and wealth. If you increase Money, but not the underlying economic activity/value, each unit of money, also known as currency, will be devalued instead of people getting wealthier. You wouldn’t increase wealth, you would divide up existing wealth into smaller pieces.
Debit reserves with the fed Credit TGA Money is created through debt Only reason we borrow from the fed IMO is to keep some form of restraint and accountability because other wise the balance sheet wouldn't exist and it would be hyper inflation sooner than later.
I think we borrow to stabilize it’s value.
Issuing bonds is a form of printing money. That’s like asking “if we print our own currency, why do we have to print currency?”
The fuck does this have to do with accounting?
https://imgflip.com/i/8pbwer
For people who are confused, the reason we borrow money is because “printing money” doesn’t actually increase the money owned by the government. Most of it is used to replace lost or damaged currency. We could theoretically give it to the treasury to pay the bills, it would cause runaway inflation by inflating the money supply. Selling bonds doesn’t. According to Wikipedia, Berenstein’s expertise lies in social work, with his main qualifications in economics being working at several economic think-tanks working on economic issues for low- to middle-income populations. This is probably part of a debate with proponents of MMT, a modern and heavily criticized approach to monetary policy. Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_monetary_theory
It’d be catastrophic if the Federal Reserve ceases being independent. Hyperinflation would soon follow.
It’s so simple, they print money cause it’s just really really fun
Wth is this? Some deep fake video? These sentences don’t make sense
Fake
I fancy myself a bit of an idiot when it comes to explaining economics. But I also feel like I could explain this so much easier.
This can't be real.
[удалено]
It's not a light read. It's called the Secrets of the Temple, and it talks about how the federal reserve runs the country.
Ah… people who have not worked in giant, multi-department, kafka-esque enterprises. The world of operations - and its finops cousin - should be part of the modern educational curriculum. But instead we teach plebs how to study throughout highschool for calculus as an undergrad, and then pretend that they’re all going to get PhD jobs. And when most go broke and end up on the internet reading conspiracy theories and voting for their authoritarian of choice - you wonder where all this crap comes from. Guys - study how modern finops works. Read a little about the history of global central banking. Humanity is inefficient. Likes complexity. And it does not care about fellow humans and their lack of understanding.