| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
主に債務帳消しについて
Debt Q&A: Should student debt be abolished? Can the US run out of money?...
2021/12/04
85:19
M:
regarding debt cancellation when i began my uh uh harvard group on the history of debt in the 1990s uh the argument by archaeology by the right wing uh archaeologists and anthropologists was you couldn't possibly cancel the debts in uh uh in mesopotamia because who would ever lend money well obviously as soon as they cancel the debts it all began as pavlina said all began all over again and uh so then the uh people uh the uh right-wingers said you see it didn't work canceling doesn't work it begins all over again well of course it begins all over again it does work in wiping out the overhead of death and then the whole thing will begin all over again until society lets too much debt accumulate and when too much debt accumulates then you turn on the therm the debt thermostat and you wipe it out uh and that happened again and again uh with every new ruler in the bronze age in mesopotamia uh also all throughout antiquity uh so that's just a false argument that uh these people not only don't read history they try to prevent uh anthropological history from being uh read or or published uh just because it's ideologically against their uh right-wing pro-creditor arguments.
M:
私が1990年代にハーバード大学で債務の歴史に関する研究を始めたとき、右翼の考古学者や人類学者は、メソポタミアの債務を帳消しにすることはできない、なぜなら誰がお金を貸すだろう、と主張していました。 そして、右翼の人たちはこう言ったんです 解約してもうまくいかない、最初からやり直しだと もちろん、最初からやり直しですが、死の諸経費を一掃することには効果があります そして、社会が借金を溜め込みすぎるまで、すべてのことが繰り返されるのです 借金が溜まりすぎると、借金のサーモスタットをオンにして、借金を一掃するのです そして、それはメソポタミアの青銅器時代や古代の支配者が変わるたびに何度も繰り返されました。 思想的に右翼のプロ債権者の主張に反するからです。
TN:
good evening good morning um wherever you find yourself my name is tara needham i am the assistant academic director at the hannah arendt center for politics and humanities at bard college in the hudson valley of new york state if you are zooming in from afar and abroad we are so thrilled to see so many people logging on and logging in for this very important conversation about debt and finance capital we're also thrilled to be co-sponsoring this event with the museum of care and with the economic democracy initiative at bard college you know when we were approached by mika dubrovsky we felt the words a real resonance between um what she described as the mission of the museum of care which projects uh whose projects aim to create a public space to discuss what dostoyevsky called the cursed questions what is power what is freedom value and so on the hannah rent center similarly promotes bold and risky thinking in the spirit of a rent and to aims to create forums for the debate of ideas on pressing topics of our time there's no doubt that debt and finance capital are such issues that have immense bearing on topics that were of great concern for a rent democracy freedom the possibility for spontaneity and political action that said our participation is not to suggest that a rent herself would have or that the center necessarily agrees with or endorses all the views of the panelists rather our goal is again to invite and foster lively debate and we hope that participants will respectfully challenge question and clarify clarify the points of view presented tonight so it's now my great pleasure um to introduce niko dabrofsky who is an artist and an author who grew up in the unofficial cultural scenes of squats and samidzat of the late ussr she's written for many publications and exhibited at among others the tel aviv museum galleria nova zagreb showroom london fabrica moscow and apex art new york she works on several publishing and artistic projects including yes women group art activist feminist community and others after her husband david graber's death mika and friends organized carnival for david which took place in 250 places around the world carnival for david evolved into the informal community of the museum of care which is creating projects like the one tonight at the intersection of academia activism and contemporary art so welcome to nika our panelists and everyone participating.
ND:
so thank you very much for hosting this event and um [Music] yeah the the first of uh the fight club between michael hudson and thomas piketty was held on the 10th anniversary of the edition of david greber's book 5 000 years of death i want to say that a lot has changed for the better since then the public discourse has shifted now many people recognize that for what it is structural violence second the abstract that was created and i'm especially happy that astra taylor is with us today astra is not only shares the ideas of david michael hudson and steve king that all deaths should be abolished but it's strike them is successfully buying out unfair debts for example student medical debt acting essentially in the same way as abolitionists did freeing people from that slavery and i want to encourage everyone who watches today to help them i would like to announce our next fight club that will be at house culture developed in berlin the spring with actors and activists david's friends to perform an imaginary fight between david grabber and thomas hopps and david greber versus jean-jacques rousseau of the yes man reverend billy and salvatory d of the church of stop shopping this fight is a major point that was explored in david's last book dawn of everything that he wrote with an archaeologist david van gro in the first fight club the fight had so many rounds that we didn't have time to answer questions from the public so in the spirit of the boxing match we are going to have our combat michael hudson conduct a post-match debrief where the public can ask questions and get answers so meet steve kim michael hudson pavlina cernova and astra taylor what do you think we have a problem let's solve it together the game.
AT:
okay everyone my name is astor taylor can you guys see me or okay great uh my name is ashley taylor thank you so much for the kind introduction nika and i just want to reiterate thanking our hosts the hanoran center and the museum of care thanks for for having us um and i watched the first fight club with great interest uh noting the paradox between the terms care and fighting so this will be a loving debate um with a lot of i think agreement among the participants but um one thing i will say is as an activist and organizer working very hard on the issues of debt cancellation i am constantly encountering critics and criticism so i will do my best maybe to channel some of the contrarianism that i face when i share these ideas so my name is astrid taylor i'll be i'll be quick but just to set the stage uh yeah my uh my my friend the lighting great david graber sort of recruited me into uh what became a kind of debt resistance movement he actually invited me to the planning sessions of occupy wall street uh so this was back in 2011 and um i was at that point recently defaulted student debtor and you know understood that my condition was political but didn't have any people to share that that uh sense with certainly didn't have the sense that the the wider world you know shared my sense of injustice uh and uh out of the ashes of occupy wall street we started organizing around debt based on the recognition that a lot of people came to occupy were in debt for education for health care of course it was the mortgage crisis that that it was the larger framework so debt was everywhere when she started looking at it and uh since then you know david eventually went to the uk i kept organizing with people and we launched something called uh the debt collective which is a union for letters and we have been organizing primarily around the issue of student debt cancellation though we though we also work on other types of debt for example some of our co-founders planned the first protest demanding full student debt cancellation and free public college in 2012 marking one t day the day student debt surpassed one trillion dollars it's now 1.8 trillion uh so math in terms of pure math things have gotten a lot worse but as nika said rightly the discourse is much better and partly because of the debt collective we've unearthed the various legal mechanisms by which it is actually very possible for the government to cancel student debt and we have forced them to cancel upwards of 10 billion dollars of student debt just in 2021 alone so debt cancellation is we've proven it's a realistic demand it's a very popular one i i just saw an ad for stacey abrams who's running for governor of georgia and she talks about medical debt cancellation in her campaign ad so i think that's another sign of the times so i think um you know i won't delay us but but we are definitely in a in a moment where i think the question is how can we keep expanding the public imagination on this issue how can we address some of the doubts people have because not everybody agrees and then yeah strategically what do we do where is the power and we have a great panels here to talk about these issues and and to address some of the common concerns you know people are worried about the the deficit right worried about the way that this will affect uh there's a lot of misapprehensions about how personal debt and public debt relates hopefully we can set some of those straight here uh some of the questions that we can return to according to the materials circulated in advance should student debt be cancelled i already answered that yes and it can be can the government run out of money what is money what is debt um so if people i want to invite people to touch on those points since that's what the audience was told they'd hear about uh i also want to invite people to use the q a function that is that is here we're going to also address some of the questions from the last session as as they as nika said they didn't get answered so i'm going to briefly introduce our panelists the esteemed uh michael hudson who you know has been working on the question of jubilee for a long time and really is in many ways inspiration for david's work for the debt collective's work really blaze an incredible trail talking about the history and precedence and philosophy of jubilee and more michael hudson is president of the institute for the study of long-term term economic trends a wall street financial analyst distinguished research professor of economics at the university of missouri kansas city he is the author of and forgive them their debts 2018 and j is for junk economics and assume there are many other books steve keane is an australian economist and author he's the author of debunking economics and more recently the new economics a manifesto pavlina chernova is an associate professor of economics at bard college and a research scholar at the levy economics institute she specializes in modern monetary theory and public policy uh public policy so a warm welcome to all of you and i'm going to pass it over to steve keane to offer some thoughts on the last uh fight club session and maybe give us some some brief thoughts on debt what is it why should it go.
SK:
okay my sound is coming through good all right okay um the i'll start first of all with the thank you to thomas picketty who couldn't join us for this session um it is very rare for mainstream economists to engage with critics like myself and and michael and patlina so it's uh a tribute to him that he was very generous with his time and i thought also he's very generous with his perspective in the debate if i can characterize how thomas would differ from myself and michael thomas's recommendations at the end of his magnum opus capital were fundamentally tax the rich and the attitude which michael and myself and have are concerning debt is abolish the debt uh now of course you think about what taxes and what interest payments are and what profit are they're all flows they're flows of money per year that's how they're denominated and what taxation says well let's re let's take some of that flow away from the rich and direct it to the poor that is the conventional attitude towards taxation and i'm sure pavlina will get in here and elaborate that tax doesn't actually pay for anything when you take a look at the modern monetary theory perspective on how government money is created the government creates money by running it by running a deficit so government spending creates money taxation destroys money and it doesn't actually contribute to anything it's the government as one of the two primary money creators in a capitalist economy can create the money it needs for any particular task it doesn't need to tax so what then is the perspective on tax from from this position it is fundamentally that taxation decides whose bank account goes down to reduce the excess money created by government spending and what we know from the last 30 years or so is the rich are incredibly successful at making sure it's not their accounts that get affected so what what would be what we'd be doing with um uh with with taxation isn't doing what uh is the perspective from uh pickett's capital in the first place and secondly the rich are very very good at evading it uh now the point from michael and i'm sure michael will elaborate very effectively here on his own behalf but what we see and this comes out of my own mathematical modeling i might add is that debt increases the income of the rich which is quite obvious it increases the income of what we would call rontiers but it actually in my mathematical modeling of minsk's financial instability hypothesis it actually directly reduces the income share of the workers uh if i in my simple models which i'll explain in the written manifesto um the debt is by money is in that modeled model exclusively by the firm that's the simplification i make to start the model and i did not expect this outcome but what happened was the profit rate that capitals got the owners of the firm vary around an equilibrium level as the level of private debt went up the level of income going to workers went down it was a direct relationship and i explained the causal mechanism in manifest so i won't try to elaborate here so fundamentally reducing the debt will increase the share of income going to workers and it's and and on top of that we have the modern monetary theory case uh that the government doesn't need to borrow an order to spend uh doesn't need to tax to finance it so all the things like student debt are a travesty when you intellectually understand how money is created i'll hand back to the other panelists thank you.
AT:
wonderful thanks for that i want to hand it to pafflina uh to give her a perspective on debt and you know i i wouldn't it's modern monetary theory is really useful in this but you know one thing we encounter over and over again is this assumption people have and it's because it's part of right-wing ideology in their frame that you know the state is like a household you know they can run out of money you got to tighten your belt and budget in this limited way so maybe i think commenting on that if you're inspired to it would be great.
PT:15:30
yeah thank you uh thank you for the invitation um i want to start with uh actually david graber's comment on um paradoxes that we have in our daily lives how we have turned like absurdities into like common sense what people perceive to be is common sense and this idea that the government must behave as a household and especially when it comes to its financial affairs uh is one of those paradoxes that we like we have created such mythology and you know just uh uh culture of acceptance of of this um basically flawed idea and it's all built on a completely flawed understanding of money on the history of money on the origins of money and i will not go through all of it now but um just to say that even on the face of it when we consider a very basic simple reality that the currency in our pockets comes from one place and one place alone and that comes from the public sector just when we consider that basic stylized fact it can't possibly be true that the government needs to get money from us to pay for its expenses when it has the ultimate means find issues the ultimate means final means of payment so um mmt really zeroes in on that under theorized aspect of the monetary reality there is private debt there is private uh money creation of all at all levels we use this hierarchical model to describe it but the public currency is under theorized and so governments have had this prerogative to issue their currencies and and even in the old days to stamp their gold coins they have had this prerogative and they must first provide the currency before they can retrieve it back in the form of tax payments or or bonds purchase bond sales and so what mmt basically stresses is that the the causality is completely upside down it's reversed the issuer must provide the currency before the users can use it to pay taxes to purchase government securities so a fundamental contribution from an mmt a point of view is that a government is self-financed but you must also look at the kind of government you're talking about we have so adopted these mythologies that governments must behave like households that we have created these monetary systems in these monetary regimes which artificially constrain this very basic prerogative of government and then we force the public sector to behave like a household to tax in order to pay so you know countries that give up their own currencies the dollar eyes that accept or that that actually inherit colonial currencies you know they are fundamentally constrained in in many ways in managing their domestic economic affairs so um the public sector we need to be looking at what kind of uh monetary regime we're looking at what kind of institutional design we have what kind of coordination we have between our institutions to meet our economic objectives so lesson number two from mmt is that zeroing in on these arbitrary ratios debt to deficit debt to gdp deficit to gdp ratio these are really red herrings they divert our attention from the important issues how does the government spend on what does it spend what kind of policies do we as democratic polity demand of the government and have we surrendered them to this false ideology that the government does not have money and that it must uh pinch its pennies like a household i'll just pause here and we can carry this further yeah.
AT:
so much to dig into but michael would you like to weigh in and respond to these comments and maybe say anything you didn't get to say in the last session before we go deeper.
MH:
pauline is quite right when she says that uh public debt is not the problem uh private debt is a problem so i want to pick up what uh steve keane said because he was addressing the issue that kept coming up uh in the debate and uh what was the argument uh with picketing uh piketty wanted to tax wealth to make uh people more equal the problem is that taxes leave the existing economic structure in place so uh if you had if you taxed uh the banks uh the debts would still mount up you'd still have student debt you'd still have foreclosures you'd still have insolvency but uh the some the rich would have to pay some of the cost of impoverishing society to the government which doesn't really need it anyway uh so i don't think that uh taxes uh address the problem that steve and i are talking about that the economy has a real structural problem and uh from what david graber and i talked about for years uh debt is what the 99 percent owed to the one percent most people are in debt and most debts are owed to one percent of the population and paying this debt leaves less disposable income for the debtors uh less for students because if they pay student debt they can't afford to buy a mortgage to uh take a buy a home uh homeowners i have to pay mortgage debt uh and can't afford to buy goods and services uh credit card companies auto loans uh most of the people who wanted to disagree with what uh steve and i are saying about the need to cancel this debt that is bankrupting the economy is well isn't that a choice it's a voluntary bargain between uh uh borrowers and debtors why do you want to interfere with the free market and the voluntary bargain well the bargain is your money or your life you want a home or you want to be asleep in the sidewalk oh you want a home you got to go into debt uh do you want a job well you're going to have to get a degree get a degree you're going to have to go into debt unless uh your parents were uh bankers or had enough money uh to put to put you through uh so most uh most deaths throughout most of history weren't voluntary they were arrears they were uh cultivators on the land that uh there was a crop failure there was a war they couldn't pay the debts most debts were just uh regular income that couldn't be paid and uh the creditors use the misfortune of society like the covent crisis as uh an opportunity to make money and uh you can see that here in new york uh where uh we all are uh right right now there are a lot of people that have lost their jobs a lot of people uh uh these people either are renters and can't pay the rent or if they've bought a home that can't pay the mortgage there was a moratorium biden said well we can't just throw all these people out on the street let's have a moratorium it expires in february in february tens of thousands of new yorkers are going to be evicted thrown onto the street and uh their houses are going to be put up for sale uh and there are a lot of uh investment companies just waiting to pick up uh all of these houses so uh that what steve and i are talking about is debt is not in equilibrium debt grows exponentially and it it uh ends up engulfing the whole economy and that's why uh you get to choose do you want to keep the debts in place and let the economy polarize and uh shrink or do you want to write down the uh cred the savings of the one percent that are invested in loans to the 99 percent.
AT:
yeah well said one phrase from the debt collective to get at this point you know they're making your money your life is we're not in debt because we live beyond our means but because we're denied the means to live and so i think it i i'm sure people here you know everybody agrees that debt abolition a dead jubilee is coupled with social provisions right pavlina's written about jobs guarantee right i mean the thing is this was the old idea of a jubilee too debt cancellation plus you'd get land back or you know the means of the means of survival um but you're you're making the really important point which is you know people are basically and this is stuff we just see at the deck like of every day in the debtors we speak to who are desperate sometimes suicidal you know i mean this is um this is such an urgent issue for so many people uh that you know makes people poorer but it also you know makes people sicker and there's a lot of evidence to back that up um but people are robbed twice right they're underpaid at the job and then forced to borrow to survive and this is definitely a means of wealth extraction it makes makes the rich richer the poor poor i another way to put this is that that isn't just about money it's about power and you all have hit on that um do people want to say anyone feel inspired to take that up right i mean this is you know why do we have this system why does it stay if we can point out all the ways it's seemingly irrational and fair you know why is it so entrenched and that's because this is this is power it's not just a way to get money it also keeps people under the thumb of predators and david graper was not just of creditors but um of employers uh do people want to speak to that at all the way debt is obstructs democracy keeps people down.
MH:
well it wasn't supposed to be that way power that was uh the first deaths uh anthropologically were uh the virgil debts if you were in a primitive society and you injured somebody uh you have to pay reparations you have a choice if you beat somebody up break his arm or kill someone either your family would feud with them and you'd all begin fighting or you'd pay reparations uh the whole idea of debt the whole economy functioned on credit long before there was money there was credit uh if if you were a farmer in mesopotamia in 3000 bc uh you uh get the cro what do you do during the crop year uh money was used one day a year for the farmers in mesopotamia that's when the harvest time came in uh on the uh and the debts that they owed for uh the beer that they drank at the local uh ale house and we have the records of the ale house uh and for the uh food or for the horses or for the water uh when you go to the ale house you'd uh run up a bill uh a tab just like today and it all came due uh on at harvest time and everything would be paid and uh that worked except once in a while there was a crop failure uh or there was a drought and hammurabi would say if the people can't pay the debt we're going to cancel it because if they can't pay the debt and they become a slave of the ale lady do we really want the cultivators all to end up the debt servants in bondage uh owing their crops to the ale lady and then we're not going to be able to get them to work on the corvae work to build palace walls and temples and big ditches and we're not going to be able to uh get the uh crop taxes uh from them so the whole idea depth was supposed to be an equilibrium and when it couldn't be paid every early society wiped them out and all of that uh occurred until greece and rome it was really rome that made debt a means of getting getting labor into debt and having to work off the debt on the land of the uh the creditor and uh we're still living with the uh backwash of roman law uh and that that's the problem our legal system uh is uh a pro-creditor and this went against every society that preceded rome and that's become the legal system of western civilization.
MH:
yep really interesting yeah pavlina you want to win.
PT:
i i love where uh michael took this conversation you know um when we look at graber's book you know debt is a social relationship and it became monetized through time but even early on there was this kind of coercive relationship between authority palace king and subjects and that was the tax that's a debt that's a sort of debt and that tax was always there to to compel to force the production of goods and resources to provision the palace okay this is unavoidable and that tax was used to eventually you know kind of standardize the unit of account how we pay these debts and michael's work is very good um in illustrating that when private creditors gained so much power over credit creation um then the peasants were obligated to the private creditors and they were not as obligated to the state in terms of delivering corn and barley and grain to the palace so the palace actually that weakened the palace capability to do dead jubilees because the palace could say i forgive you your debts if you had a crop failure you don't have to deliver the grain to me but the private creditor would not do that now why does the palace tax because the power is not only needed to provision for itself and you know again it's the riches it's all power but also they did build you know corvae labor was infrastructure it was public work so there was some semblance of kind of public goods provisioning however coercive that was that is very much fast forward to the present day that is very much the function of the tax today the public sector which issues its own currency does not need to tax to collect the tax to finance its public projects the function of the tax is still for the public to require the public's currency to work in exchange to provision goods and services and it is you would you would you know one might argue in a democratic sense our expectation of the state is then to provide public goods um that will provision for the community as a whole now what does this have to do with student debt well i mean student debt is one of those debts that actually can be forgiven that the vast majority of student debt is held by the public sector it is there is a small proportion that is held by private you know you know privately issued debt and not backed by government guarantees but as we have said shown at the leaving institute um it is uh without major disruptions in fact to the private sector which you probably want to create disruptions you can cancel it you can have a debt jubilee with student debt um and so i think that broadly i would think about taxes in this way that they are you know certainly historically a coercive mechanism they are certainly a force that compels us to work in exchange for money and now we and and we have had you know uh you know various campaigns about you know taxation without representation which presupposes certain democratic demand right that we want the collective to do something for all of us but we need to kind of connect that to theorizing what the money can do what the public sector with the public currency can do um if it is going to tax and if it's going to attract resources then it has a reciprocal obligation to then quote unquote provide for the good life and this whole mythology that we can't cancel the deaths that somehow it's inequitable for the rich kids to have their debt cancelled along with many other things are just um disempowering narratives uh that we can do x y and z.
MH:
Can i elaborate something that uh paulina just said she's absolute she pointed to the key point that uh the reason that student debt can be cancelled is its own to the government not private banks so there's no lobbying organization that's going to come in and say uh you can't interfere with private enterprise uh she began but earlier uh she said that the uh the debt was the power of the ruler uh over uh the debtors uh that the people that the rulers of mesopotamia really wanted power over was that over the creditors every early society stabilized itself by preventing the emergence of a creditor oligarchy and uh the uh over and over again you'd see creditors getting rich then all of a sudden they would disappear from the record uh and uh the idea is that uh all the way down through the byzantine empire uh the rulers uh would say we don't want a wealthy credit or oligarchy because they're going to use this labor as an army and they're going to overthrow us and then they're going to write all the laws and then we won't get any more taxes uh they'll get all of the money and they'll be the new kings so uh the uh the look at china for instance china is in the position of uh to its uh economy that is the u.s is to the student debtors it's easy to write down the debts if the debts are owed to yourself that's why the mesopotamians were able to write down the debts it's because they were all owed to the palace and the temples and uh they also would make sure that the debts to the private creditors uh were cancelled and they'd move against the creditors so the key in preserving democracy was to have what president biden calls an autocracy an autocracy is someone who says the public interest is more important than the interest of creditors.
AT:
i think this really you know for me coming from the deck like there's a lot of really interesting strategic questions here because that is why we focused on student debt precisely for this reason because we know we you know what it the majority as you say is held by the federal government nevertheless the government was pretending it didn't have the power to cancel it so we had to throw that in its face multiple times and you have made headway there and and you know if there are leverage points against private creditors it's that they're violating laws consumer protection laws that they're engaging in robo signing or shenanigans but we have less we do have less leverage and i think there's really there's some strategic major strategic challenges that are being raised here steve would you like to come in um and maybe uh i don't know the standard you know response to some of this talk is you know but we need the creditors they're they're productively investing capital and if debts are abolished won't they go on strike and not you know lend to people.
SK:
yeah i mean the the important point i think we've i like the way that we overtake overtaken with havelina as well uh to talking about where this originated because we go right back and i'm i haven't yet yet i must admit uh david graves like the latest and last book um that's my reading on my flight to australia on from on friday um but if you look at where this we all did again humans built societies built on mutual obligation and we'd actually do things for each other it was actually fundamentally a gift based society was the the ancient basis of how humans behave towards each other and that has been perverted over time into what we now call debt it first of all went through the mesopotamian systems where michael explained the role very well now it's been taken over by the private sector and what we have is i divide the world into three major social classes workers capitalists and bankers and what has happened is the bankers are the ones the financial sector are the ones who have completely distorted that original role of the thing which makes us a human society and that made it into a form of bondage uh for part of that society but the trouble of that bondage is described as disguised by economic theory and if you have any exposure to neoclassical economics you would know of things like what's called the medigliani miller uh hypothesis that says it it's actually up ultimately if you're paying interest at all it's better that a corporation be 100 financed by debt you get uh the argument that the government has to borrow off the public um which really treats money as being something like uh as is my good friend michael kumoff the only neoclassical economist who understands money uh says it treats something like gravel that has to be dug up and dumped in some person's um storage system and then dolled out when necessary there's a physical thing rather than a sense of obligation uh designed either between the public and the government or the public and the private bank sector so once we if we realize that the that we have two major institutions to create um to create money governments are spending more than they get back in taxation or banks lending out more than quebec and repayments the question is what ends up those is that money used when we take a look at the private sector uh the financial sector has used economic theory without knowing they're doing it but use economic theory as a cover to finance asset price inflation and to put us in debt into into bondage for the remainder of it it is not a creative use of money at all uh banks when after the great depression which is the last time we had a serious uh debt crisis that then led through dramatic transactions to society bankers were under were a despised class in the beginning of the 40s and 50s and they were controlled their role was to provide uh investment finance for for industrial capital that back in those days the level of private debt the the non-financial sector's private debt was roughly 40 percent of gdp and most of that was corporate there if you fast forward to the financial crisis that rose to 170 of gdp and it was predominantly household debt and the large part of that household debt was actually what gave us the bubble in the in-house prices in the first place you had a negative a damaging feedback relationship between debt asset prices and ultimately a financial collapse so we have we need to have a decent theory and mmt is part of that theory the other part is minsk is financial instability hypothesis they are quite compatible with each other and what they tell us is we should reduce the level of private debt and if you do that rather than taking money away from the poor rich as well in what you do is give more money to workers who spend more so you actually get when i've modeled a modern debt jubilee you get a boost in economic activity and ultimately even the capitalists benefit so this is one of those terrible cases where ideology leads us into a trap that makes everybody off but put some people in power over the poor.
AT:
yes uh really interesting comments i'm i'm here scanning some of the questions from the last fight club and we have actually answered a couple of them um i mean one you just used the word stabilizing one person asked uh wouldn't um wouldn't cancelling debts be destabilizing and you're actually saying the opposite which i think the research shows which it actually would be good for terrorism in a kind of idealized version of it where it actually wants to share prosperity uh yeah michael you're pointing.
MH:
to everything about uh cancelling the debt and why it's stable is you cancel savings on the other side of the balance sheet we're talking about debt but all this debt is somebody else's savings and uh the problem is that almost all the savings in the economy are now owned by the one percent that's why david popularized the concept of one percent and the best thing you can do uh if you cancel the debt to the one percent you wipe out their savings and you take away their dominance just like the 19th century finally took away the power of landlords that they had since feudal times and that was what triggered in the takeoff of industrial capitalism you have to cancel this rontier uh claims on society that uh the creditor uh doesn't really play a productive role he collects interest in asleep just like the landlord collects interest in his sleep landlords creditors rontiers monopolists they do not play a productive role so what do you destabilize you destabilize the destabilizer.
AT:
papalina did you have a thought yet.
SK:
if i can come back okay.
PT:
SK:
yes uh okay sorry i'll go.
PT:
yeah yeah okay finish steve and i'll step in.
SK:
i'm sorry okay um you know what we if we did that that is the ideal let's get rid of the the power structure but of course the instructions got the power so we would lose that battle inevitably so the proposal i've been putting forward which actually uses the concept of mmt as well is a modern debt jubilee and that says look there are there are two ways you can create money the government can spend more than it gets back in taxes the private banking will then get back in in repayments now if you use the government's power you could actually give everybody an equal amount of money and say if you have any debt you must cancel that debt so you create money which means that for the for the for the uh creditor class what they have is their loans disappear but they get they get money in bank account and step okay they get reserves fundamentally so they don't actually end up losing out but what it does is by giving everybody the same amount of money you give far more to the workers than you give to the capitalists and rontiers and by that mechanism you actually end up stimulating the economy you can even set it up so that the bonds interest paid on the bonds by the government takes place of interest paid on debt by the private sector and the rentiers end up coming out getting the sort of money that you submit the the role of banking was described as the i think the numbers are three six and three uh borrowed three judge charge at six and be on the golf course by 3 p.m now that's where they bloody well belong they don't long running running washington in what i now call the financial politico complex get them back on the golf course where their uselessness can be put to something productive.
MH:41:30
well steve your proposal to bail out the billionaires is very good for you billionaires uh sitting there but uh the fact is we really want to leave these billionaires with all the money this this debate came up with a civil war uh when you wanted to get rid of slavery uh people said well if abraham lincoln cancels slavery he has to pay the slave owners and lincoln said absolutely not slave owning is wrong and we're not going to create a new wealthy class to dominate the country by paying them for all the money that they've got from slaves you don't want to bail out uh to make the creditors whole come on uh uh i don't have a billion dollars like you but uh i certainly might want to bail out these passages.
AT:
so paulina i want you to respond to this but i also want to throw you one more question from the last session that i think and this person asked uh the main result of quantitative easing appeared to be an increase in the value of assets such as share prices and housing i'm assuming they're talking about you know early 2020 when covid hit when the government bought a lot of bad corporate debt steve mentioned corporate debt so the person asked to what extent are the central banks captured by the interest of the richest in society and what should be done about this.
PT:
okay so that's exactly where i was going to go with this conversation i mean dead jubilees happen all the time you know what did we do in 2008 you know the government stepped in with extraordinary budget and purchased enormous amount of toxic financial assets it i i don't know what else we can call it do you believe not you know making these assets whole um you know so it is it's a it's a type of dead jubilee um what did we do during covet you know we passed the economy uh governments appropriated again budgets that they had not uh appropriated in post-war history in any crisis you know japan i think it passed 56 percent of gdp a budget overnight the united states 27 that has to concentrate the mind the government has enormous the government has all the financial resources that it needs to grease the economic wheels to pause student debt to pause moratorium on on mortgage payments um on so it's just a matter of choices um i would say that um you know the tax system obviously doesn't doesn't do this what we want to do is simply eliminate extractive services right we want to to eliminate kind of unproductive predatory practices you know unsustainable practices i think that there is a way to certainly you know pacify the rentier class by replacing private debts with public debts because those are default risk-free and that's what we do all the time and so i think for the debt collective this is an argument to say you have a public purse that is regularly used for these kinds of purposes to forgive debts in the private sector we can certainly deploy it for student debts and i so so the question here is um the state the government creates the only default risk-free asset that's the only one that can do this you know europe is grappling with this you know they have designed a system that they cannot create a default risk risk-free bond and they changed and broke their own rules during the pandemic to make sure that the european central bank actually purchases these government bonds to make sure that the bills are paid and there's no question asked that is the monetary reality and we just work around it to kind of limit our policy space so qe what was huey i mean qe was a a way of basically you know ensuring the positive value of something that is essentially worthless some insurance on some you know derivative that uh you know the financial sector created just to create financial return financial profits there's no productive you know uh value to this kind of activity we are essentially validating the financialization of the economy through qe in order to uh to prevent some sort of financial global class collapse could we have done it differently of course we could have made companies whole we could have made households whole we could have made big industrial you know firms whole we didn't have to necessarily to rescue the financial sector which is the way we went about this and so um i don't quite believe that the qe is what fed an asset bubble it definitely supported values of assets that had no value the market suddenly realized these are not worth anything and so we supported those assets it's that we permit the financial sector to do what it does that feeds this financial bubble and we don't have the regulations i don't think interest rates are going to do the job or stopping qe will stop this kind of speculative behavior so is the banking sector captured in many ways and one of the most important ways is ideology is this this belief this this deep belief that somehow we have to manage our economic affairs through this this construction the private market rather than acknowledge the powers that we have in our public institutions and deploy them.
AT:47:00
i mean but part of the appeal of bond financing things isn't just that uh you know rich investors get their payments but that it's a way of circumventing democratic deliberation too right that's part of the benefits like oh well sorry you know we we have to pay back the bondholders so democracy goes out the window right so there's all this value added for the one percent even that is such a mythology like what is a bondholder the bondholder is not financing the government the government is providing the bondholder an opportunity to earn interest so it's completely upward absolutely not a necessity that's right we don't we don't need to have i like to have treasuries in my retirement portfolio okay it's the default risk-free asset but uh it's not for pacifying the bondholders that we need to be doing all this so we got we're getting i'm just trying to bring in the questions from the q a which there's a lot of great stuff but nicole brummer said the bailouts and the crisis were like a jubilee but only for the rich one percent so we're saying yes indeed we could call these a kind of jubilee how to make sure the jubilee isn't stolen by the rich well we i mean my sense is we haven't figured that out because we don't have enough counter power debtors aren't organized creditors are um there's all this ideology we have to debunk but curious if other people have some thoughts about that moving forward so the next emergency isn't as profitable.
SK:48:20
yeah i mean that i think that's a very good point and that comes back to the power structure talk to michael and i'm having a difference of opinion over there uh because at the moment the power is entirely uh vested with the creditors and they dominate how the government thinks as well we need to break that nexus uh i i would rather break it by a way that actually shuts them up by stuffing money in their mouth which is what they seem to prefer to have to do rather than trying to decapitate them because i've got a feeling that at the moment um they have a more powerful way of arguing than i have i wouldn't like to see an abraham's track uh abram's tanks turning up outside my house because my arguments were a debt for a debt jubilee um so uh we we do have in the current situation they will take over everything so if you remember back when obama i was supposed to be our progressive uh president um there was is part of the proposal to solve the cri the financial crisis was enormous amount of mortgage reset that never happened what did happen with that gigantic transfer from from uh from what eventually became qe and just to elaborate on pavlina to some extent uh when qe takes place that is fundamentally the central bank with an unlimited capacity literally unlimited getting reserves for for financial institutions in return for bonds now when they do that with banks that are just an asset swap but the bank can't do anything with that money but when they buy them off non-bank financial institutions which frankly are owned by the banks then those are the financial institutions end up with reserves they can't get any investments burned out of so they go and buy shares so and all housing uh so in that sense yes qe did directly boost house prices through the purchases of bonds off the non-bank financial sector.
AT:50:10
so there's lots of great questions here here's a provocative one from one of our hosts at the uh hannah rentz center um if we abolish this is kind of utopian begins with the utopian premise in a way if we abolish taxes and abolished debt it was gone um and the government spends to provide welfare and services don't we experience incredible inflation is that sustainable so that is from roger berkowitz.
MH:
uh it's not of course it's sustainable because right now you have a choice either the banks create credit and charge interest on it or the government creates credit and spends into the economy uh why is the government money any more inflationary than uh bank money the fact is that when the government spends money into the economy it's usually on infrastructure on payments to people and the production and consumption economy when banks lend money create money they create it just like uh the government prints money but they created for people to bid up the price of houses for people to take over other corporations they bought to buy assets not for goods and services so the government creating uh this money that banks are creating is actually much less inflationary it will not increase the price the cost of housing it will not uh increase stocks and bonds it will just be spent into the economy uh and the fact that the government creates it as opposed to somebody else is doesn't mean a thing.
SK:51:40
i'm going to come back to michael have a good argument here we've been at this for a long time uh but i'm actually going to point out that one of the problems with this is that if you look at the scale of government spending back there for the first world war it literally thought in the american economy government spending was less than five percent of gdp now if you finance that by spending without taxation that's not a problem because you actually want your economy to impact before we hit ecological crisis which is another question i've seen there before we hit the ecological limits you wanted the money supply to be growing by about at least five percent per annum to enable commerce to continue expanding in an expanding economy but now when you when you go up after the stage of big government which occurred after the second the great depression at the second world war government spending is the order of 30 of gdp now if you injected 30 of udp every year into the economy with money that does not itself depreciate then you would have runaway inflation so the problem actually is not just the the the creation of money the need for taxation and so on it's the thing we actually create allegedly has a value which remains constant and doesn't fall now gazelle keynes praised the monetary theorist gazelle by saying gazelle's idea of depreciating money was a very effective idea that you could create money and if you didn't use it it depreciated rapidly and that was actually used in the the town of wargle during the second world during during the great depression to fight the the collapse of the economy caused by the credit system failing and wargle ended up having full employment until they were shut down by the austrian central bank so it is actually fundamentally the fact that money is set up so that it shouldn't depreciate when in fact when you look at an ecological sense and a social sense maybe we should have created a form of money that depreciated on its own and then you could have had government spending whatever scale was necessary and the money depreciating over time without needing taxation to cancel its excess create creation compared to the scale of economic activity in the economy.
AT:
so i want to yeah go for it and then.
PT:
i have this because i kind of agree with both government spending is not inherently inflationary but government spending without taxation as steve keane is saying is very large contribution to the economy and tax taxes retrieve some of this purchasing power but i would go even further let's go back to the history of money that that the role of the tax is very important in the launch of units of account and uh of what you might call like you know the the state money so what is the purpose of the tax it is that the purpose is to transfer resources to the public sector and so if we abolish that if that has implications for the value of the currency currently occur you know without a doubt but also it has implications for this transfer of resources from the public private to the public domain and so i'm very willing and happy to entertain ideas of collective provisioning but clearly the tax serves this function of providing some sort of resource to the public sector which today we expect that will be then redistributed in a more equitable way real resource not money.
AT:
so i want to take us uh i want to take us back to the ecological question that came up in the last session in a minute but first there's quite a few questions actually here about student debt which is what we advertised the panel to be about so i just want to read a couple of them and i think i might be missing some sorry uh nay uh uh nejla asks how is the national student debt forgiveness program likely to affect university enrollments wouldn't it need to be paired with a future solution such as free college is that problematic i do want to say you know and this is partly a david graberism we actually reject the term forgiveness which implies a that the the borrower did something wrong part of why we try to use uh words like cancellation uh abolition etc uh and then this ties another question if i can find it related there's a um in dr graber's book [ __ ] jobs he had proposed universal basic income as a potential solution in reducing the leverage and balance between workers employers could this be a potential solution to reduce and eliminate student debt i think there were some others as well but people want to speak on any of those.
SK:
i'll just dive into the the extending for education is one of the classic cases in which the government can spend money into the economy and not have a bureaucrat decide how it gets spent you give it to the students and say you spend it and in that sense it's the it's almost the perfect means for government money creation when one of the replies about government creation is you don't want bureaucrats deciding what to do you want consumers and you want entrepreneurs well give it to the students they'll spend they're the consumers and it will turn up and the entrepreneurs will try to make make gain out of the student spending and and that is a very creative way for government spending to be undertaken and the the travesty that's one reason i'm delighted not to be in the university sector anymore the travesty of what student debts how students thought about their education and how a bunch of moronic uh bureaucratic uh capitalists took over universities and screwed them up completely uh we'd be of a far better university sector it was completely government-funded and the entry requirements were not with how much money you borrowed but how many how many brain cells you had and how well you didn't examine how creative you were that should be the barrier to getting into universities the university should be run by the academic not run by the bloody bureaucrats and the debt financiers.
MH:
there's a simpler way of explaining uh this point all over most of the world education is free uh and for most of the world throughout history education has been free it's a public utility just like there is public health that's free what is the there's no need to charge a penny for education china doesn't pay uh other countries uh have free education america is unique in uh charging an enormous amount of uh for for education that should be a free public utility where you get there by as you say with brains.
PT:
yeah and this is how i see universal basic income you know uh this is a basic income that is a guaranteed uh you know free access to you know what we consider to be the basic essentials of life uh what is social security it is an income guarantee because we a society we have decided that we don't want people to be working in their old age um free public education free um health care i think um i think the i the idea here is to rethink what the good life is and how we can attain it the idea that somehow a income grant alone addresses these kind of deep structural questions i think uh you know i would challenge that i think that basic income guarantees are essential uh for many people who are not participating in in whatever we call a market economy but we also want to think about the structural aspects how we provide this quality of life i can give you thirty thousand dollars a year and you cannot buy health insurance rent and all the other things on the market today.
AT:
um wonderful i'm going to actually self-promote here and put a little film in the uh chat that is called you are not alone that i released earlier this year that has some discussion of what you know free pub we really need if we're going to have couple student debt cancellation with free public college we have to make sure that it's abundant that there are now so all sorts of you can have you know a public good that isn't offered at the scale that it's needed and there can be other inequalities that manifest in that so it kind of gets into some of those deeper questions and problems um the ecology point uh because people raised this in the last fight club i think it's it's important you know where how does this all hook into the problem of growth um i mean i see two ways one is you know debt and interest locks us into a model of endless growth right the idea we're gonna have more tomorrow than we have today so we're pushed to exploit planet and people more but then also when we talk about that jubilee we often go it'll boost the economy it'll be great there'll be growth um i don't know is that is there a contradiction there uh how does you know we're we're we're in an ecological crisis let's talk about it kevlin you want to go first you're on camera.
PT:
yes sure happily i mean i i turned to graber again you know uh the the concept of the human economy that you know everything is premised on on care our entire existence is premised on care it's not on an economy and an economy this economy is a construct you know it's a modern construct but if we kind of really think deeply about the human condition of what we do even in a capitalist economy on our daily life what we do is we take care of our children of ourselves or our friends we entertain each other we feed each other we educate each other like the vast majority of our work is actually care work but we have just you know commodified it in this particular way so the the environment is this kind of crucial dimension because it's existential uh you know we can't quite reproduce a society if we have cannibalized you know the very basic resources on which we vitally depend so like you know for me it is like a fundamental rethinking of what what is work what the economy is doing what its purpose is why do we have even this market what is it supposed to deliver to us and if it cannot why aren't we delivering it in other ways it's it's a kind of reimagining so the the climate concern is i think you know the the conversation is quite correct you know growth cannot be a measure of success in pretty much anything and accept you know the profit returns and so with respect to these very large existential questions um we need to be thinking about the how to's and uh you know technology not just purely technical solutions but also the social implications of these technical solutions.
SK:1:02:00
i'm going to dive in with my other work which is actually on climate change and economics and uh i i have been if there's only one thing that's horrified me more about the thinking of managing economists and how they treat money it's how they've treated the ecology uh the stuff which nord house got a nobel prize for is garbage that should never have been published and what's come after that is even even worse uh the the ridiculousness they are actually talking about a six degree increase in temperature causing no more than a ten percent fall in gdp as a recent paper saying that if we lose every major tipping point on the planet gdp will be 1.4 percent lower than if we didn't lose the amazon of the gulf stream greenland the arctic west antarctic it's ludicrous it's nonsense it's garbage that means we're actually on the energy cusp of gigantic ecological crisis and the only way out of it i'm afraid in my opinion is to it to finance at the monetary side of this we have to be spending on carbon rather than spending on money so i'll put a set of proposals together called carbon rationing and if you search for carbonrationing.org you'll find those ideas developed by a guy called adam hardy in the first instance and the idea there is that we'd have a parallel of two tubes price systems uh you'd get a universal carbon credit which you'd have to spend as well as spending money uh the universal carbon credit be given out equally richard murdoch would get the same carbon credit that michael hudson got uh but of course michael hudson would never exhaust his carbon credit whereas rupert would run out in half a minute and have to buy it off michael and that would be a form of redistribution of wealth as well as a way of limiting the damage we do for the carbon we're putting out into the into the atmosphere.
MH:1:03:39
there is a particular relevance to global warming and pollution to what we're talking about debt uh think of the economy of debt pollution the debt uh is growing exponentially as steve has shown uh and any rate of interest is a doubling time uh think of all this growth of debt this savings that uh charges interest that's growing exponentially this is like carbon into the atmosphere the models are really very similar and in both cases uh this exponential growth stiffens stifles the economy.
SK:
and economists are responsible mainstream economists but frankly neoclassical economics has to go the most dangerous thing for capitalism is not these lefties here talking about dead evolution it's near classical economics avoiding the real issues in capitalism.
MH:
probably.
AT:
i mean what it also ties back into how we began this which is the the public money could do a lot of things like finance a green new deal right like finance adjust transition that i mean that i think is also the the debt logic the ideology we're in prevents us from saying hold on we have the money to finance the transformation we need to make sure everyone's taken care of right like that is that's that's kind of the core of of it um i want to ask a question here just because i think it's uh something that we're all hearing about um which is the inflation narrative um this question is one of the first ones we got um as the inflation narrative is increasingly being discussed in the mainstream media as a phenomenon that disproportionately punishes the poor versus the rich well economic theory recognizes that inflation um operates as a transfer of wealth from savers to debtors what role might inflation play in modern debt jubilee or you know does this conversation give us any tools to reject the the narrative we're hearing about inflation right now.
SK:
again pardon me jumping in quickly uh inflation can actually be seen as an accidental form of gazellian money uh the inflation uh actually reduces the debt burden if the if the money in circulation is falling in value uh while the uh actually if the inflation is occurring it's actually reducing the real value of debt and that actually is a lubricating thing for the the global economy and since the debt is mainly owned by the 99 cents of the one percent i see that inflation actually benefiting up to a certain point not not in hyperinflation obviously but benefiting the poor at the expense of the bridge and that's one reason why the rich are so anti-inflation so um i think in michael there's done plenty of work on that issue as well so uh inflation i would see it as some when it's below hyperinflation levels uh it is actually it actually benefits the poor more than the rich.
PT:1:06:30
i mean i'll step in here and so inflation is one of those other mis-theorized macro phenomena by by the profession that has been used so effectively to like justify all sorts of things like we constantly use inflation as um not providing enough support for the economy or to me you know using unemployment to fight inflation i mean that is just like extraordinary feat of neoclassical economics to say that working people have to be the bulwark against inflation there's no other phenomena that is like supposed to be our defense against you know the dark inflation so it's it's just that there is just this mythology that we can't achieve both full employment price stability number two inflation is used to uh constantly disempower government spending because the assumption is the government spending is inherently inflationary which we know it is not correct the pandemic bears it out we spend a third of the economy in one year and we see all the inflation coming in from the private sector from bottlenecks from supply chains for from logistical problems from shutting down various sectors in the economy globally and on top of it this is very well exploited by firms we just saw today the bloomberg article that the first giant corporations in the united states are posting record profits since the 50s they're exploiting this kind of partly media fueled fear of inflation a customer has resigned themselves that this is inevitable they're not gonna run away from their um from the firm but also their monopsonists like where are we gonna go and buy our stuff when we have this huge concentration of power and so they're using the pricing power that they have to be able to extract profit margins that are far higher i think inflation is definitely concerning to people and that can be a destabilizing social force and you want to mind you know how you know what happens to to folks purchasing power how they perceive this but there are ways to deal with this that are not um you know sacrificing uh growth in employment uh well-being etc finally what if there is inflation are we going to let the planet burn i do like this to me that doesn't even make sense like we we cannot wait we can't like structure the right commercial return or wait for the right inflation or get the right private interest to do the job we have public money we have a crisis we need to mobilize it immediately and we need to deal with it then we tackle inflation there are ways you know to deal with structure and i think there are examples of just you know structurally dealing with inflation around the world but uh i'll stop here.
AT:
yeah there's a really uh um sorry we're a little all over the place but that's that's that's a live chat here i think this one is it was is important though all around the world rising housing prices are locking out first-time buyers or forcing them to take out enormous mortgages will a debt jubilee on mortgages affect housing affordability uh you know and not everyone can take out a mortgage right that's forcing a lot of people to be renters but it is striking that we have historically low mortgage rates you know uh they really went down after the pandemic you know when you see mortgage rates of 2.85 or 3 you sure don't see that on credit cards or payday loans or other kinds of consumer debt um so it feels like there's lots of interesting things to talk about uh this and and um uh someone who who feels inspired to take it um and i'm also hearing resonances of michael's comments about the ren the victim moratorium's ending and i think it's important to underscore that yes people have had eviction more terms but that rent has been piling up right it wasn't a cancellation of people's rent so some estimates are saying people owe 50 billion 70 billion dollars of back rent um there's not michael go for it.
SK:
you're muted michael animate yourself.
MH:
it has to be said now can you hear me okay this question came up in the third century bc in sparta the king decided that uh the spartans were so much in debt he was going to cancel the debts uh and uh one of his relatives uh his uncle actually convinced them only cancel the mortgage debt well it turns out to cancel the mortgage debts who had the mortgages the the rich people if you cancel the mortgage debts donald trump will be the richest man in the country the most commercial property owners have um one percent or a tenth of a percent of their capital it's all debt you would be giving the biggest giveaway of wealth in american history to the large commercial uh in uh mortgage uh uh property owners that all of a sudden wouldn't have to pay the banks at all so the last thing you want to do is to give it away there is a way around this you would have to if you are going to cancel the debts on mortgage you want to make sure that the government gets all of that rental value that you're just giving away to the uh to the absentee owners by uh a property tax which is uh what what china's doing uh look at what happened in russia russia could have got back all of the mineral wealth and the housing that uh we also gave away simply by taxing away all of the revenue from what it gave away so if you do cancel the mortgages you'd have to replace it with a with a full taxation uh so that you don't give a free lunch to the most heavily indebted people the richer most of the debts the rich are the biggest debtors and you don't want to forgive the debts of the rich you want to forget the debts that people like also.
SK:1:12:00
and that's then that's why i talk in terms of the modern debt you believe rather than the old traditional one because i if i modeled this in in manifesto you would have a modern day jubilee which would give you 100 000 per person to repay your debts and therefore rupert murdoch would have your debt for by a hundred thousand dollars and pavlina would have a debt fall by a hundred thousand dollars i think rupert would noted rather less than papalina so the idea is to do this at an equal level an equal footing create the money is the government's capacity to do that and therefore it dramatically reduces the debt of the poor and in fact the poor could end up being net positive uh while the rich still have those debts they don't get out of it so we have to think intelligently about how to do this and also i saw one question there about the housing issue uh getting rid of the mortgage that's below the mortgage of the poor rather than the rich um you would still have the capacity for this for the banking sector to recreate it and get us back in an asset bubble again and empirical research my own modeling shows that what actually causes rising house prices is rising levels of new mortgage debt so the way to stop that is to say and this is again it means a political shift as well to achieve it is to say that banks can no longer lend as much as they like for a house they can lend say for example no more than 10 times the annual rental income for a house now that would remove the amplifying feedback that currently exists between new mortgages and house prices get rid of that and and therefore you get rid of what's actually causing the bubbles in the first place.
MH:1:13:37
that's exactly what happened in 1960s when i came to new york that's how things work uh banks would not lend uh anyone uh where the debt service uh was more than 25 of their income and now it's uh everything's been removed you're absolutely right this is how to do it the three of us are all talking about the economy as a system not separating uh debt in one part from another and cutting it apart we're looking at the overall system and that's not what uh uh neoclassical economics does.
AT:
papalina do you have thoughts on this or should we move on no yeah i mean i think just like we talk about a student that jubilee coupled with free public college we there's a problem with how we approach housing we have to approach our housing as a speculative asset instead of something that we live in and so there's all sorts of forms of social housing and other ways to provide for that human uh need so as we as we get towards the end i want to start asking questions that maybe uh are even even a bit pushed the envelope a bit further so i want to mix two one from um uh one from chad elsin he asked how much power are we willing to give to the government to manage our lives by giving it the control of the financial water we swim in i want to combine that with a question from nica that i just have to find uh um our wonderful uh co-host asks uh so the cat so um so the capital is power you say that the state or the palace is obviously better than private creditors i'm interested in whether a situation with more democratic distribution of power is possible or in other words what would a society look like where wealth is not automatically converted to power um so both of these kind of loop us back to some of the original questions about the creditor being the state or the private sector and add some wrinkles.
SK:
i think that's i think that's a very both very good questions framing uh the one of the strongest arguments people make against government money as that'll let bureaucrats control what happens rather than letting the public rather than letting private entrepreneurs control it spend the university sector and seeing the amount of money wasted by bureaucratic initiatives there i'm sympathetic to part of that argument so we do have to consider how do we stop uh people who's letting a subset of society control the rest of society and that again is why things like spending on infrastructure on education uh on health uh by the government over the government funds those entirely uh removes that issue you decide how much of your economy should be spent in education how much should be spent on health the government provides that money and then that money goes out through the professionals who decide how it should be spent and the individuals receive it they also decide how that money is spent so we don't have to get caught up in the situation where a bunch of bureaucrats make stupid rules uh that waste money and so on and of course at the same time i'm going to come back because they have a lot of very gifted bureaucrats and we need to get back to the stage where we can see people in the public sector being there for public service reasons we need to get that that ideology back into place and part of the nonsense buchanan has given us where we always regard bureaucrats is bad but out of that we've actually had a lot of bad bureaucrats and we need to reform the government side of things almost as much as the private money system.
PT:1:17:00
so i would answer this um to say that it's not so much that the state per se is the issue but the way the state is governed and captured right and so which would be the disempowering narratives that we want to tackle head on for mmt it's very clear taxes do not pay for government spending that immediately disempowers the wealthy class we don't need the taxes of the rich we don't need them to fund our policy priorities because we have institutions that are perfectly capable to fund what we desire and so you see this dichotomy of people supporting uh you know universal healthcare education etc but they are kind of surrendering to this ideology that we oh we can't do this because we need to find the pay for that is the one gridlock that we see play out over and over and over again across the globe and we need to remove this tool from the conversation from people's liking you know like understanding about money we do not depend on tax says to fund um these public priorities i also then i am thinking about various wages in which society organizes itself right because we try together to to fill gaps where the state has not contributed right if we don't have universal health care we have solidarity economy if we don't have and we certainly can't expect that there will be a bureaucrat that can come into my community and say well you should do this this and this like the community knows like their environmental needs care needs this is where my own work comes in that you can actually deploy you can actually effectively do ground up support these networks solidarity networks endless variety of communities associations you name it that can that are already doing the kind of care work that we've been talking about but they are disconnected from this like important source of finance and they're captured in the ideology that they need private credit or some attacks from somewhere so i would you know i would actually bring these these two um to chain the paradigm the parents.
MH:
1:19:00
give the footnote to nobody has ever said uh you have to pay as you go when it comes to military spending somehow nobody's ever said where are we going to get the money they only say it when it comes to spending into the economy that you and i are talking about uh the people.
AT:
yeah well it's good to tax the rich too they don't have so much money to buy the political influence they have which you know .
PT:
absolutely this is this is absolutely and i think you know i would go back to the initial conversation you know i mean how high a tax do we do we need and the the concentration of wealth is so high that taxing income is not going to do the job you know do it 90 okay we've done it before but it's just not going to disrupt these other processes by which wealth is accumulating and so you need to think structurally about just removing these opportunities to make money like that would be my preference of restructuring the economy um and then you know yes you should tax certain activities out of existence you know but i wouldn't even say tax you just ban you know a certain kind of extraction you know maybe you know predatory practices you know regulatory tools can be used for that.
AT:
well somebody here asks you know are we avoiding the p word for planning it sounds that this is dt cochrane uh it sounds like we need to uh need planning to direct spending investment rather than leaving it to the market if so aren't we saying that if not how else do we get where we want and need to go.
i mean i i guess i would also just underscore another theme here which has been the way these debt relationships uh uh again circumvent or override democratic deliberation and democratic planning um you know by saying oh the again the bonds the credit rating agency says this we can't do that it's off the table um but what do you think about planning michael using.
MH:1:21:00
every economy is planned our america is the most centrally planned we're more centrally planned to china but the central planning is done by wall street not by the government every of course uh it's it's centrally planned the question is who's going to do the planning ever since the uh the neolithic you had to plan for the crops you had to plan to allocate resources the government has left the planning to the uh to the financial sector and the financial sector lives in the short run governments are supposed to live in the long term so we're talking about uh short-term people looking at what they can grab in the next three months of the year uh and what uh steve keane's model and i are talking about or the long-term uh which is uh the public point of view.
AT:
pavlina?
PT:
yeah i mean you know institutionalists this is a kind of a starting point for institutionalist economic theory that you know uh planning is always there the question is who does the planning you know in the early roaring twenties is the cartels and the trust and then it was the corporate sector um we have always had planning minsky's work which is kind of you know evolutionary institutionalist financial theory you know he argues that there was a short period of time where we had um kind of a managerial economy where the public sector took the larger role of public investment directing public investment employment that was right around world war ii and soon thereafter but then we quickly liberalized and then we had planning by the financial sector as michael uh pointed out.
so that i think that that you know it's a dirty word but i think it's absolutely unavoidable if you just look a little closely more closely at just the institutional structure and the evolution of the economy and you know there are questions we have to ask going forward you know how we tackle climate uh responses and if if our insistence is that we're gonna have some you know private um you know mega corporations through incentives and nudges that they will do the planning i think we are definitely abdicating our democratic responsibility um uh yeah.
AT:
so i want to close this out with a really simple and elegant uh question and maybe we can channel david graber a bit who had some um but they asked would the abolition of debt also abolish borrowing right um or are we always borrowing each other and owing things is it something else that's a problem but yeah maybe uh pavlina begin with you and then we'll go to steve and then michael and we'll close up.
PT:
i i think that the question has certain premise that maybe i'm i'm not super comfortable with because you know for me uh in the graveyard sense right money is connected to debt but that is not social obligation and that's not something that we can kind of cancel and abolish we have this kind of you know a sense of reciprocation to one another and however we trace the history of those relationships money has been there and so money uh to me represents that i know what i think the question is asking that we are having this you know dependence on privately created private debt and i think that that you know requires restructuring but can you stop me from giving you a loan i don't know if that is a possibility the question is like what do we do with that.
SK: 1:24:00
i've i think we've taken the current circumstances we're in of a debt cri ecological crisis coming our way then we have to in that situation we have to fundamentally redefine money now if we think about the question about planning beforehand uh largely near classical economics and mainstream capitalist ideologies to let the entrepreneurs and let the business people decide how to plan they'll get it right well that was true wouldn't be facing an ecological crisis they are short-term thinkers we do need the long-term and the government is normally the repository that long-term thinking the trouble is of course their interests have been captured by the financial class and we've that's that's why we've delayed action on climate change for 50 years now if we have to redefine money in the context of an ecological crisis then most of the money has to be created in response to our ecological needs and that's where i my idea of a of a parallel carbon uh currency and universal carbon credits would be part of that to limit what we spend because country we've spent too much we as the human society on this planet takes up far too much of them well.
MH:
regarding debt cancellation.
SK:
resources and that is actually undermining us and destroying our capacities.
MH:
regarding debt cancellation when i began my uh uh harvard group on the history of debt in the 1990s uh the argument by archaeology by the right wing uh archaeologists and anthropologists was you couldn't possibly cancel the debts in uh uh in mesopotamia because who would ever lend money well obviously as soon as they cancel the debts it all began as pavlina said all began all over again and uh so then the uh people uh the uh right-wingers said you see it didn't work canceling doesn't work it begins all over again well of course it begins all over again it does work in wiping out the overhead of death and then the whole thing will begin all over again until society lets too much debt accumulate and when too much debt accumulates then you turn on the therm the debt thermostat and you wipe it out uh and that happened again and again uh with every new ruler in the bronze age in mesopotamia uh also all throughout antiquity uh so that's just a false argument that uh these people not only don't read history they try to prevent uh anthropological history from being uh read or or published uh just because it's ideologically against their uh right-wing pro-creditor arguments.
thank you all we're definitely seeing a war on history these days um uh so you know we know from history the debt cancellation debt jubilee is possible but i fully believe we need to build better power to get there so please join the debt collective um get organized our slogan one of our many slogans is you are not alone a space l-o-a-n one thing that does is it isolates us uh you know there's stigma there's shame so a first step is overcoming that and banding with others i'm gonna pass the mic to tara from the hanaren center so thanks all for being here.
HA:
um on behalf of this uh hannah aren't center and um uh all of our co-sponsors nika the museum of care pavlina and economic democracy initiative i want to just thank everybody for this fascinating excellent relevant topical discussion and um pavlina steve michael astra thank you for your tremendous moderating and um i hope that you all stay in contact with our organizations including astros debt collective the hannah rent center you can google us find us at bar.edu see more of our events um we have active youtube channels and i know nika there is there are more fight clubs coming up and it sounds like this conversation is still just getting started that's that's my my my feeling um that we could still keep going so and thank you most of all to our audience for staying engaged posing such great questions and um really pushing this conversation where it needed to go okay everyone thank you again good night.
文字起こし
ーーーーーーーーー
TN：
こんばんはおはようございます。私の名前はタラニーダムです。ニューヨーク州ハドソンバレーにあるバード大学の政治と人類のためのハンナアレントセンターのアシスタントアカデミックディレクターです。非常に多くの人々が私たちの債務と金融資本についてのこの非常に重要な会話のためにログオンしてログインしているのを見るのはとても興奮していますまた、このイベントをケア博物館やバード大学の経済民主主義イニシアチブと共催することに興奮しています。ミカ・ドゥブロフスキーが私たちにアプローチしたとき、私たちは彼女がドストエフスキーが呪われた質問と呼んだものを議論するための公共スペースを作成することを目的としたプロジェクトの博物館。ハンナレントセンターは同様に、レントの精神で大胆で危険な思考を促進します。そこにある私たちの時代の差し迫ったトピックに関するアイデアの議論のためのフォーラムを作成することを目指しています」債務と金融資本が、家賃の民主主義の自由に大きな関心を寄せているトピックに計り知れない問題であることに疑いの余地はありません。センターは必然的にパネリストのすべての見解に同意または承認しますが、私たちの目標は再び活発な議論を招き、促進することです。参加者が質問に敬意を表して挑戦し、今夜提示された見解を明確にすることを願っています。故ソ連のスクワットとサミザットの非公式な文化的シーンで育ったアーティストであり作家であるニコ・ダブロフスキーを紹介します。多くの出版物のために書かれ、テルアビブ美術館ガレリアノヴァザグレブショールームロンドンファブリカモスコウとアペックスアートニューヨークで展示されました。ミカと友人たちは、世界中の250か所で開催されたデビッドのカーニバルを組織しました。デビッドのカーニバルは、アカデミアの活動と現代美術の交差点で今夜のようなプロジェクトを作成しているケア博物館の非公式なコミュニティに進化しました。パネリストと参加者全員。sデスミカと友人たちが世界中の250か所で開催されたデイビッドのカーニバルデイビッドのカーニバルは、今夜のようなプロジェクトを作成しているケア博物館の非公式なコミュニティに発展しました。パネリストと参加者全員をニカに。sデスミカと友人たちが世界中の250か所で開催されたデイビッドのカーニバルデイビッドのカーニバルは、今夜のようなプロジェクトを作成しているケア博物館の非公式なコミュニティに発展しました。パネリストと参加者全員をニカに。
NS：
だからこのイベントを主催してくれてありがとうそれ以来、多くの人がより良い方向に変わったと言います。今では多くの人が構造的暴力とは何かを認識しています。次に、作成された抽象が作成されました。アストラ・テイラーが今日私たちと一緒にいることを特に嬉しく思います。デビッドマイケルハドソンとスティーブキングの考えを共有し、すべての死は廃止されるべきであるが、それはストライキは不公平な借金をうまく買い取っています。たとえば、廃止主義者が奴隷制から人々を解放したのと本質的に同じように行動する学生の医療債務です。今日見ているすべての人に彼らを助けるように勧めたいと思います。俳優や活動家のデイビッドの友人たちと一緒に春にベルリンで開発されたハウスカルチャーで、デイビッドグラバーとトーマスホップスとデイビッドグレーバー対ジャンジャックルソーのイエスマン牧師ビリーとストップショッピング教会の救済dの間の架空の戦いを行いますこの戦いは、最初の戦いクラブで考古学者のデイビッド・ヴァン・グロと彼が書いたすべてのことについてのデイビッドの最後の本の夜明けで探求された主要なポイントです。一般の人からの質問に答える時間がないので、ボクシングの試合の精神で、私たちは戦闘マイケルハドソンに試合後の報告を行わせ、一般の人が質問をして答えを得ることができるので、スティーブキムマイケルハドソンパブリナセルノバに会い、アストラテイラー私たちに問題があると思いますかゲームで一緒に解決しましょう。
で：
みなさん、私の名前はアスターテイラーです。皆さん、私を見ることができますか、それとも大丈夫です。私の名前はアシュリーテイラーです。親切な紹介ニカに感謝します。ホストのハノランセンターとケア博物館に感謝します。私たちと私は最初のファイトクラブを非常に興味深く見ましたが、ケアとファイティングという用語のパラドックスに注目しているので、これは参加者の間で多くの合意がある愛情のこもった議論になるでしょうが、私が言うことの1つは債務免除の問題に懸命に取り組んでいる活動家と主催者私は常に批評家や批判に直面しているので、これらのアイデアを共有するときに直面する反主流論のいくつかを導くために最善を尽くしますので、私の名前はアストリッドテイラーです私になりなさい迅速ですが、ステージを設定するだけです。ええと、私の友人、照明の素晴らしいデヴィッド・グレーバーが私を採用してくれました。彼は実際にウォール街を占拠する計画セッションに私を招待してくれました。 2011年に戻って、その時点で私は最近デフォルトの学生債務者でした。私の状態は政治的であると理解していましたが、その感覚を共有する人は誰もいませんでした。あなたが知っているより広い世界が私の不正の感覚を共有しているという感覚を持っていますええと、私たちは占領するようになった多くの人々が教育のために借金をしているという認識に基づいて借金の周りに組織し始めましたヘルスケアはもちろん、それがより大きな枠組みだったのは住宅ローンの危機だったので、彼女がそれを見始めたときは借金がいたるところにありました。手紙の組合である債務集団であり、私たちは主に学生の債務のキャンセルの問題を中心に組織していますが、他の種類の債務にも取り組んでいますが、たとえば、共同創設者の一部は、完全な学生の債務のキャンセルを要求する最初の抗議を計画しました2012年に1つのtをマークする無料の公立大学学生の借金が1兆ドルを超えた日は、今では1.8兆になります。純粋な数学の観点から見ると、数学はさらに悪化していますが、ニカが正しく言ったように、債務集団のおかげで、さまざまなものが発掘されました。政府が学生の借金を取り消すことが実際に非常に可能であり、2021年だけで100億ドル以上の学生の借金を取り消すことを強制した法的メカニズムであるため、債務の取り消しは現実的な要求であることが証明されています。人気のあるものiiは、ジョージア州知事に立候補しているステイシー・アブラムズの広告を見たばかりで、彼女はキャンペーン広告で医療債務のキャンセルについて話しているので、それは時代の別の兆候だと思います。私たちを遅らせることはできますが、私たちが問題になっているのは間違いなく、この問題について一般の人々の想像力を拡大し続けるにはどうすればよいかということです。私たちは力がどこにあるかを行い、これらの問題について話し、人々が赤字の権利について心配していることを知っている一般的な懸念のいくつかに対処するための素晴らしいパネルがここにあります。個人債務と公的債務がどのように関係しているかについての多くの誤解は、うまくいけば、それらのいくつかをここにまっすぐに設定することができますええと、学生の債務がキャンセルされた場合に事前に配布された資料に従って私たちが返すことができるいくつかの質問政府がお金を使い果たしてしまう可能性がありますお金とは何ですか借金とは何ですかここにあるqa関数は、前回のセッションの質問のいくつかにも対処します。nikaが言ったように、回答が得られなかったので、私はパネリストに簡単に紹介します。あなたが知っている尊敬されているマイケルハドソンは、長い間ジュビリーの問題に取り組んでおり、実際には多くの点で、債務集団の仕事のためのデビッドの仕事のインスピレーションであり、ジュビリーとより多くのマイケルハドソンの歴史と優先順位と哲学は、長期的な経済動向の研究のための研究所の所長であり、ウォール街の金融アナリストは、彼が著者であり、許しているミズーリ大学カンザスシティの経済学の著名な研究教授です。彼らの借金は2018年で、jはジャンク経済学のためのものであり、スティーブ・キーンはオーストラリアの経済学者であり、彼の著者である他の多くの本があると想定しています。sデバンキング経済学の著者であり、最近では新しい経済学マニフェストpavlina chernovaは、バード大学の経済学の准教授であり、現代貨幣理論と公共政策を専門とするレビーエコノミックスインスティテュートの研究者です。皆さんに、そして私はそれをスティーブ・キーンに渡して、最後のええとファイトクラブのセッションについていくつかの考えを提供し、多分私たちに借金についての簡単な考えを与えるつもりです。mスティーブ・キーンにそれを渡して、最後のええとファイトクラブのセッションについていくつかの考えを提供し、多分私たちに債務についてのいくつかの簡単な考えを与えるつもりです。mスティーブ・キーンにそれを渡して、最後のええとファイトクラブのセッションについていくつかの考えを提供し、多分私たちに債務についてのいくつかの簡単な考えを与えるつもりです。
SK：
さて、私の音は順調に進んでいます。まず最初に、このセッションに参加できなかったトーマス・ピケティに感謝します。主流のエコノミストが私のような批評家と関わることは非常にまれです。マイケルとパトリナなので、彼が彼の時間に非常に寛大であったことは彼への賛辞です。また、トーマスが私とどのように異なるかを特徴付けることができれば、彼は議論の中で彼の視点に非常に寛大であると思いました。彼のマグナムオーパスキャピタルは基本的に金持ちに課税し、マイケルと私が債務に関して持っている態度は債務を廃止しますええと、もちろんあなたは税金と利息の支払いが何であるか、そしてそれらはすべて流れです」年間のお金の流れsそれらがどのように命名され、課税がうまくいくかをもう一度見てみましょう。その流れの一部を金持ちから取り除いて、それを貧しい人々に向けましょう。これは、課税に対する従来の態度です。パブリナはここに入り、その税金を詳しく説明します。政府のお金がどのように作られるかについての現代の通貨理論の視点を見ると、実際には何も支払っていません政府は赤字を実行することによってそれを実行することによってお金を作成するので、政府の支出はお金を作成します資本主義経済における2つの主要な資金創出者の1つが、特定のタスクに必要な資金を生み出すことができるので、それは政府です。課税する必要があるので、この立場からの税の見方は基本的に、政府支出によって生み出された余剰金を減らすために誰の銀行口座が下がるかを課税が決定することであり、過去30年ほどから私たちが知っていることは金持ちです影響を受けるのは彼らの口座ではないことを確認するのに信じられないほど成功しているので、私たちが課税で何をするのかは、そもそもピケットの首都からの視点で何をしているのかではありません。金持ちはそれを回避するのがとても上手ですええと今マイケルと私からのポイントマイケルが彼自身のためにここで非常に効果的に詳しく説明することは確かですが、私たちが見ていることとこれは私自身の数学的モデリングから得られたものですロンティエですが、ミンスクの金融不安定性仮説の数学的モデリングでは、実際には労働者の収入シェアが直接減少します。私が書面で説明する単純なモデルでは、債務はそのモデル化されたモデルにあります。独占的にその会社によって」■モデルを開始するために私が行った単純化で、この結果は期待していませんでしたが、起こったのは、民間債務のレベルが所得のレベルを上げるにつれて、資本が会社の所有者に与える利益率が平衡レベルの周りで変化することでした労働者が倒れたのは直接的な関係であり、原因となるメカニズムをマニフェストで説明したので、ここでは詳しく説明しません。基本的に債務を減らすと、労働者に行く収入の割合が増えます。それに加えて、現代貨幣理論の場合、政府は支出するために命令を借りる必要はありません。それを賄うために税金を払う必要はありません。そのため、お金がどのように作成されるかを知的に理解すると、学生の借金などすべてが悲劇になります。他のパネリストに戻っていただきありがとうございます。
で：
それをパフリナに渡して、彼女に債務の見通しを与えたいと思います。現代貨幣理論はこれに本当に役立つのではないかと思いますが、私たちが何度も遭遇することの1つは、この仮定の人々です。それは彼らの枠組みの中で右翼のイデオロギーの一部であるため、州はあなたがこの限られた方法であなたのベルトと予算を締めるために得たお金を使い果たすことができることを知っている家庭のようなものであることを知っているので、多分私はそれについてコメントすると思いますあなたがそれに触発されれば素晴らしいでしょう。
PT：午後3時30分
ええ、ありがとうございます。招待してくれてありがとうございます。まずは、私たちが日常生活で持っているパラドックスについてのデビッド・グレイバーのコメントです。政府は家庭として振る舞わなければならないという考え、特にその財政問題に関しては、私たちがそのような神話を作成したのが好きなパラドックスの1つであり、このumを受け入れる文化は基本的に欠陥があります。 'sはすべて、お金の起源に関するお金の歴史に関する完全に欠陥のあるお金の理解に基づいて構築されており、私は今それをすべて説明することはしませんが、非常に基本的な単純な現実を考えると、私たちのポケットの中の通貨は、1つの場所と1つの場所だけから来ており、それは、基本的な定型化された事実を考えると、公共部門から来ているということです。究極の手段が問題を見つけるとき、政府はその費用を支払うために私たちからお金を得る必要があるのは事実かもしれません。民間債務私たちはすべてのレベルで私的ええとお金の創造があります私たちはそれを説明するためにこの階層モデルを使用しますが、公的通貨は理論化されていないため、政府は通貨を発行するために、そして昔でも金をスタンプするためにこの特権を持っていました彼らがこの特権を持っていたコインは、納税や債券購入債券の販売の形でそれを取り戻す前に、最初に通貨を提供する必要があります。したがって、mmtが基本的に強調しているのは、因果関係が完全に逆さまになっていることです。■逆に、発行者は、ユーザーが政府証券を購入するために税金を支払うために使用する前に通貨を提供する必要があるため、mmtの観点からの基本的な貢献は、政府が自己資金であるということですが、政府の種類も調べる必要がありますあなた'私たちがこれらの神話を採用したので、政府は家計のように振る舞わなければならないので、これらの通貨制度でこれらの通貨制度を作成しました。自国の通貨を放棄する国、または植民地の通貨を実際に継承する国を知るために支払うために、彼らは国内経済問題を管理する上で多くの点で根本的に制約されていることを知っています。私たちがどのような通貨制度を採用しているのかを見てみましょう。経済目標を達成するためにどのような制度設計を行っているかを再検討すると、mmtからのレッスン2は、これらの任意の比率の債務対赤字債務対gdp赤字対gdp比に焦点を当てることです。本当に赤いニシン彼らは私たちの注意を重要な問題からそらします政府は政府の民主的な政治要求としてどのような政策を費やすのか政府はどのように費やすのかそして私たちは政府がお金を持っていないというこの誤ったイデオロギーに彼らを降伏させましたそして、それは家のようにそのペニーをつまむ必要があることを私はここで一時停止します、そして私たちはこれをさらに運ぶことができます。
で：
掘り下げることはたくさんありますが、マイケルはこれらのコメントを検討して回答し、さらに深く掘り下げる前に、前回のセッションで話せなかったことを言ってください。
MH：
ポーリンは、公的債務は問題ではない、私的債務は問題だと言ったとき、まったく正しいので、スティーブ・キーンが議論の中で浮かび上がってきた問題に取り組んでいたので、私はそれを取り上げたいと思います。ピケッティングでの議論ええと、ピケッティは、人々をより平等にするために富に課税したかったのです。問題は、税金が既存の経済構造をそのままにしておくことです。まだ学生の借金がありますあなたはまだ破産しているであろう差し押さえがありますしかしええと、金持ちの何人かは政府に貧しい社会の費用のいくらかを支払わなければならないでしょうええと、税金はええと、スティーブと私が話している問題に対処していると思います。経済には本当の構造的な問題があります。は借金を抱えており、ほとんどの借金は人口の1％に負っています。この借金を支払うと、債務者の可処分所得が少なくなります。学生の借金を支払うと、住宅ローンを購入する余裕がないためです。家ええと住宅所有者私は住宅ローンの借金を支払わなければなりませんええと商品やサービスを買う余裕がありませんええとクレジットカード会社自動車ローンええとええとスティーブと私はこの借金をキャンセルする必要性について言っていることに同意したくない人々のほとんどそれは経済を破産させていることはよくありますそれはそれの選択ではありません」借り手と債務者の間の自発的な掘り出し物なぜあなたは自由市場と自発的な掘り出し物に干渉したいのですか？掘り出し物はあなたのお金またはあなたが家を望むあなたの人生ですあなたは借金をしなければなりませんええとあなたはあなたが学位を取得しなければならないでしょうあなたの両親がええと銀行家であるかあなたが置くのに十分なお金を持っていない限りあなたはあなたが借金をしなければならないだろう学位を取得しなければなりませんええと、ほとんどの歴史のほとんどの死は自発的ではありませんでした彼らは延滞でした彼らは土地の耕作者でしたええと作物の失敗がありました彼らは借金を支払うことができなかった戦争がありましたほとんどの借金はちょうどでしたええと、できなかった通常の収入支払われるべきであり、債権者は、コベント危機のような社会の不幸を、お金を稼ぐ機会として利用しています。ここニューヨークでは、私たち全員が今、たくさんの人々がいます。多くの人が仕事を失いましたええと、これらの人は借家人で家賃を払えないか、住宅ローンを払えない家を購入した場合、モラトリアムの入札がありました。通りに出ているこれらすべての人々は2月に期限が切れるモラトリアムがあります。2月に数万人のニューヨーク人が追い出されて通りに投げ出され、彼らの家は売りに出されます。ええと、これらの家のすべてを拾うので、スティーブと私が話しているのは、債務が均衡状態にないということです。債務は指数関数的に増加し、それは結局、経済全体を飲み込むことになります。債務を抱えて経済を二極化し、縮小させますか、それとも、99％までのローンに投資された1％の節約を書き留めたいですか。なぜあなたは借金を維持して経済を二極化し、縮小させたいのか、それとも99％までのローンに投資された1％の貯蓄を書き留めたいのかを選択することができます。なぜあなたは借金を維持して経済を二極化し、縮小させたいのか、それとも99％までのローンに投資された1％の貯蓄を書き留めたいのかを選択することができます。
で：
ええ、この時点で彼らがあなたのお金を稼いでいることを知っている債務集団からの1つのフレーズは、私たちが私たちの手段を超えて生きているので私たちは債務を負っていないということですが、私たちは生きる手段を拒否されているので私は死んだジュビリーの債務廃止は社会的規定と結びついていることに誰もが同意していると私は確信していると思いますd土地を取り戻すか、生き残るための手段を知っているが、あなたはあなただ人々が基本的に知っているという本当に重要なポイントを作り直すと、これは私たちが話している債務者の中で毎日のように私たちが見ているものです。非常に多くの人々にとっての問題は、人々を貧しくすることを知っていますが、人々を病気にすることも知っています、そしてそれを裏付ける証拠はたくさんありますが、人々は仕事で過小に支払われてから借りることを余儀なくされています生き残るために、これは間違いなく富を引き出す手段であり、金持ちを金持ちにし、貧乏人を貧しくします。別の言い方をすれば、それはお金だけではありません。パワーについてですが、皆さんはそのことを思いついたのですが、誰かがそれを正しく理解するようにインスピレーションを感じていると人々は言いたいのです。不合理で公正な理由あなたはそれがなぜそんなに定着しているのか知っていますそしてそれはこれが力であるからですそれはお金を稼ぐ方法であるだけでなく人々を捕食者の親指の下に保ちますそしてデビッドグレーパーは債権者だけでなく雇用者のええと人々をします借金が民主主義を妨げ、人々を抑圧しているということを話したいのです。お金を稼ぐ方法だけでなく、人々を捕食者の親指の下に置き、デビッド・グレーパーは債権者だけでなく、雇用主のええと、借金が民主主義を妨げている限り、人々はそれを話したいのです。お金を稼ぐ方法だけでなく、人々を捕食者の親指の下に置き、デビッド・グレーパーは債権者だけでなく、雇用主のええと、借金が民主主義を妨げている限り、人々はそれを話したいのです。
MH：
ええと、人類学的に最初の死だった権力は、原始社会にいて誰かを傷つけた場合の処女の借金でした。彼の腕を壊すか、誰かを殺すか、あなたの家族が彼らと確執し、あなたはすべて戦い始めるか、あなたは賠償金を支払うでしょう。紀元前3000年にメソポタミアの農民でしたええと、あなたはクロを手に入れますええと、あなたは収穫年の間に何をしますかええと、お金はメソポタミアの農民のために年に1日使われました。s収穫時期が来たとき、彼らが地元のええとエールハウスで飲んだビールとええと彼らが負っている借金と私たちはエールハウスの記録を持っていますええとええと食べ物または馬のためにまたは水のためにええと、あなたがエールの家に行くとき、あなたはええと、今日のようにええと、タブを実行します、そしてそれはすべて収穫時にええと、すべてが支払われるでしょう、そしてええと、たまにしかそこではうまくいきませんでした作物の不作だったのか、干ばつがあったのか、ハンムラビは、人々が借金を返済できない場合はキャンセルするつもりだと言うでしょう。本当に栽培者全員が、彼らの作物をエールの女性に負わせて、借金の使用人を束縛状態にしてしまうことを望んでいます。宮殿の壁や寺院、大きな溝を建てるためのコルベーの仕事に彼らを働かせることができないでしょう、そして私たちは彼らからええと作物税を得ることができないでしょう、それで全体のアイデアの深さが想定されていました均衡を保つために、そしてそれが支払われなかったとき、すべての初期の社会はそれらを一掃しました、そしてそれはすべてギリシャとローマまで起こりましたそれは本当にローマでした。ええと、クレジットの土地で、ええと、私たちはまだローマの法律の逆流で生きています。それが私たちの法制度の問題です。西洋文明の法制度。ええと、ええと、ええと、彼らからええと、ええと、作物税を得ることができないでしょう。それで、全体の考えの深さは平衡であると思われました、そして、それが支払われなかったとき、すべての初期の社会はそれらを一掃しました、そして、ええと、そのすべては、ギリシャとロメそれは本当にロメでした。それは、借金を借金に入れ、借金を返済しなければならない手段にしたのです。問題私たちの法制度はええと、プロクレジットであり、これはローマに先立つすべての社会に反し、それが西洋文明の法制度になりました。ええと、ええと、ええと、彼らからええと、ええと、作物税を得ることができないでしょう。それで、全体の考えの深さは平衡であると思われました、そして、それが支払われなかったとき、すべての初期の社会はそれらを一掃しました、そして、ええと、そのすべては、ギリシャとロメそれは本当にロメでした。それは、借金を借金に入れ、借金を返済しなければならない手段にしたのです。問題私たちの法制度はええと、プロクレジットであり、これはローマに先立つすべての社会に反し、それが西洋文明の法制度になりました。初期の社会が彼らを一掃するたびに支払われることはありませんでした、そしてそれはすべてギリシャとローマまで起こりましたそれは本当にローマでした。ええと、私たちはまだローマ法の逆流とともに生きています。それが私たちの法制度の問題です。ええと、これはプロクレジットであり、これはローマに先立つすべての社会に反し、それが西洋文明の法制度になりました。初期の社会が彼らを一掃するたびに支払われることはありませんでした、そしてそれはすべてギリシャとローマまで起こりましたそれは本当にローマでした。ええと、私たちはまだローマ法の逆流とともに生きています。それが私たちの法制度の問題です。ええと、これはプロクレジットであり、これはローマに先立つすべての社会に反し、それが西洋文明の法制度になりました。sは西洋文明の法制度になります。sは西洋文明の法制度になります。
MH：
うん、本当に面白いええ、あなたが勝ちたいパブリナ。
PT：
iiマイケルがこの会話をしたところが大好きです。私たちがグラバーの本を見ると、借金は社会的関係であり、時間の経過とともに収益化されましたが、早い段階で、権威のある宮殿の王と主題の間にこの種の強制的な関係がありました。一種の債務である債務であり、その税は、商品や資源の生産を強制して宮殿を提供することを強制するために常に存在していました。これは避けられません。その税は、最終的には、私たちがこれらの借金とマイケルをどのように支払うかを説明してください。民間債権者が信用創出に対して非常に大きな権力を獲得したとき、農民は民間債権者に義務付けられ、トウモロコシ、大麦、穀物を宮殿に届けるという点で州に義務付けられていなかったことを示すのに非常に良い仕事です。だから宮殿は実際に死んだジュビリーをする宮殿の能力を弱めました権力はそれ自体を準備するために必要なだけでなく、あなたはそれがそれが富であることを再び知っているので、宮殿税をします」sすべての力だけでなく、彼らはまた、あなたが知っているように、corvaeの労働は公共事業であるインフラストラクチャであると知っていたので、ある種の公共財のプロビジョニングのようなものがありました。今日の税は、自国の通貨を発行する公共部門は、公共プロジェクトに資金を提供するために税金を徴収するために課税する必要はありません。商品やサービスを提供することと引き換えに機能する通貨であり、民主的な意味で議論するかもしれないことをご存知でしょう。州の私たちの期待は、今やコミュニティ全体に提供する公共商品を提供することです。これは学生の借金と関係がありますか？つまり、学生の借金は、学生の借金の大部分が公的部門によって保有されていることを実際に許すことができる債務の1つです。あなたは私的に発行された債務を知っていて、政府の保証に裏打ちされていませんが、私たちが去った研究所で示したように、実際には大きな混乱はありません。学生の借金を持っているジュビリーええと、私は広く私が思うだろうと思います確かに歴史的に強制的なメカニズムを知っているこのように税金について彼らは確かに私たちにお金と引き換えに働くことを強いる力ですそして今私たちと私たちはあなたが代表なくして課税を知っていることについてあなたが知っているさまざまなキャンペーンを知っていますこれは、集団に私たち全員のために何かをしてもらいたいという特定の民主的な需要の権利を前提としていますが、それを、お金が公的通貨で公的部門が課税する場合に何ができるかを理論化することに接続する必要がありますそしてそれが資源を引き付けるつもりであるならば、それはそれから引用なしで引用する相互の義務がありますそれは良い人生と私たちがどういうわけかそれの死をキャンセルすることができないというこの神話全体を提供します金持ちの子供たちが他の多くのことと一緒に彼らの借金をキャンセルすることは不公平であり、私たちがxyとzを行うことができるという物語を無力化するだけです。
MH：
ポーリーナが絶対だと言ったことを詳しく説明してもいいですか。学生の借金を取り消すことができる理由は、民間銀行ではなく政府にあるため、ロビー活動を行う組織はありません。民間企業に干渉することはできませんええと彼女は始めました初期の社会は、債権者の寡頭制の出現を防ぐことによってそれ自体を安定させました。d債権者が金持ちになるのを見ると、突然彼らは記録から消えてしまうでしょう。 「この労働力を軍隊として使用し、彼らは私たちを転覆させ、次にすべての法律を作成し、それから私たちはこれ以上税金を受け取らないでしょう。彼らはすべてのお金を手に入れ、彼らは新しい王になるので、ええと、たとえば中国を見ると、ええと、そのええと、私たちが学生の債務者にとって、債務が自分自身に負っている場合、債務を書き留めるのは簡単です。だからメソポタミアンは借金を書き留めることができたのです」なぜなら、彼らはすべて宮殿と寺院に負っているからです。そして、彼らはまた、民間債権者への債務が取り消され、債権者に反対することを確認するので、民主主義を維持するための鍵は、ビデン大統領が呼ぶものを持つことでした。独裁政治独裁政治とは、債権者の利益よりも公益の方が重要であると言う人のことです。
で：
本当に興味深い戦略的質問がたくさんあるように、これは本当にあなたがデッキから来ていることを知っていると思います。それが、あなたが言うように過半数が保持されていることを知っているので、まさにこの理由で学生の借金に焦点を当てた理由です。それにもかかわらず、連邦政府はそれを取り消す権限がないふりをしていたので、私たちはそれを何度も直面しなければならず、あなたはそこに前進しました、そしてあなたは民間債権者に対するレバレッジポイントがあるかどうかを知っていますそれはそれです彼らはロボ署名やシェナニガンに従事している消費者保護法に違反していますが、私たちのレバレッジは少なく、本当にあると思います」sここで提起されているいくつかの戦略的主要戦略的課題スティーブはあなたがええと来たいと思いますそして多分ええと私はあなたが知っている基準を知りませんこの話のいくつかへの応答はあなたが知っていますが私たちは彼らが彼らである債権者を必要としています生産的に資本を投資し、債務が廃止された場合、彼らはストライキを行うことはなく、あなたは人々に貸し出すことを知らないでしょう。
SK：
ええ、私は重要なポイントを意味します。私たちがハベリナで追い抜く方法が好きだと思います。金曜日からオーストラリアへのフライトで読んだ最新の最後の本のようなデビッドの墓それは実際には基本的に贈り物ベースの社会であり、人間がお互いに対してどのように振る舞うかという古代の基盤であり、それは時間の経過とともに私たちが現在債務と呼んでいるものに変質してきました。それ'は民間部門に引き継がれ、私たちが持っているのは、世界を3つの主要な社会階級の労働者資本家と銀行家に分け、起こったことは銀行家が金融部門がその本来の役割を完全に歪めたものであるということです私たちを人間社会にし、その社会の一部を束縛の形にしたものですが、その束縛の問題は経済理論によって偽装されていると説明されており、新古典派経済学に触れている場合は、物事を知っているでしょうメディグリアーニ・ミラーと呼ばれるもののように、あなたがそれをまったく支払っているのであれば、それは実際には最終的には上がっているという仮説です」企業が借金で100の資金を調達するほうがいいのですが、政府は公の資金を借りなければならないという議論があります。これは、お金を理解している唯一の新古典主義のエコノミストである私の親友のマイケル・クモフのように、お金を実際にそのようなものとして扱います。それは砂利のようなものを扱います。それは誰かのumストレージシステムに掘り起こされて捨てられ、そして必要に応じてそこで人形にされなければなりません。義務感ではなく、物理的なものであり、公的機関と政府の間、または公的機関と民間銀行部門のいずれかで設計されているため、お金を生み出すために2つの主要な機関があることに気付いた場合、政府はより多くを費やしています。彼らが課税に戻ったり、銀行がケベックや返済以上のものを貸し出したりするよりも、問題は、私たちが民間部門を見るときに使われるお金が、金融部門が彼らを知らずに経済理論を使用したということです。それをやり直しますが、資産価格のインフレを賄うためのカバーとして経済理論を使用し、残りの部分の債務を束縛するために、最後の大不況の後、すべての銀行でお金を創造的に使用することはありません深刻な債務危機が発生し、その後、銀行家が社会に劇的な取引をもたらしたとき、銀行家は40年代と50年代の初めに軽蔑された階級であり、彼らの役割は、当時の民間債務の水準は非金融部門でした。個人債務はgdpの約40％であり、170 gdpに上昇した金融危機に早送りすると、そのほとんどは企業であり、主に家計債務であり、その家計債務の大部分が実際に私たちに与えたものでした。そもそも社内価格のバブルは、債務資産価格と最終的には金融崩壊との間に負の有害なフィードバック関係を持っていたので、まともな理論が必要であり、mmtはその理論の一部であり、他の部分はミンスクです金融不安の仮説であり、それらは互いに完全に互換性があり、彼らが私たちに言っていることは、私たちが私的債務のレベルを減らすべきであるということです。より多くを費やす労働者は、私が現代の債務ヨベルの年をモデル化したことで、経済活動が促進され、最終的には資本家でさえも恩恵を受けるので、これはイデオロギーが私たちを罠に陥らせ、すべての人を失望させ、一部の人々を貧しい人々に権力を与えるという恐ろしい事例の1つです。
で：
はい、本当に興味深いコメントです。前回のファイトクラブからの質問のいくつかをスキャンしています。実際にいくつかの質問に回答しました。つまり、安定化という言葉を使用しただけです。借金をキャンセルすることは不安定になります、そしてあなたは実際に反対を言っています私は研究がそれが実際に繁栄を共有したいある種の理想化されたバージョンでテロリズムに実際に良いことを示していると思いますええとあなたが指しているマイケル。
MH：
債務のキャンセルとそれが安定している理由のすべてに、私たちが債務について話しているバランスシートの反対側で貯蓄をキャンセルするのですが、この債務はすべて他の人の貯蓄であり、問題は経済のほとんどすべての貯蓄です現在は1％が所有しているため、davidは1％の概念を普及させました。債務を1％にキャンセルすると、貯蓄を一掃し、19世紀のように彼らの支配を奪うことができます。彼らが確執の時代から持っていた地主の力を奪いました、そしてそれはあなたが産業資本主義の離陸のきっかけとなったものでしたあなたは社会に対するこのロンティエの主張をキャンセルしなければなりません家主が彼の睡眠に関心を集めるのと同じように、彼は本当に生産的な役割を果たします。家主の債権者は生産的な役割を果たさないので、何を不安定にしますか。
で：
パパリナあなたはまだ考えを持っていましたか？
SK：
私が大丈夫戻ってくることができれば。
PT：
SK：
はい、ええと、申し訳ありませんが、行きます。
PT：
ええええ大丈夫スティーブを終えて、私は介入します。
SK：
申し訳ありませんが、私たちがそれをやったら、それが理想です。権力構造を取り除きましょう。しかし、もちろん、指示は権力を得たので、必然的にその戦いに負けるので、私が提案してきた提案実際にmmtの概念も使用しているのは現代の債務ジュビリーであり、政府が税金で返済するよりも多くを費やすことができるお金を生み出すことができる2つの方法があるように見えます。政府を利用する場合」sパワーあなたは実際にみんなに同じ金額を与えることができますそしてあなたが借金を持っているならあなたはその借金をキャンセルしなければならないと言うことができますあなたはお金を作りますそれは彼らが持っているものは彼らのローンが消えるということを意味します彼らは銀行口座でお金を稼ぎ、基本的に準備金を手に入れるので大丈夫です。実際には負けてしまいますが、それは、資本家やロンティエに与えるよりもはるかに多くのお金を労働者に与えることによって、実際に経済を刺激することになるのです。政府が債券に支払った利子が民間部門が債務に支払った利子になり、借り手が出てきて、あなたが銀行の役割を提出するようなお金を手に入れるように、私は思う数字は3、6、3です。6時に3人の裁判官を借りて、午後3時までにゴルフコースにいます。彼らの役に立たないことが何か生産的なものに置かれることができるゴルフコースで。
MH：41：30
億万長者を救済するというあなたの提案をうまく進めてください。億万長者はそこに座っていますが、実際には、これらの億万長者にすべてのお金を残したいのです。奴隷制の人々は、アブラハム・リンカーンが奴隷制をキャンセルした場合、奴隷所有者に支払う必要があるとよく言いました。リンカーンは、奴隷所有は絶対に間違っていないと言いました。彼らが奴隷から得たということは、あなたが債権者全体を救済するために救済したくないということです。ええと、私はあなたのような10億ドルを持っていませんが、ええと、確かにこれらの通路を救済したいと思うかもしれません。
で：
ポーリーナこれに答えてほしいのですが、前回のセッションからもう1つ質問を投げたいと思います。この人は、量的緩和の主な結果は、株価などの資産の価値の増加であるように思われました。価格と住宅私は彼らがあなたが話していると思います2020年の初めに政府が多くの悪い企業債務を購入したときにcovidがヒットしたときスティーブは企業債務に言及したので、人は中央銀行がどの程度の利益によって捕らえられているか尋ねました社会で最も豊かで、これについて何をすべきか。
PT：
さて、それはまさに私がこの会話で行くつもりだった場所です。つまり、2008年に私たちが何をしたかを知っていると、死んだジュビリーが常に発生します。政府が並外れた予算で介入し、莫大な量の有毒な金融資産を購入したことを知っています。私たちが他に何と呼ぶことができるかを知っていますか？あなたはこれらの資産をあなたが知っている全体にすることを知らないと信じていますか？死んだジュビリーのタイプええと、私たちが経済を通過したことを知っているあなたが知っている切望の間に私たちがしたこと一夜にして、政府が莫大な心を集中させなければならない米国27は、政府が経済の車輪に油を差して、学生の債務を一時停止し、住宅ローンの支払いのモラトリアムを一時停止するために必要なすべての財源を持っているので、それは選択の問題ですええと、私はあなたが税制が明らかにそうではないことを知っていると言うでしょう」私たちがやりたいのは、単に抽出サービスを排除することです。持続不可能な慣行を知っている非生産的な略奪的慣行を排除したいのです。私的債務を公的債務に置き換えることで、借家人階級を鎮静化する方法があると思います。これらはデフォルトのリスクフリーであり、それは私たちが常に行っていることであり、債務集団の場合、これは、民間部門の債務を免除するためにこの種の目的で定期的に使用される公的財布を持っていると言う議論だと思います私たちは確かにそれを学生の借金のために展開することができます、そして私はここでの問題は、政府が唯一のデフォルトのリスクのない資産を作成する州です。これを行うことができるのは、ヨーロッパがこれに取り組んでいることを知っている唯一の人です。彼らはデフォルトのリスクリスクのない債券を作成できないシステムを設計し、パンデミック中に独自のルールを変更して破り、ヨーロッパ人が中央銀行は実際にこれらの国債を購入して、請求書が支払われることを確認します。それが金銭的な現実であることに疑問の余地はありません。私たちはそれを回避して、ポリシースペースを制限します。基本的に、あなたは、本質的に価値のない何かの正の価値を保証することを知っています。ある種の金融グローバルクラスの崩壊を防ぐために、私たちは本質的にqeを通じて経済の金融化を検証しているこの種の活動の価値を知っている生産的ではありません。家全体を作ることができたかもしれない私たちが行った方法である金融セクターを必ずしも救う必要はなかったので、私はqeが何であるかを完全に信じていません資産バブルを供給したことは、市場が突然価値がないことに気付いた価値のない資産の価値を確実にサポートしたので、私たちはそれらの資産をサポートしました。私が持っていない規制があります」金利が仕事をするか、量的緩和をやめると、この種の投機的な行動が止まると思います。銀行セクターもさまざまな方法で捉えられています。最も重要な方法の1つは、イデオロギーです。この建設を通じて私たちの経済問題を管理することは、私たちが公的機関に持っている力を認めてそれを展開するのではなく、民間市場です。
AT：47：00
つまり、債券融資の魅力の一部は、金持ちの投資家が支払いを受け取ることを知っているだけでなく、民主的な審議を回避する方法であり、それは私たちがしなければならないことを知っているという利点の一部です。民主主義が窓の外に出るように債券保有者に返済するので、1％の付加価値がすべてあります。それは、債券保有者が政府に資金を提供していない、政府が債券保有者に利子を稼ぐ機会を提供しているような神話です。ですから、それは完全に上向きである必要はありません。そうです、私たちが退職ポートフォリオに財務省を持っている必要はありません。それはデフォルトのリスクのない資産ですが、ええと」sすべてを行う必要がある債権者を和らげるためではないので、私はqaから質問を持ち込もうとしているだけですが、ニコール・ブラマーは救済と危機を言いましたジュビリーのようでしたが、金持ちの1％だけだったので、確かにこれらを一種のジュビリーと呼ぶことができます。ジュビリーが金持ちの井戸に盗まれないようにする方法です。私たちには十分なカウンターパワーの債務者がいないので、債権者は組織化されていないので、私たちが暴く必要があるこのイデオロギーはすべてありますが、他の人々がそれを前進させることについていくつかの考えを持っているので、次の緊急事態はそれほど有益ではありません。たくさんの素晴らしいものがありますが、ニコール・ブラマーは、救済と危機はジュビリーのようでしたが、金持ちの1％だけだったので、確かにこれらを一種のジュビリーと呼んで、ジュビリーが盗まれないようにする方法を説明しました金持ちの井戸とは、私たちの感覚では、十分なカウンターパワーの債務者がいないためにそれを理解していないということです。債権者は組織化されていません。次の緊急事態がそれほど有益ではないように前進することについて。たくさんの素晴らしいものがありますが、ニコール・ブラマーは、救済と危機はジュビリーのようでしたが、金持ちの1％だけだったので、確かにこれらを一種のジュビリーと呼んで、ジュビリーが盗まれないようにする方法を説明しました金持ちの井戸とは、私たちの感覚では、十分なカウンターパワーの債務者がいないためにそれを理解していないということです。債権者は組織化されていません。次の緊急事態がそれほど有益ではないように前進することについて。金持ちに盗まれた私たちの感覚では、十分なカウンターパワーの債務者がいないためにそれを理解していません。債権者は組織化されていません。次の緊急事態がそれほど有益ではないように前進することについてのいくつかの考え。金持ちに盗まれた私たちの感覚では、十分なカウンターパワーの債務者がいないためにそれを理解していません。債権者は組織化されていません。次の緊急事態がそれほど有益ではないように前進することについてのいくつかの考え。
SK：48：20
ええ、私はそれが非常に良い点だと思います、そしてそれはマイケルとの権力構造の話に戻ります、そして私はあちらで意見の違いを持っていますええと、現時点では権力は完全に債権者に与えられており、彼らが支配しているからです政府がどのように考えているのか、私たちはそのネクサスを壊す必要があります。私は今のところ、彼らは私が持っているよりも強力な議論の方法を持っていると感じています。私はアブラハムのトラックを見たくないです。私の議論は借金のジュビリーの借金だったので、私の家の外にタンクが現れたので、私たちは現在の状況ですべてを引き継ぐでしょう。危機を解決するための提案の一部がありました金融危機は、最終的にqeになったものからuhからのその巨大な転送で起こったことは決して起こらなかった莫大な量の住宅ローンのリセットであり、qeのときにある程度パブリナについて詳しく説明するだけでした基本的には、無制限の容量を持つ中央銀行であり、金融機関が単なる資産交換であるが銀行ができる銀行とそれを行うとき、債券と引き換えに金融機関のための準備金を取得することは文字通り無制限です。そのお金で何もしませんが、率直に言って銀行が所有している銀行以外の金融機関からそれらを購入すると、それらは準備金になってしまい、投資を焼き尽くすことができないので、彼らは行って株式を購入しますそういう意味では、すべての住宅はそうです。銀行以外の金融セクターからの債券の購入を通じて、住宅価格を直接押し上げました。
AT：50：10
ですから、ここにはたくさんの素晴らしい質問があります。これは、ええとハンナレンツセンターのホストの1人からの挑発的な質問です。これを廃止する場合は、一種のユートピアです。そして政府は福祉とサービスを提供するために費やしています。私たちは信じられないほどのインフレを経験していません。それはロジャー・バーコウィッツによるものです。
MH：
ええと、もちろんそれは持続可能ではありません。なぜなら、今のところ、銀行がクレジットを作成して利息を請求するか、政府がクレジットを作成して経済に支出するかを選択できるからです。政府が経済にお金を使うとき、それは」s通常、人々への支払いのインフラストラクチャと、銀行がお金を貸すときの生産と消費の経済は、政府がお金を印刷するのと同じようにそれを作成しますが、人々が他の企業を引き継ぐために家の価格を入札するために作成しました商品やサービスのためではなく資産を購入するために購入したので、銀行が作成しているこのお金を作成する政府は、実際にははるかにインフレが少なく、住宅の価格を上げることはありません。経済ええと、政府が他の誰かとは対照的にそれを作成するという事実は、意味がありません。
SK：51：40
私はマイケルに戻ってきますここで私たちは長い間これに取り組んできましたが、これに関する問題の1つは、第一次世界大戦のための政府支出は、アメリカ経済では文字通り、GDPの5％未満であると考えられていました。課税なしで支出することで資金を調達する場合、経済に影響を与える前に実際に経済に影響を与えたいので、問題はありません。もう一つの質問である危機エコロジカルな限界に達する前に、拡大する経済の中で商取引を拡大し続けることができるように、マネーサプライを年間約5％増加させたいと考えていましたが、今では、大規模な政府の段階の後に上がると、第二次世界大戦後の第二次世界大戦での大不況は、政府支出が30 gdpのオーダーであり、それ自体が減価しないお金で毎年30 udpを経済に注入した場合、インフレが暴走するため、実際には問題が発生します。お金の創造だけでなく、課税の必要性など、私たちが実際に創造するものは、一定のままであり、今は落ちない価値があると言われています。お金を減価償却するというアイデアは、お金を稼ぐことができるという非常に効果的なアイデアでした。それを使用しなかった場合、それは急速に減価償却され、大恐慌の最中に第二世界のウォーグルの町で実際に使用されました。クレジットシステムの失敗とウォーグルによって引き起こされた経済の崩壊は、彼らがオーストリアの中央銀行によって閉鎖されるまで完全雇用に終わったので、実際には、お金がそうあるべきではないように設定されているという事実です。経済的感覚と社会的感覚を見ると、実際に減価償却するのは、自力で減価償却する形のお金を作成する必要があったからです。そうすれば、政府が必要な規模で支出し、お金を必要とせずに時間の経過とともに減価償却することができます。その過剰をキャンセルするための課税は、経済における経済活動の規模と比較して創造を生み出します。
で：
だから私はええそれのために行きたいですそしてそれから。
PT：
政府の支出は本質的にインフレではないが、スティーブ・キーンが言っているように非課税の政府の支出は経済に非常に大きな貢献をしており、税金はこの購買力の一部を取り戻すので、私はこれを持っていますが、さらに行きましょう税の役割が会計単位の立ち上げにおいて非常に重要であるというお金の歴史に戻って、あなたが州のお金を知っているようにあなたが呼ぶかもしれないもののええと、税の目的はそれが目的であるということです公的部門に資源を移転することであり、それが現在発生している通貨の価値に影響を与える場合、それは間違いなく知っていますが、公的私的から公的領域への資源の移転にも影響を及ぼします。だから私はm集団的プロビジョニングのアイデアを喜んで受け入れますが、明らかに税金は、公共部門にある種のリソースを提供するというこの機能を果たします。
で：
だから私は私たちを連れて行きたいですええと私は私たちを最後のセッションですぐに出てきた生態学的な質問に戻したいのですが最初に私たちがパネルに宣伝したものである学生の借金について実際にここにかなりの数の質問があります私はそれらのいくつかを読みたいだけです、そして私はいくつかの申し訳ありませんが欠けているかもしれないと思います無料の大学は問題があるので、私はあなたが知っていると言いたいのですが、これは部分的には許しという言葉を拒否します。これは、借り手がキャンセルや廃止などの言葉を使おうとする理由の一部を間違ったことを意味します。ええと、それから私がそれがそこに関連しているのを見つけることができれば、これは別の質問を結びます」グラバー博士の本[__]の仕事で、彼は労働者の雇用者間のレバレッジとバランスを減らすための潜在的な解決策としてベーシックインカムを提案しました。これは学生の借金を減らしてなくすための潜在的な解決策になる可能性がありますが、他にもいくつかあったと思いますが人々はそれらのいずれかについて話したいと思っています。
SK：
教育の延長について詳しく説明します。これは、政府が経済にお金を使うことができ、それをどのように使うかを官僚に決めさせないという典型的なケースの1つです。つまり、政府の創設に関する回答の1つが、官僚が消費者に何をしたいかを決定することを望まず、起業家が彼らが費やす学生にそれをうまく提供することを望んでいる場合、それは政府のお金を生み出すためのほぼ完璧な手段です。 「消費者であり、それが明らかになり、起業家は学生の支出から利益を得ようとします。それは政府支出が行われるための非常に創造的な方法であり、それが私が理由の1つである悲劇です。」m学生が自分たちの教育についてどのように考えているのか、そして多くのモロニックな大学の資本家が大学を乗っ取って完全に台無しにしたのか、学生がどのように借金をしているのかという悲劇は、もう大学部門にいないことを嬉しく思います。セクターは完全に政府資金であり、入学要件はあなたが借りた金額ではなく、あなたが持っていた脳細胞の数とあなたがどれほど創造的であるかを調べなかったことが大学に入学するための障壁になるはずです大学は、血まみれの官僚や債務金融業者によって運営されているのではなく、学者によって運営されるべきです。dはるかに優れた大学部門であり、完全に政府の資金で運営されており、入学要件は、借りた金額ではなく、脳細胞の数と、自分がどれほど創造的であるかを検討しなかったということでした。大学に入学する際の障壁は、血なまぐさい官僚や借金の資金提供者によって運営されているのではなく、学者によって運営されるべきです。dはるかに優れた大学部門であり、完全に政府の資金で運営されており、入学要件は、借りた金額ではなく、脳細胞の数と、自分がどれほど創造的であるかを検討しなかったということでした。大学に入学する際の障壁は、血なまぐさい官僚や借金の資金提供者によって運営されているのではなく、学者によって運営されるべきです。
MH：
ええと、この点を説明する簡単な方法があります。世界中のほとんどの教育は無料です。歴史教育は無料でした。歴史教育は無料でした。公共の健康が無料であるのと同じように、それは公益事業です。教育のためにペニーを請求する中国は無料の教育を持っている他の国にはお金を払わないアメリカは教育のために莫大な金額を請求するという点でユニークです。
PT：
ええ、これは私があなたが知っているベーシックインカムをどのように見るかですええとこれは保証されている基本的な収入ですええとあなたはあなたへの自由なアクセスを知っています私たちは社会であるため、私たちはそうしないと決めました。人々に老後の生活を送ってもらいたいum無料公教育無料umヘルスケア私はここでのアイデアは、良い生活とは何か、そしてどうやってそれを達成することができるかを再考することだと思いますこのような深い構造的な問題に対処します。私たちが市場経済と呼んでいるものに参加していない多くの人々にとって、基本的な所得保証は不可欠だと思いますが、構造的な側面についても考えたいと思います。私たちがこの生活の質をどのように提供するか私はあなたに年間3万ドルを与えることができます、そしてあなたは今日市場に出回っている健康保険の家賃と他のすべてのものを買うことができません。
で：
素晴らしいですね。ここで実際に自己宣伝し、今年初めにリリースした、あなただけではないという小さな映画をチャットに入れます。この映画では、私たちが本当に必要としている無料のパブについて話し合っています。無料の公立大学でカップルの学生の借金を取り消す予定です。必要な規模で提供されていない公共財をあらゆる種類の人に知ってもらうことができるように、今では豊富にあることを確認する必要があります。そこに現れる他の不平等であるため、エコロジーのポイントでそれらのより深い質問や問題のいくつかに入りますええと、人々は最後のファイトクラブでこれを提起したので、私はそれだと思います」重要なのは、これが成長の問題にどのように関係しているのかを知っているということです。つまり、2つの方法があります。つまり、債務と利子が私たちを無限の成長のモデルに閉じ込めているということです。今日、私たちは惑星と人々をもっと搾取するように迫られていますが、そのジュビリーについて話すとき、私たちはしばしば行きますそれは経済を後押ししますそれは素晴らしいでしょう成長があるでしょう私はそれがそこにあるのか分かりませんそこに矛盾があります。私たちが生態系の危機に瀕していることをどうやって知っているのでしょうか。最初にカメラに向かって行きたいケブリンについて話しましょう。経済を後押ししますそれは素晴らしいでしょう成長がありますええと私は知りませんそこに矛盾がありますええと私たちが生態学的危機にあることをどうやって知っていますかそれについて話しましょうケブリンあなたは最初に行きたいのですあなたはカメラにいます。経済を後押ししますそれは素晴らしいでしょう成長がありますええと私は知りませんそこに矛盾がありますええと私たちが生態学的危機にあることをどうやって知っていますかそれについて話しましょうケブリンあなたは最初に行きたいのですあなたはカメラにいます。
PT：
はい、確かに幸いなことに、私は再びグラバーに転向したことを意味します。人間の経済の概念は、すべてがケアを前提としていることを知っています。私たちの存在全体がケアを前提としています。それが現代の構造であることを知っていますが、私たちが日常生活で資本主義経済においてさえ私たちがしていることの人間の状態について本当に深く考えるならば、私たちは私たち自身の子供たちや私たちがお互いを楽しませている友人の世話をします私たちの仕事の大部分は実際にはケアの仕事であるように私たちはお互いを養いますが、私たちはあなたがそれをこの特定の方法で変更したことを知っているので、環境はこの種の重要な次元です。私たちが共食いした場合、私たちが非常に基本的なリソースを知っているので、社会を完全に再現します。この市場でさえ、私たちに提供することになっているものであり、それができない場合は、他の方法で提供しないのは一種の再考であるため、気候の懸念は、会話が非常に正しいことを知っていると思いますあなたは成長を知っていますほぼすべての成功の尺度となることはできず、利益の見返りを知っていることを受け入れることができます。したがって、これらの非常に大きな存在の質問に関しては、方法について考える必要があります。テクノロジーは、純粋に技術的なソリューションだけでなく、これらの技術的解決策の社会的影響。
SK：1：02：00
私は実際に気候変動と経済学に関する他の仕事に飛び込むつもりです、そしてええと、エコノミストを管理することの考えと彼らがお金をどのように扱うかについて私をもっと怖がらせたことが1つだけあるならそれは彼らがどのように扱ったかですエコロジーええと、ノーベル賞を受賞したのは、出版されるべきではなかったゴミです。その後、さらに悪いことに、彼らが実際に話しているのは、6度の気温上昇が原因で、最近の論文によると、gdpは10％低下し、惑星のすべての主要な転換点を失うと、メキシコ湾流グリーンランドのアマゾンを失わなかった場合よりも1.4％低くなると述べています。ゴミそれは私たちが実際、巨大な生態系危機のエネルギーの先端にあり、それから抜け出す唯一の方法は、私たちがお金に費やすのではなく、炭素に費やさなければならないということです。カーボンレシオニングと呼ばれる一連の提案をまとめます。carbonrationing.orgを検索すると、最初にアダムハーディと呼ばれる男によって開発されたアイデアが見つかります。価格システムええと、あなたはあなたが持っている普遍的な炭素クレジットを得るでしょうdお金を使うだけでなく、お金を使わなければならないええと、ユニバーサルカーボンクレジットが与えられるのと同じようにリチャードマードックはマイケルハドソンが得たのと同じカーボンクレジットを得るでしょうが、もちろんマイケルハドソンは彼のカーボンクレジットを使い果たすことはありませんが、ルパートは半分になります分、マイケルからそれを買わなければなりません、そしてそれは私たちが大気中に出している炭素のために私たちが与えるダメージを制限する方法であると同時に、富の再分配の形になるでしょう。
MH：1：03：39
地球温暖化と汚染は、私たちが話している債務と特に関連があります。債務汚染の経済について考えてみてください。スティーブが示したように、債務は指数関数的に増加しています。この債務の増加この節約は、指数関数的に増加する利子を請求します。これは、大気中の炭素のようなものです。モデルは非常によく似ており、どちらの場合も、この指数関数的な増加は経済を圧迫します。
SK：
経済学者は責任ある主流派経済学者ですが、率直に言って新古典派経済学は資本主義にとって最も危険なことをしなければなりません。
MH：
多分。
で：
つまり、公的資金は、金融調整移行のようなグリーンニューディールの資金調達のような多くのことを行うことができるということです。つまり、債務論理も私たちのイデオロギーだと思います。 「私たちが変革に資金を提供するための資金を持っていると言うのを防ぐために、私たちは皆がそのように正しく世話をしていることを確認する必要がありますそれはそれの核心のようなものですええと私はここで質問したいのですええと、私たちが何かだと思いますインフレの物語であるumについてのすべての聴聞会この質問は、インフレの物語が貧しい人々を不釣り合いに罰する現象として主流メディアでますます議論されているので、私たちが最初に得た質問の1つです。インフレumは、貯蓄者から債務者への富の移転として機能します。現代の債務ジュビリーでインフレがどのような役割を果たす可能性があるか、またはこの会話は、現在インフレについて聞いている物語を拒否するためのツールを提供します。
SK：
もう一度、私がすぐに飛び込むのを許してくださいええと、インフレは実際には偶発的な形のガゼルのお金と見なすことができますええと、インフレは、流通しているお金の価値が下がっている場合、実際に債務負担を減らします。実際に債務の実質価値を減らし、それは実際には世界経済にとって潤滑的なものであり、債務は主に1パーセントの99セントによって所有されているので、インフレは明らかに過膨張ではなく、特定のポイントまで実際に恩恵を受けていることがわかりますしかし、橋を犠牲にして貧しい人々に利益をもたらし、それが金持ちが非常に反インフレである理由の1つです。マイケルでは、その問題についても多くの作業が行われていると思います。sハイパーインフレーションレベルを下回ると、実際には金持ちよりも貧しい人に利益をもたらします。
PT：1：06：30
つまり、私はここに足を踏み入れるので、インフレは、私たちが常にインフレを十分なサポートを提供していないので、あらゆる種類のものを正当化するために非常に効果的に使用されてきた職業によって、他の誤って理論化されたマクロ現象の1つです経済または私にとって、失業を利用してインフレと戦うことは、新古典派経済学の並外れた偉業のように、働く人々はインフレに対する防波堤でなければならないと言うことを意味します。暗いインフレなので、私たちができるのはこの神話だけです」完全雇用価格の安定性の両方を達成するために第2のインフレは、政府の支出が本質的にインフレであるという仮定のために、政府の支出を絶えず無力化するために使用されます。そして、すべてのインフレは、サプライチェーンのボトルネックから、世界経済のさまざまなセクターの閉鎖によるロジスティックの問題から、民間セクターからもたらされていることがわかります。さらに、これは、今日見たばかりのブルームバーグの記事で非常によく利用されています。米国の最初の巨大企業は、この種の部分的にメディアを利用している50年代以来、記録的な利益を上げています。顧客はインフレの恐れを煽り、これは避けられないことです。会社から彼らのumから逃げるつもりはありませんが、私たちがこの巨大な力の集中を持っているときに私たちがどこに行って私たちのものを買うのかというような彼らのモノプソニストも、彼らが抽出できなければならない価格決定力を使用していますはるかに高い利益率インフレは間違いなく人々に関係していると思います。それは不安定な社会的勢力になる可能性があります。購買力のある人々がこれをどのように認識しているかをどのように知っているかを知っておく必要がありますが、対処する方法があります。これはあなたが知っていることではありませんええと雇用の成長を犠牲にしているええと幸福など最後にインフレがあったらどうなるか私たちは惑星を燃やすつもりですできる'適切な商業的利益を構築するか、適切なインフレを待つか、適切な民間の利益を得て、公的資金を持っている仕事をするのと同じように、危機があり、すぐにそれを動員する必要があり、それに対処する必要があります。構造に対処するためのあなたの知っている方法と私はあなたが世界中のインフレに構造的に対処することを知っている例があると思いますが、ええと、ここでやめます。
で：
ええ、本当にええと、すみません、私たちは少しいたるところにいますが、それはここでのライブチャットです。これは重要だと思います。世界中で住宅価格の上昇が初めての購入者を締め出したり、強制したりしています。彼らが莫大な住宅ローンを借りるということは、住宅ローンの借金の歓喜が住宅の手頃な価格に影響を与えることになるでしょう。住宅ローンの利率が2.85または3の場合、クレジットカードや給料日ローン、その他の種類の消費者債務では見られないので、あるように感じます。ええと、これについて話す興味深いことがたくさんあります。ええと、それを受け入れるようにインスピレーションを感じている人、そして私はまた、犠牲者のモラトリアムの終わりについてのマイケルのコメントの共鳴を聞いています。より多くの条件を排除しましたが、その家賃は正しく積み上げられています。それは人々の家賃のキャンセルではなかったので、一部の推定では、人々は500億700億ドルのバックレントを借りていると言われています。s家賃なので、一部の見積もりでは、人々は500億700億ドルのバックレントを借りていると言われています。s家賃なので、一部の見積もりでは、人々は500億700億ドルのバックレントを借りていると言われています。
SK：
あなたはミュートされていますマイケルは自分自身をアニメートします。
MH：
この質問は紀元前3世紀にスパルタで出されました。王はスパルタ人が非常に多くの借金を抱えていると判断しました。彼は借金をキャンセルするつもりでした。叔父は実際に彼らに住宅ローンの借金をキャンセルするだけだと確信しましたあなたが住宅ローンの借金をキャンセルした場合、ドナルド・トランプは最も裕福な人になるでしょう彼らの資本のパーセントまたは10分の1パーセントは、あなたがアメリカの歴史の中で最大の富を大規模な商業に与えることになるすべての借金です。銀行に全額支払う必要があるので、あなたがしたい最後のことはそれを与えることですあなたが政府が確実に得ることを望む住宅ローンの借金をキャンセルしようとしているならあなたがしなければならないこれを回避する方法がありますあなたが不在の所有者にええと、ええと、固定資産税によってええと与えているその賃貸価値のすべては、ええと、中国が何をしているのか、ええと、ロシアで起こったことを見ると、すべての鉱物の富と住宅ローンをキャンセルした場合は、住宅ローンを完全課税に置き換えて、無料で提供しないようにする必要があります。最も借金の多い人々への昼食金持ちの借金のほとんどは金持ちが最大の債務者であり、あなたはそうではありません。金持ちの借金を許したいあなたも人々が好きな借金を忘れたい。
SK：1：12：00
だから私は古い伝統的なものではなくあなたが信じている現代の借金の観点から話しますしたがって、ルパート・マードックはあなたの借金を10万ドル、パヴリーナは10万ドルの借金を抱えることになります。お金はそれを行う政府の能力であり、したがってそれは貧しい人々の債務を劇的に減らし、実際、貧しい人々は正味のプラスになる可能性がありますが、金持ちはまだそれらの債務を持っています」それから抜け出すので、これを行う方法について賢く考える必要があります。また、住宅ローンについての質問が1つありました。s金持ちではなく貧しい人の住宅ローンの下では、銀行セクターがそれを再現して再び資産バブルに戻すための能力がまだあります。私自身のモデリングによる実証的研究は、実際に住宅価格の上昇を引き起こしていることを示しています新しい住宅ローンの債務のレベルが上昇しているので、それを止める方法は、つまり、これもまた、銀行が貸し出すことができる家のために好きなだけ貸すことができなくなったことを達成するための政治的転換を意味しますたとえば、新しい住宅ローンと住宅価格の間に現在存在する増幅フィードバックを削除する家の年間賃貸収入の10倍以下がそれを取り除き、したがって、最初のバブルを実際に引き起こしているものを取り除くと言います場所。そもそも実際に泡を引き起こしている。そもそも実際に泡を引き起こしている。
MH：1：13：37
それはまさに1960年代に私がニューヨークに来たときに起こったことですそれは物事がどのように機能するか銀行は誰にも貸しませんええと債務返済は彼らの収入の25以上でしたそして今それはええとすべてが削除されましたあなたは絶対に正しいですそれをどのように行うか私たち3人は皆、経済について、ある部分から別の部分に債務を分離せず、それを切り離さないシステムとして話している。私たちはシステム全体を見ているが、それは新古典派経済学が行っていることではない。
で：
パパリナあなたはこれについて考えていますか、それとも私たちが先に進まなければならないのですか？私たちが学生について話しているのと同じように、私たちは無料の公立大学と相まって、私たちが住宅にアプローチする方法に問題があります私たちは投機的に私たちの住宅にアプローチしなければなりません私たちが住んでいるものの代わりに資産があるのでsあらゆる種類の社会住宅や、その人間に必要な他の方法を提供するために、私たちが終わりに近づくにつれて、私は質問を始めたいと思います。ええと、チャデルシンからの2つを混ぜるために彼は私たちが泳ぐ金融水の制御を与えることによって私たちの生活を管理するために政府にどれだけの力を与えるつもりかを尋ねました私はそれをニカからの質問と組み合わせたいですええと、私たちの素晴らしいええと、共同ホストがええと、猫はとてもええと、資本は権力であるとあなたが言うように、州や宮殿は明らかに民間債権者よりも優れていると私は尋ねます。より民主的な配電の状況が可能かどうか、言い換えれば、富が自動的に電力に変換されない社会はどのように見えるかに興味があるので、これらの種類の両方が私たちを元の質問のいくつかにループバックします債権者は国または民間部門であり、いくつかのしわを追加します。
SK：
それは、民間の起業家に大学部門の支出を管理させるのではなく、官僚に何が起こるかを管理させるので、人々が政府のお金に対して行う最も強力な議論の1つを構成する非常に良い質問だと思います官僚的なイニシアチブによって浪費されている金額を見て、私はその議論の一部に共感しているので、私たちはどうやって人々を止めるのかを考えなければなりません。s社会のサブセットに社会の残りの部分を制御させること、そしてそれがまた、教育へのインフラストラクチャーへの支出のようなものが、政府の資金に対する政府による健康への支出のようなものである理由です。教育では、政府がそのお金を提供し、そのお金はどのように使われるべきかを決定する専門家を通して出され、個人はそれを受け取る人々もそのお金がどのように使われるかを決定するので、私たちがする必要はありませんたくさんの官僚が愚かな規則を作ってお金を浪費するなどの状況に巻き込まれ、もちろん同時に私は非常に才能のある官僚がたくさんいるので戻ってきます。公共サービスの理由で公共部門の人々がそこにいるのを見ることができる段階に戻る必要があります。そのイデオロギーを元の場所に戻し、一部にする必要があります。ナンセンスなブキャナンのおかげで、私たちは常に官僚が悪いと思っていますが、その中から実際には多くの悪い官僚がいて、民間のお金のシステムとほぼ同じくらい政府側を改革する必要があります。
PT：1：17：00
だから私はこのumに答えて、州自体が問題であるということではなく、州が統治され、正しく捕らえられる方法であり、それは私たちがmmtのために真っ向から取り組みたい力を奪う物語になるでしょう明確な税金は、私たちが望むものに完全に資金を供給することができる機関を持っているので、私たちが政策の優先順位に資金を供給するために必要としない金持ちの税金を必要としない裕福な階級をすぐに無力化する政府支出には支払われません国民皆保険教育などを知っている人々のこの二分法を見ることができますが、彼らは私たちができるというこのイデオロギーに屈服しているのです。これを行うのは、世界中で何度も何度も繰り返される1つのグリッドロックであるための支払いを見つける必要があり、お金について理解したいという人々の好みからこのツールを会話から削除する必要があるためです。これらの公的優先事項に資金を提供するために税金に依存しないでください私はまた、私たちが普遍的な健康を持っていない場合、国家が正しく貢献していないギャップを埋めるために一緒に努力しているので、社会が正しく組織するさまざまな賃金について考えています連帯経済がなければ、連帯経済があり、確かにそうすることができます。私のコミュニティにやって来ることができる官僚がいることを期待して、あなたはこれを行うべきだとよく言います、そしてこれはコミュニティが彼らの環境ニーズケアニーズのように知っているようにこれはあなたが実際にあなたが実際に展開できるという私自身の仕事が来るところですこれらのネットワークを効果的にサポートします連帯ネットワークあなたが名前を挙げた無限の多様なコミュニティ協会は、私たちが話している種類のケア作業をすでに行っていますが、重要な資金源のようにこれから切り離されています彼らは私的な信用またはどこかからのいくつかの攻撃を必要とするというイデオロギーに捕らえられたので、私は実際にこれらの2つのumを持って両親のパラダイムを連鎖させることを知っています。
MH：
1:19:00
軍事費に関しては、行くにつれて支払う必要があると誰も言ったことはありません。経済への支出に関しては、彼らが言うだけのお金をどこで手に入れることができるのか、誰も言っていません。ええと、人々について話している。
で：
ええ、あなたが知っている政治的影響力を買うために彼らがそれほどお金を持っていないので、金持ちに課税するのは良いことです。
PT：
絶対にこれは絶対ですそして私はあなたが知っている最初の会話に戻ることを知っていると思います私は私たちが必要とする税金がどれくらい高いかを意味しますそして富の集中は非常に高いので課税所得はあなたが知っている仕事90大丈夫私たちは以前にそれをやったが、それは富が蓄積しているこれらの他のプロセスを混乱させることはないので、あなたはそのようなお金を稼ぐためにこれらの機会を取り除くことについて構造的に考える必要があります経済を再構築することで、あなたは知っている特定の活動に課税する必要があることを知っていますが、私はあなたが知っている特定の種類の抽出を知っていることを禁止するだけで税金を言うことはありませんそのために使用されます。
で：
さて、ここの誰かがあなたに計画のためのpワードを避けているかどうかを尋ねますこれはdtコクランであるように聞こえますええと私たちはそれを市場に残すのではなく直接支出投資を計画する必要があるように聞こえますそうでなければ、他にどのようにして私たちが望む場所に行き、行く必要があるのかを知ることができます。
つまり、私はここで別のテーマを強調するだけだと思います。これは、これらの債務関係が、民主的な審議と民主的な計画を回避または無効にする方法でした。それはテーブルから外れていますが、マイケルを使って計画することについてどう思いますか。
MH：1：21：00
すべての経済が計画されています私たちのアメリカは最も中央で計画されています私たちは中国に対してより中央で計画されていますが中央の計画は政府ではなくウォール街で行われますもちろんすべて中央で計画されています問題は誰が計画を行うのかということですええと、あなたが作物のために計画しなければならなかった新石器はあなたが資源を割り当てることを計画しなければならなかったので、政府はええと金融部門に計画を任せました、そして金融部門は短期的に生きています政府は長期的に生きることになっていますだから私たちは、短期の人々がその年の次の3か月で何をつかむことができるか、そして何をスティーブキーンのモデルと私が話しているのか、または長期の人々について話しているのです。見る。
で：
孔雀？
PT：
ええ、私はあなたが制度派経済学を知っていることを意味しますこれはあなたが知っている制度派経済学の一種の出発点ですええと計画は常にそこにあります問題はあなたが20代前半に知っている計画はカルテルと信頼ですそしてそれは私たちがいつもミンスキーの仕事を計画してきた企業部門は、進化的制度派経済学の理論を知っています。彼は、公共部門がより大きな役割を果たした経営経済学のようなものが短期間あったと主張しています。第二次世界大戦とその直後に起こった公共投資の雇用を指示する公共投資のことですが、その後すぐに自由化し、マイケルuhが指摘したように金融部門による計画を立てました。
汚い言葉だと思いますが、制度の構造や経済の進化だけをもう少し詳しく見てみると、絶対に避けられないと思います。あなたは私たちが気候変動にどのように取り組んでいるのか知っていますうん。
で：
だから私は本当にシンプルでエレガントなええと質問でこれを締めくくりたいと思いますそして多分私たちはいくつかのええと持っていたデビッド・グレーバーを少しチャネルすることができます物事は問題である他の何かですが、ええ、多分ええと、パブリナはあなたから始まり、それから私たちはスティーブに行き、次にマイケルに行き、そして私たちはクローズアップします。
PT：
ii質問には、私があまり快適ではないという前提があります。墓地の意味で、正しいお金は債務に関連していることを知っているからですが、それは社会的義務ではなく、私たちが親切にすることはできません。キャンセルして廃止するこの種のあなたはお互いに往復の感覚を知っていますが、私たちはそれらの関係の歴史をたどっていますお金がそこにあったので、私にとってのお金は私が質問が私たちに何を求めていると思うかを知っていることを表していますこれを持っているあなたは私的に作成された私的債務への依存を知っていますそしてあなたはリストラが必要であることを知っていると思いますが私があなたにローンを与えるのを止めてもらえますか。
SK：1：24：00
私たちは、私たちが直面している債務危機の生態学的危機に直面している現在の状況をとらえたと思います。その状況では、事前に計画することについての質問を考えると、今、根本的にお金を再定義する必要があります。古典派経済学と主流の資本主義イデオロギーに近く、起業家とビジネスマンに計画を立てさせる方法を決定させることは真実であり、生態学的危機に直面することはないでしょう。彼らは私たちが長期的に必要とする短期的な思想家です。任期と政府は通常、問題を長期的に考えることはもちろん彼らの利益が金融クラスによって捕らえられているというリポジトリであり、それが私たちが生態学的危機の文脈でお金を再定義しなければならない場合、気候変動に対する行動を50年間遅らせてきました。その場合、お金の大部分は私たちの生態学的ニーズに応えて作成されなければなりません。ええと、通貨と普遍的な炭素クレジットは、私たちが費やすものを制限するためのその一部になるでしょう。
MH：
債務免除に関して。
SK：
リソースとそれは実際に私たちを弱体化させ、私たちの能力を破壊しています。
MH：
1990年代に債務の歴史についてハーバードグループを始めたときの債務免除については、右翼の考古学者と人類学者による考古学による議論は、メソポタミアでは誰が債務を取り消すことができなかったのかということでした。彼らが借金をキャンセルするとすぐに明らかにお金を貸しますパブリナがすべてが再び始まったと言ったのでそれはすべて始まりました仕事それは最初からやり直しますもちろんそれは最初からやり直しますそれは死の頭上を一掃することで働きますそしてそれから社会があまりにも多くの借金を蓄積させ、そしてあまりにも多くの借金が蓄積するまであなたはすべてが再び始まります債務サーモスタットのサームをオンにすると、それを一掃します。それは、メソポタミアのブロンズ時代のすべての新しい支配者で何度も起こりました。歴史を読む彼らは、人類学の歴史が、彼らの右翼のプロクレジットの議論にイデオロギー的に反しているという理由だけで、読んだり公開したりするのを防ごうとします。これらの人々は歴史を読まないだけでなく、人類学の歴史が読まれたり公開されたりするのを防ごうとしているという誤った議論です。sこれらの人々は歴史を読まないだけでなく、人類学の歴史が読まれたり公開されたりするのを防ごうとしているという誤った議論です。
AT:
最近は間違いなく歴史上の戦争が起こっていることを感謝しますええと、歴史から債務免除債務のヨベルの年が可能であることを知っていますが、そこに到達するためにより良い力を構築する必要があると完全に信じていますので、債務集団に参加してください私たちのスローガンを整理する私たちの多くのスローガンの1つは、あなただけではないということです。スペースローンを行うことの1つは、私たちを孤立させることです。ハナレンセンターからタラへ。ここに来てくれてありがとう。
彼は：
ええと、このハンナを代表して、中心ではありません。ええと、私たちのすべての共同スポンサーであるニカは、ケアパブリナ博物館と経済民主主義イニシアチブです。あなたの途方もないモデレートとええと、私はあなたがアストロズデットコレクティブハンナレントセンターを含む私たちの組織と連絡を取り合うことを願っていますあなたは私たちをグーグルで見つけることができますニカもっと多くのファイトクラブがやってくるし、この会話はまだ始まったばかりのようだね。私の気持ちは、私たちがまだそうし続けることができて、何よりも、このような素晴らしい質問を提起し続けてくれた聴衆に感謝します。
ーーーーーーーーー
文字起こし 00:03 good evening good morning 00:05 um wherever you find yourself my name is 00:07 tara needham i am the assistant academic 00:10 director at the hannah arendt center for 00:12 politics and humanities at bard college 00:16 in the hudson valley of new york state 00:18 if you are zooming in from afar and 00:21 abroad 00:22 we are so thrilled to see so many people 00:25 logging on and logging in for this very 00:27 important conversation about debt and 00:29 finance capital 00:32 we're also thrilled to be co-sponsoring 00:34 this event with the museum of care and 00:37 with the economic democracy initiative 00:39 at bard college 00:42 you know when we were approached by mika 00:44 dubrovsky 00:45 we felt the words a real resonance 00:47 between um what she described as the 00:50 mission of the museum of care 00:52 which projects uh whose projects aim to 00:54 create a public space to discuss what 00:56 dostoyevsky called the cursed questions 00:59 what is power what is freedom value and 01:02 so on the hannah rent center similarly 01:06 promotes bold and risky thinking 01:08 in the spirit of a rent and to 01:11 aims to create forums for the debate of 01:12 ideas on pressing topics of our time 01:16 there's no doubt that debt and finance 01:18 capital are such issues 01:20 that have immense bearing on 01:22 topics that were of great concern for a 01:24 rent democracy freedom 01:26 the possibility for spontaneity and 01:28 political action 01:30 that said our participation is not to 01:32 suggest that a rent herself 01:34 would have or that the center 01:36 necessarily agrees with or endorses all 01:39 the views of the panelists rather 01:41 our goal is again to invite and foster 01:45 lively debate and we hope that 01:47 participants 01:48 will respectfully challenge question and 01:50 clarify clarify the points of view 01:53 presented tonight 01:54 so it's now my great pleasure 01:56 um 01:58 to introduce niko dabrofsky 02:01 who is an artist and an author who grew 02:04 up in the unofficial cultural scenes of 02:06 squats and samidzat of the late ussr 02:10 she's written for many publications and 02:12 exhibited at among others the tel aviv 02:14 museum 02:15 galleria nova zagreb showroom london 02:18 fabrica moscow and apex art new york 02:22 she works on several publishing and 02:24 artistic projects including yes women 02:26 group art activist feminist community 02:28 and others 02:29 after her husband david graber's death 02:32 mika and friends organized carnival for 02:34 david which took place in 250 places 02:37 around the world 02:38 carnival for david evolved into the 02:40 informal community of the museum of care 02:43 which is creating projects like the one 02:45 tonight at the intersection of academia 02:48 activism and contemporary art so welcome 02:50 to nika our panelists and everyone 02:53 participating.
02:59
ND:
so 03:00 thank you very much for hosting this 03:02 event 03:03 and 03:04 um 03:04 [Music] 03:07 yeah the 03:08 the first 03:09 of uh the fight club between michael 03:11 hudson and thomas piketty was held on 03:14 the 10th anniversary of the edition of 03:17 david greber's book 5 000 years of death 03:21 i want to say that a lot has changed for 03:24 the better since then 03:26 the public discourse has shifted 03:29 now many people recognize that for what 03:31 it is structural violence 03:34 second the abstract that was created and 03:38 i'm especially happy that astra taylor 03:41 is with us today 03:42 astra is not only shares the ideas of 03:45 david michael hudson and steve king that 03:48 all deaths should be abolished but it's 03:50 strike them is successfully buying out 03:53 unfair debts for example student medical 03:55 debt 03:56 acting essentially in the same way as 03:59 abolitionists did freeing people from 04:02 that slavery 04:04 and i want to encourage everyone who 04:06 watches today to help them 04:09 i would like to announce our next fight 04:11 club that will be at house culture 04:14 developed in berlin the spring 04:16 with actors and activists david's 04:18 friends to perform an imaginary fight 04:21 between david grabber and thomas hopps 04:24 and david greber versus jean-jacques 04:26 rousseau 04:30 of the yes man reverend billy and 04:32 salvatory d of the church of stop 04:34 shopping 04:36 this fight is a major point 04:39 that was explored in david's last book 04:42 dawn of everything that he wrote with an 04:45 archaeologist david van gro 04:48 in the first fight club 04:49 the fight had so many rounds that we 04:52 didn't have time to answer questions 04:54 from the public so in the spirit of the 04:57 boxing match 04:58 we are going to have our combat michael 05:01 hudson conduct a post-match debrief 05:04 where the public can ask questions and 05:06 get answers 05:08 so meet steve kim michael hudson pavlina 05:12 cernova and astra taylor 05:23 what do you think 05:36 we have a problem 05:38 let's solve it together 05:46 the game 05:58 okay everyone.
AT:
06:02 my name is astor taylor can you guys see 06:04 me or okay great uh my name is ashley 06:07 taylor thank you so much for the kind 06:09 introduction nika and i just want to 06:11 reiterate thanking our hosts 06:13 the hanoran center and the museum of 06:15 care thanks for for having us um 06:18 and i watched the first fight club with 06:20 great interest 06:22 uh noting the paradox between the terms 06:24 care and fighting so this will be a 06:27 loving debate um with a lot of i think 06:30 agreement among the participants but um 06:33 one thing i will say is as an activist 06:34 and organizer working very hard on the 06:36 issues of debt cancellation 06:37 i am 06:39 constantly encountering critics and 06:41 criticism so i will do my best maybe to 06:43 channel some of the contrarianism that i 06:45 face when i share these ideas so my name 06:48 is astrid taylor i'll be i'll be quick 06:50 but just to set the stage uh yeah my uh 06:54 my 06:54 my friend the lighting great david 06:56 graber 06:57 sort of 06:58 recruited me into 07:00 uh what became a kind of debt resistance 07:02 movement he actually invited me to the 07:03 planning sessions of occupy wall street 07:06 uh so this was back in 2011 07:09 and um 07:11 i was at that point recently defaulted 07:13 student debtor 07:14 and 07:15 you know understood that my condition 07:17 was political but didn't have any people 07:19 to share that 07:20 that uh sense with certainly didn't have 07:23 the sense that the the wider world you 07:25 know shared my sense of injustice 07:28 uh and uh out of the ashes of occupy 07:31 wall street we started organizing around 07:33 debt based on the recognition that a lot 07:34 of people came to occupy were in debt 07:37 for education for health care 07:39 of course it was the mortgage crisis 07:41 that that it was the larger framework so 07:44 debt was everywhere when she started 07:45 looking at it and uh since then you know 07:49 david eventually went to the uk 07:51 i kept organizing with people and we 07:53 launched something called uh the debt 07:55 collective which is a union for letters 07:57 and 07:58 we have been organizing primarily around 08:01 the issue of student debt cancellation 08:02 though we though we also work on other 08:04 types of debt 08:05 for example some of our co-founders 08:07 planned the first protest demanding full 08:10 student debt cancellation and free 08:11 public college in 2012 marking one t day 08:15 the day student debt surpassed one 08:16 trillion dollars it's now 1.8 trillion 08:19 uh so math in terms of pure math things 08:22 have gotten a lot worse but as nika said 08:24 rightly the discourse is much better 08:27 and partly because of the debt 08:28 collective we've unearthed the various 08:30 legal mechanisms by which it is actually 08:32 very possible for the government to 08:35 cancel student debt and we have forced 08:37 them to cancel 08:38 upwards of 10 billion dollars of student 08:41 debt just in 2021 alone 08:44 so debt cancellation is we've proven 08:46 it's a realistic demand it's a very 08:47 popular one i i just saw an ad for 08:50 stacey abrams who's running for governor 08:51 of georgia and she talks about medical 08:53 debt cancellation in her campaign ad so 08:55 i think that's another sign of the times 08:58 so i think um 09:01 you know i won't delay us but but we are 09:03 definitely in a in a moment where i 09:04 think the question is how can we keep 09:06 expanding the public imagination on this 09:08 issue how can we address some of the 09:10 doubts people have because not everybody 09:11 agrees and then yeah strategically what 09:14 do we do where is the power 09:16 and we have a great panels here to talk 09:18 about these issues and and to address 09:20 some of the common concerns you know 09:21 people are worried about 09:23 the the deficit right worried about the 09:25 way that this will affect uh there's a 09:26 lot of misapprehensions about how 09:28 personal debt and public debt relates 09:30 hopefully we can set some of those 09:31 straight here 09:33 uh some of the questions that we can 09:34 return to according to the 09:36 materials circulated in advance 09:38 should student debt be cancelled i 09:40 already answered that yes and it can be 09:42 can the government run out of money what 09:45 is money what is debt 09:46 um so if people 09:48 i want to invite people to touch on 09:50 those points since that's what the 09:51 audience was told they'd hear about uh i 09:53 also want to invite people to use the q 09:55 a function 09:56 that is that is here we're going to also 09:59 address some of the questions from the 10:00 last session as as they as nika said 10:03 they didn't get answered 10:05 so i'm going to briefly introduce our 10:07 panelists the esteemed uh michael hudson 10:09 who you know has been working on the 10:10 question of jubilee 10:12 for a long time and really is in many 10:14 ways inspiration for david's work for 10:16 the debt collective's work really blaze 10:18 an incredible trail talking about the 10:21 history and precedence and philosophy of 10:24 jubilee and more michael hudson is 10:26 president of the institute for the study 10:28 of long-term term economic trends a wall 10:31 street financial analyst distinguished 10:33 research professor of economics at the 10:34 university of missouri kansas city 10:36 he is the author of and forgive them 10:38 their debts 2018 and j is for junk 10:41 economics and assume there are many 10:43 other books 10:45 steve keane is an australian economist 10:47 and author he's the author of debunking 10:49 economics and more recently the new 10:51 economics a manifesto 10:54 pavlina chernova is an associate 10:56 professor of economics at bard college 10:58 and a research scholar at the levy 11:00 economics institute she specializes in 11:02 modern monetary theory and public policy 11:04 uh public policy so a warm welcome to 11:07 all of you and i'm going to pass it over 11:09 to steve keane to 11:11 offer some thoughts on the last uh 11:14 fight club session and 11:16 maybe give us some some brief thoughts 11:18 on debt what is it 11:20 why should it go.
SK:
11:27 okay my sound is coming through 11:30 good all right okay um 11:32 the i'll start first of all with the 11:34 thank you to thomas picketty who 11:36 couldn't join us for this session 11:37 um it is very rare for mainstream 11:40 economists to engage with critics like 11:42 myself and and michael and patlina 11:45 so it's uh a tribute to him that he was 11:48 very generous with his time and i 11:50 thought also he's very generous with his 11:51 perspective in the debate if i can 11:53 characterize how thomas would differ 11:55 from myself and michael thomas's 11:57 recommendations at the end of 12:00 his magnum opus capital were 12:02 fundamentally tax the rich 12:04 and the attitude which michael and 12:06 myself and 12:08 have are concerning debt is abolish the 12:10 debt uh now of course you think about 12:13 what taxes and what interest payments 12:16 are and what profit are they're all 12:17 flows they're flows of money per year 12:20 that's how they're denominated and what 12:22 taxation says well let's re let's take 12:24 some of that flow away from the rich and 12:26 direct it to the poor that is the 12:28 conventional attitude towards taxation 12:30 and i'm sure pavlina will get in here 12:32 and elaborate that tax doesn't actually 12:34 pay for anything when you take a look at 12:35 the modern monetary theory perspective 12:37 on how government money is created the 12:39 government creates money by running it 12:41 by running a deficit so government 12:43 spending creates money taxation destroys 12:46 money 12:48 and it doesn't actually contribute to 12:50 anything it's the government as one of 12:52 the two primary money creators in a 12:54 capitalist economy can create the money 12:57 it needs for any particular task it 12:59 doesn't need to tax so what then is the 13:01 perspective on tax from from this 13:03 position it is fundamentally that 13:06 taxation decides whose bank account goes 13:09 down to reduce the excess money created 13:12 by government spending 13:13 and what we know from the last 30 years 13:16 or so is the rich are 13:18 incredibly successful at making sure 13:20 it's not their accounts that get 13:22 affected so what what would be what we'd 13:24 be doing 13:26 with um 13:27 uh 13:28 with with taxation isn't doing what uh 13:30 is the perspective from uh 13:33 pickett's capital in the first place 13:35 and secondly the rich are very very good 13:37 at evading it uh now the point from 13:40 michael and i'm sure michael will 13:41 elaborate very effectively here on his 13:43 own behalf but what we see and this 13:46 comes out of my own mathematical 13:47 modeling i might add is that 13:49 debt increases the income of the rich 13:52 which is quite obvious it increases the 13:54 income of what we would call rontiers 13:56 but it actually in my mathematical 13:58 modeling of minsk's financial 13:59 instability hypothesis it actually 14:01 directly reduces the income share of the 14:03 workers 14:04 uh if i in my simple models which i'll 14:06 explain in the written manifesto um the 14:10 debt is by money is in that modeled 14:11 model exclusively by the firm that's the 14:13 simplification i make to start the model 14:16 and i did not expect this outcome 14:18 but what happened was the profit rate 14:19 that capitals got the owners of the firm 14:22 vary around an equilibrium level as the 14:25 level of private debt went up the level 14:27 of income going to workers went down it 14:29 was a direct relationship and i 14:30 explained the causal mechanism in 14:32 manifest so i won't try to elaborate 14:34 here 14:35 so fundamentally reducing the debt will 14:37 increase the share of income going to 14:38 workers 14:39 and it's and and on top of that we have 14:41 the modern monetary theory case uh that 14:44 the government doesn't need to borrow an 14:46 order to spend uh doesn't need to tax to 14:49 finance it so all the things like 14:50 student debt are a travesty when you 14:53 intellectually understand how money is 14:54 created i'll hand back to the other 14:56 panelists thank you.
AT:
14:59 wonderful thanks for that i want to hand 15:01 it to pafflina uh to give her a 15:03 perspective on debt and you know i i 15:05 wouldn't it's modern monetary theory is 15:08 really useful in this but you know one 15:09 thing we encounter over and over again 15:11 is this assumption people have and it's 15:12 because it's part of right-wing ideology 15:14 in their frame that you know the state 15:16 is like a household 15:18 you know they can run out of money you 15:19 got to tighten your belt and budget in 15:21 this limited way so maybe i think 15:24 commenting on that if you're inspired to 15:26 it would be great.
PT:
15:28 yeah thank you uh thank you for the 15:31 invitation um 15:33 i 15:34 want to start with uh actually david 15:37 graber's comment on um 15:39 paradoxes that we have in our daily 15:42 lives how we have turned like 15:44 absurdities into like common sense what 15:47 people perceive to be is common sense 15:50 and this idea that the government must 15:52 behave as a household 15:54 and especially when it comes to its 15:55 financial affairs uh is one of those 15:58 paradoxes that we like we have created 16:00 such mythology and 16:02 you know just uh uh 16:05 culture of acceptance of of this um 16:08 basically flawed idea and it's all built 16:11 on a completely flawed understanding of 16:14 money on the history of money on the 16:16 origins of money and i will not go 16:17 through all of it now 16:19 but um just to say that even on the face 16:22 of it 16:23 when we consider a very basic simple 16:25 reality that the currency in our pockets 16:29 comes from one place and one place alone 16:33 and that comes from the public sector 16:35 just when we consider that basic 16:36 stylized fact 16:38 it can't possibly be true that the 16:41 government needs to get money from us to 16:43 pay for its expenses when it has the 16:47 ultimate means find issues the ultimate 16:50 means final means of payment 16:52 so 16:53 um 16:54 mmt really zeroes in on that under 16:58 theorized aspect of the monetary reality 17:02 there is private debt there is private 17:04 uh money creation of all at all levels 17:08 we use this hierarchical 17:10 model to describe it but the public 17:12 currency is under theorized 17:14 and so governments have had this 17:16 prerogative to issue 17:18 their currencies and and even in the old 17:20 days to stamp their gold coins they have 17:22 had this prerogative 17:24 and they must first provide the currency 17:27 before they can retrieve it back in the 17:29 form of tax payments or or bonds 17:32 purchase bond sales 17:34 and so what mmt basically stresses is 17:36 that the the causality is completely 17:38 upside down it's reversed 17:40 the issuer must provide the currency 17:42 before the users can use it to pay taxes 17:46 to purchase government securities so a 17:49 fundamental contribution from an mmt a 17:52 point of view is that a government is 17:56 self-financed 17:57 but you must 17:59 also look at the kind of government 18:01 you're talking about we have so adopted 18:04 these mythologies that governments must 18:06 behave like households that we have 18:08 created these monetary systems in these 18:11 monetary regimes which artificially 18:13 constrain this very basic prerogative of 18:15 government and then we force the public 18:18 sector to behave like a household to tax 18:20 in order to pay so you know countries 18:22 that give up their own currencies the 18:24 dollar eyes that accept or that that 18:26 actually inherit colonial currencies you 18:28 know they are fundamentally constrained 18:30 in in many ways in managing their 18:32 domestic economic affairs so um 18:36 the public sector we need to be looking 18:38 at what kind of uh monetary regime we're 18:40 looking at what kind of institutional 18:43 design we have what kind of coordination 18:45 we have between our institutions to meet 18:48 our economic objectives so lesson number 18:51 two from mmt is that zeroing in on these 18:54 arbitrary ratios debt to deficit debt to 18:57 gdp deficit to gdp ratio these are 19:00 really 19:01 red herrings they divert our attention 19:04 from the important issues 19:06 how does the government spend on what 19:08 does it spend what kind of policies do 19:11 we as democratic polity demand of the 19:13 government and have we surrendered them 19:15 to this false ideology that the 19:17 government does not have money and that 19:19 it must uh pinch its pennies like a 19:22 household 19:24 i'll just pause here and we can carry 19:26 this further yeah.
AT:
so much to dig into 19:29 but michael would you like to weigh in 19:31 and respond to these comments and maybe 19:32 say anything you didn't get to say in 19:34 the last session before we go deeper.
MH:
19:37 pauline is quite right when she says 19:39 that uh public debt is not the problem 19:41 uh private debt is a problem so i want 19:44 to pick up what uh steve keane said 19:46 because he was addressing the issue that 19:48 kept coming up uh in the debate and uh 19:51 what was the argument uh with picketing 19:53 uh 19:54 piketty wanted to tax wealth to make 19:57 uh people more equal the problem is that 19:59 taxes leave the existing economic 20:02 structure in place so uh if you had if 20:05 you taxed uh the banks uh the debts 20:07 would still mount up you'd still have 20:09 student debt you'd still have 20:11 foreclosures you'd still have insolvency 20:13 but uh the some the rich would have to 20:15 pay some of the cost of impoverishing 20:18 society to the government which doesn't 20:20 really need it anyway uh so i don't 20:23 think that uh 20:24 taxes uh 20:27 address the problem that steve and i are 20:29 talking about that the economy has a 20:31 real structural problem and uh from 20:34 what david graber and i talked about for 20:36 years uh debt is what the 99 percent 20:40 owed to the one percent most people are 20:42 in debt and most debts are owed to one 20:44 percent of the population and paying 20:46 this debt leaves less disposable income 20:50 for the debtors uh less for students 20:52 because if they pay student debt they 20:54 can't afford 20:55 to buy a mortgage to uh take a buy a 20:58 home uh homeowners i have to pay 21:00 mortgage debt uh and can't afford to buy 21:02 goods and services uh credit card 21:05 companies auto loans uh most of the 21:07 people who wanted to disagree with what 21:10 uh steve and i are saying about the need 21:13 to cancel this debt that is bankrupting 21:16 the economy is well isn't that a choice 21:19 it's a voluntary bargain between uh uh 21:22 borrowers and debtors why do you want to 21:24 interfere with the free market and the 21:26 voluntary bargain well the bargain is 21:29 your money or your life you want a home 21:31 or you want to be asleep in the sidewalk 21:33 oh you want a home you got to go into 21:35 debt uh do you want a job well you're 21:37 going to have to get a degree get a 21:39 degree you're going to have to go into 21:40 debt unless uh your parents were uh 21:43 bankers or had enough money uh to put to 21:46 put you through uh so most uh most 21:48 deaths throughout most of history 21:51 weren't voluntary they were arrears they 21:53 were uh cultivators on the land that uh 21:56 there was a crop failure there was a war 21:59 they couldn't pay the debts most debts 22:01 were just uh regular income that 22:03 couldn't be paid and uh the creditors 22:06 use the misfortune of society like the 22:09 covent crisis as uh an opportunity to 22:12 make money and uh you can see that here 22:14 in new york uh where uh we all are uh 22:18 right right now there are a lot of 22:20 people that have lost their jobs a lot 22:22 of people uh uh these people either are 22:24 renters and can't pay the rent or if 22:27 they've bought a home that can't pay the 22:28 mortgage 22:29 there was a moratorium biden 22:32 said well we can't just throw all these 22:34 people out on the street let's have a 22:35 moratorium it expires in february in 22:38 february tens of thousands of new 22:40 yorkers are going to be evicted thrown 22:43 onto the street and uh their houses are 22:45 going to be put up for sale uh and there 22:49 are a lot of uh investment companies 22:51 just waiting to pick up uh all of these 22:53 houses so uh that what steve and i are 22:56 talking about is debt is not in 22:58 equilibrium debt grows exponentially and 23:01 it it uh ends up engulfing the whole 23:04 economy and that's why uh you get to 23:06 choose do you want to keep the debts in 23:08 place and let the economy polarize and 23:11 uh shrink or do you want to write down 23:14 the uh cred the savings of the one 23:16 percent that are invested in loans to 23:19 the 99 percent.
AT:
23:21 yeah well said one phrase from the debt 23:23 collective to get at this point you know 23:25 they're making your money your life is 23:26 we're not in debt because we live beyond 23:28 our means but because we're denied the 23:30 means to live and so i think it 23:32 i i'm sure people here you know 23:34 everybody agrees that debt abolition a 23:36 dead jubilee is coupled with social 23:38 provisions right pavlina's written about 23:39 jobs guarantee right i mean the thing is 23:41 this was the old idea of a jubilee too 23:43 debt cancellation plus you'd get land 23:45 back or you know the means of the means 23:47 of survival um but you're you're making 23:50 the really important point which is you 23:52 know people are basically and this is 23:53 stuff we just see at the deck like of 23:55 every day in the debtors we speak to who 23:57 are desperate sometimes suicidal 23:59 you know i mean this is 24:01 um this is such an urgent issue for so 24:03 many people uh that you know makes 24:06 people poorer but it also you know makes 24:08 people sicker and there's a lot of 24:10 evidence to back that up 24:11 um but people are robbed twice right 24:13 they're underpaid at the job and then 24:14 forced to borrow to survive and this is 24:16 definitely a means of 24:18 wealth extraction it makes makes the 24:19 rich richer the poor poor 24:21 i another way to put this is that that 24:23 isn't just about money it's about power 24:26 and you all have hit on that um do 24:27 people want to say anyone feel inspired 24:29 to take that up right i mean this is 24:31 you know why do we have this system why 24:33 does it stay if we can point out all the 24:35 ways it's seemingly irrational and fair 24:37 you know why is it so entrenched and 24:39 that's because this is this is power 24:41 it's not just a way to get money it also 24:43 keeps people under the thumb of 24:44 predators and david graper was 24:46 not just of creditors but 24:48 um of employers 24:50 uh do people want to speak to that at 24:52 all 24:53 the way debt is obstructs democracy 24:56 keeps people down.
MH:
24:58 well it wasn't supposed to be that way 25:01 power that was uh the first deaths uh 25:03 anthropologically were uh the virgil 25:06 debts if you were in a primitive society 25:08 and you injured somebody uh 25:10 you have to pay reparations you have a 25:12 choice if you beat somebody up break his 25:14 arm or kill someone either your family 25:17 would feud with them and you'd all begin 25:18 fighting or you'd pay reparations uh the 25:21 whole idea of debt 25:23 the whole economy functioned on credit 25:25 long before there was money there was 25:27 credit uh if if you were a farmer in 25:30 mesopotamia in 3000 bc uh 25:33 you uh 25:35 get the cro what do you do during the 25:37 crop year uh 25:39 money was used one day a year 25:42 for the farmers in mesopotamia that's 25:44 when the harvest time came in uh on the 25:47 uh and the debts that they owed for uh 25:49 the beer that they drank at the local uh 25:52 ale house and we have the records of the 25:54 ale house uh and for the uh 25:57 food or for the horses or for the water 25:59 uh when you go to the ale house you'd uh 26:02 run up a bill uh a tab just like today 26:05 and it all came due uh on at harvest 26:08 time and everything would be paid and uh 26:11 that worked except once in a while there 26:13 was a crop failure uh or there was a 26:16 drought and hammurabi would say if the 26:18 people can't pay the debt 26:20 we're going to cancel it because if they 26:23 can't pay the debt and they become a 26:24 slave of the ale lady do we really want 26:27 the cultivators all to 26:29 end up the debt servants in bondage uh 26:33 owing their crops to the ale lady and 26:35 then we're not going to be able to get 26:37 them to work on the 26:38 corvae work to build palace walls and 26:41 temples and big ditches and we're not 26:44 going to be able to uh get the uh crop 26:47 taxes uh from them so the whole idea 26:49 depth was supposed to be an equilibrium 26:52 and when it couldn't be paid every early 26:54 society wiped them out and all of that 26:57 uh 26:58 occurred until greece and rome it was 27:00 really rome that made debt a means of 27:03 getting 27:04 getting labor into debt and having to 27:06 work off the debt on the land of the 27:10 uh the creditor and uh 27:12 we're still living with the uh backwash 27:15 of roman law uh and that that's the 27:17 problem our legal system uh is uh a 27:21 pro-creditor and 27:23 this went against 27:24 every society that preceded rome and 27:27 that's become the legal system of 27:29 western civilization.
AT:
27:32 yep really interesting yeah pavlina you 27:33 want to win.
PT:
i i love where uh michael 27:37 took this conversation 27:39 you know um 27:41 when we look at graber's book you know 27:43 debt is a social relationship and it 27:46 became monetized through time 27:48 but even early on there was this kind of 27:51 coercive relationship between 27:54 authority palace king and subjects and 27:57 that was the tax that's a debt that's a 27:59 sort of debt and that tax was always 28:02 there to to compel to force the 28:05 production of goods and resources to 28:08 provision the palace okay this is 28:10 unavoidable and that tax was used to 28:12 eventually you know kind of standardize 28:14 the unit of account how we pay these 28:15 debts and michael's work is very good um 28:18 in illustrating that when 28:21 private creditors gained so much power 28:25 over credit creation um then the 28:28 peasants were obligated to the private 28:31 creditors and they were not as obligated 28:34 to the state in terms of delivering 28:36 corn and barley and grain to the palace 28:40 so the palace actually that weakened the 28:42 palace capability to do dead jubilees 28:45 because the palace could say i forgive 28:47 you your debts if you had a crop failure 28:49 you don't have to deliver the grain to 28:50 me but the private creditor would not do 28:52 that now why does the palace tax because 28:55 the power is not only needed to 28:57 provision for itself and you know again 29:00 it's the riches it's all power but also 29:03 they did build you know corvae labor was 29:05 infrastructure it was public work so 29:07 there was some semblance of kind of 29:09 public goods provisioning however 29:11 coercive that was 29:12 that is very much fast forward to the 29:14 present day that is very much the 29:16 function of the tax today the public 29:18 sector which issues its own currency 29:21 does not need to tax to collect the tax 29:23 to finance its public projects the 29:26 function of the tax is still for the 29:28 public to require the public's currency 29:31 to work in exchange to provision goods 29:34 and services and it is 29:37 you would you would you know one might 29:38 argue in a democratic sense our 29:40 expectation of the state is then to 29:43 provide public goods um that will 29:45 provision for the community as a whole 29:47 now what does this have to do with 29:49 student debt 29:50 well i mean student debt is one of those 29:53 debts that actually can be forgiven that 29:56 the vast majority of student debt is 29:58 held by the public sector it is there is 30:01 a small proportion that is held by 30:03 private you know you know privately 30:05 issued debt and not backed by government 30:07 guarantees but as we have said shown at 30:10 the leaving institute um it is uh 30:13 without major disruptions in fact to the 30:16 private sector which you probably want 30:18 to create disruptions you can cancel it 30:20 you can have a debt jubilee with student 30:22 debt um and so i think that broadly i 30:25 would think about taxes in this way that 30:27 they are you know certainly historically 30:30 a coercive mechanism they are certainly 30:32 a force that compels us to work 30:35 in exchange for money and now we and and 30:38 we have had you know uh you know 30:41 various campaigns about you know 30:42 taxation without representation which 30:44 presupposes certain democratic demand 30:48 right that we want the collective to do 30:50 something for all of us 30:51 but we need to kind of connect that to 30:54 theorizing what the money can do what 30:55 the public sector with the public 30:57 currency can do um if it is going to tax 31:01 and if it's going to attract resources 31:03 then it has a reciprocal 31:05 obligation to then 31:07 quote unquote provide for the good life 31:09 and this whole mythology that we can't 31:12 cancel the deaths that somehow it's 31:14 inequitable for the rich kids to have 31:17 their debt cancelled along with many 31:19 other things are just um disempowering 31:22 narratives 31:23 uh that we can do x y and z.
MH:
31:26 can i elaborate something that uh 31:28 paulina just said she's absolute she 31:30 pointed to the key point that uh the 31:32 reason that student debt can be 31:34 cancelled is its own to the government 31:36 not private banks so there's no lobbying 31:38 organization that's going to come in and 31:40 say uh you can't interfere with private 31:42 enterprise uh she began but earlier uh 31:45 she said that the uh the debt was the 31:48 power of the ruler uh over uh the 31:52 debtors uh that the people that the 31:55 rulers of mesopotamia really wanted 31:57 power over was that over the creditors 31:59 every early society stabilized itself by 32:03 preventing the emergence of a creditor 32:05 oligarchy and uh the uh over and over 32:08 again you'd see creditors getting rich 32:10 then all of a sudden they would 32:12 disappear from the record uh and uh the 32:14 idea is that uh all the way down through 32:17 the byzantine empire uh the rulers uh 32:21 would say we don't want a wealthy credit 32:23 or oligarchy because they're going to 32:25 use this labor as an army and they're 32:27 going to overthrow us and then they're 32:29 going to write all the laws and then we 32:30 won't get any more taxes uh they'll get 32:33 all of the money and they'll be the new 32:35 kings so uh the uh the look at 32:39 china for instance china is in the 32:40 position of uh 32:42 to its uh economy that is the u.s is to 32:45 the student debtors it's easy to write 32:48 down the debts if the debts are owed to 32:49 yourself that's why the mesopotamians 32:52 were able to write down the debts it's 32:54 because they were all owed to the palace 32:56 and the temples and uh they also would 32:58 make sure that the debts to the private 33:00 creditors uh were cancelled and they'd 33:02 move against the creditors so the key in 33:05 preserving democracy was to have what 33:08 president biden calls an autocracy an 33:10 autocracy is someone who says the public 33:13 interest is more important than the 33:14 interest of creditors.
AT:
33:17 i think this really you know for me 33:18 coming from the deck like there's a lot 33:19 of really interesting strategic 33:21 questions here because that is why we 33:23 focused on student debt precisely for 33:24 this reason because we know 33:27 we you know what it 33:29 the majority as you say is held by the 33:31 federal government 33:32 nevertheless the government was 33:33 pretending it didn't have the power to 33:35 cancel it so we had to throw that in its 33:36 face multiple times and you have made 33:38 headway there 33:40 and and you know if there are leverage 33:42 points against private creditors it's 33:43 that they're violating laws consumer 33:45 protection laws that they're engaging in 33:47 robo signing or shenanigans but we have 33:49 less we do have less leverage and i 33:51 think there's really there's some 33:52 strategic 33:53 major strategic challenges that are 33:56 being raised here steve would you like 33:57 to come in um and maybe uh 34:00 i don't know the standard you know 34:02 response to some of this talk is you 34:04 know but we need the creditors they're 34:05 they're productively investing capital 34:08 and if debts are abolished won't they go 34:09 on strike and not you know lend to 34:12 people.
SK:
34:13 yeah i mean the the 34:15 important point i think we've i like the 34:18 way that we overtake overtaken with 34:19 havelina as well uh to talking about 34:22 where this originated because we go 34:23 right back and i'm i haven't yet yet i 34:26 must admit uh david graves like the 34:28 latest and last book um that's my 34:30 reading on my flight to australia on 34:32 from on friday um but if you look at 34:35 where this we all did again humans 34:38 built societies built on mutual 34:39 obligation and we'd actually do things 34:42 for each other it was actually 34:44 fundamentally a gift based society was 34:45 the the 34:47 ancient basis of how humans behave 34:49 towards each other and that has been 34:52 perverted over time into what we now 34:53 call debt it first of all went through 34:55 the mesopotamian systems where michael 34:57 explained the role very well now it's 34:59 been taken over by the private sector 35:01 and what we have is i divide the world 35:03 into three major social classes workers 35:06 capitalists and bankers 35:08 and what has happened is the bankers are 35:10 the ones the financial sector are the 35:12 ones who have completely distorted that 35:14 original role of the thing which makes 35:16 us a human society and that made it into 35:19 a form of bondage uh for part of that 35:21 society but the trouble of that bondage 35:24 is described as disguised by economic 35:26 theory and if you have any exposure to 35:28 neoclassical economics you would know of 35:30 things like what's called the medigliani 35:32 miller uh 35:33 hypothesis that says it it's actually up 35:36 ultimately if you're paying interest at 35:38 all it's better that a corporation be 35:39 100 financed by debt 35:43 you get uh the argument that the 35:45 government has to borrow off the public 35:47 um 35:48 which really treats money as being 35:50 something like uh as is my good friend 35:52 michael kumoff the only neoclassical 35:54 economist who understands money uh says 35:56 it treats something like gravel that has 35:58 to be dug up and dumped in some person's 36:00 um storage system and then dolled out 36:02 when necessary there's a physical thing 36:05 rather than a sense of obligation uh 36:07 designed either between the public and 36:09 the government or the public and the 36:11 private bank sector 36:13 so once we if we realize that the that 36:16 we have two major institutions to create 36:18 um to create money 36:21 governments are spending more than they 36:23 get back in taxation or banks lending 36:25 out more than quebec and repayments the 36:27 question is what ends up those is that 36:29 money used when we take a look at the 36:31 private sector uh the financial sector 36:34 has used economic theory without knowing 36:36 they're doing it but use economic theory 36:38 as a cover to finance asset price 36:40 inflation and to put us in debt into 36:43 into bondage for the remainder of it it 36:45 is not a creative use of money at all uh 36:48 banks when after the great depression 36:50 which is the last time we had a serious 36:52 uh debt crisis that then led through 36:55 dramatic transactions to society 36:57 bankers were under were a despised class 37:01 in the beginning of the 40s and 50s 37:03 and they were controlled their role was 37:06 to provide uh 37:07 investment finance for for industrial 37:10 capital 37:11 that back in those days the level of 37:13 private debt the the non-financial 37:15 sector's private debt was roughly 40 37:17 percent of gdp and most of that was 37:19 corporate there if you fast forward to 37:21 the financial crisis that rose to 170 of 37:24 gdp and it was predominantly household 37:27 debt and the large part of that 37:28 household debt was actually what gave us 37:30 the bubble in the in-house prices in the 37:32 first place you had a negative a 37:35 damaging feedback relationship between 37:38 debt asset prices and ultimately a 37:40 financial collapse so we have we need to 37:43 have a decent theory and mmt is part of 37:46 that theory the other part is minsk is 37:48 financial instability hypothesis they 37:50 are quite compatible with each other and 37:52 what they tell us is we should reduce 37:53 the level of private debt and if you do 37:55 that rather than taking money away from 37:57 the poor rich as well 38:00 in what you do is give more money to 38:01 workers who spend more so you actually 38:04 get when i've modeled a modern debt 38:05 jubilee you get a boost in economic 38:08 activity and ultimately even the 38:09 capitalists benefit so this is one of 38:11 those terrible cases where ideology 38:13 leads us into a trap that makes 38:14 everybody off but put some people in 38:16 power over the poor.
AT:
38:19 yes uh really interesting comments i'm 38:22 i'm here scanning some of the questions 38:23 from the last fight club and we have 38:25 actually answered a couple of them 38:27 um i mean one you just used the word 38:29 stabilizing one person asked uh wouldn't 38:33 um wouldn't cancelling debts be 38:36 destabilizing and you're actually saying 38:37 the opposite which i think the research 38:38 shows which it actually would be good 38:40 for terrorism in a kind of idealized 38:43 version of it where it actually wants to 38:44 share prosperity 38:46 uh yeah michael you're pointing.
MH:
to 38:48 everything about uh cancelling the debt 38:50 and why it's stable is you cancel 38:52 savings on the other side of the balance 38:54 sheet 38:55 we're talking about debt but all this 38:56 debt is somebody else's savings and uh 38:59 the problem is that almost all the 39:01 savings in the economy are now owned by 39:03 the one percent that's why david 39:05 popularized the concept of one percent 39:07 and the best thing you can do uh if you 39:10 cancel the debt to the one percent you 39:11 wipe out their savings and you take away 39:14 their dominance just like the 19th 39:16 century finally took away the power of 39:18 landlords that they had since feudal 39:20 times and that was what triggered in the 39:22 takeoff of industrial capitalism you 39:24 have to cancel this rontier uh claims on 39:28 society that uh the 39:30 creditor uh doesn't really play a 39:32 productive role 39:34 he collects interest in asleep just like 39:36 the landlord collects interest in his 39:38 sleep 39:39 landlords creditors rontiers monopolists 39:42 they do not play a productive role so 39:44 what do you destabilize you destabilize 39:46 the destabilizer 39:48 papalina did you have a thought yet if i 39:50 can come back 39:52 okay 39:55 yes uh okay sorry i'll go 39:58 yeah yeah okay finish steve and i'll 40:00 step in 40:02 i'm sorry okay um you know 40:05 what we if we did that 40:08 that is the ideal let's get rid of the 40:10 the power structure but of course the 40:11 instructions got the power so we would 40:13 lose that battle 40:14 inevitably so the proposal i've been 40:16 putting forward which actually uses the 40:17 concept of mmt as well is a modern debt 40:20 jubilee and that says look there are 40:22 there are two ways you can create money 40:24 the government can spend more than it 40:25 gets back in taxes the private banking 40:28 will then get back in in repayments now 40:30 if you use the government's power you 40:31 could actually give everybody an equal 40:33 amount of money and say if you have any 40:34 debt you must cancel that debt 40:36 so you create money which means that for 40:39 the for the for the uh creditor class 40:42 what they have is their loans disappear 40:44 but they get they get money in bank 40:45 account and step okay they get reserves 40:47 fundamentally so they don't actually end 40:49 up losing out but what it does is by 40:51 giving everybody the same amount of 40:52 money you give far more to the workers 40:54 than you give to the capitalists and 40:55 rontiers and by that mechanism you 40:58 actually end up stimulating the economy 41:00 you can even set it up so that the bonds 41:02 interest paid on the bonds by the 41:03 government takes place of interest paid 41:05 on debt by the private sector and the 41:08 rentiers end up coming out getting the 41:10 sort of money that you submit the the 41:12 role of banking was described as the i 41:14 think the numbers are three six and 41:15 three uh borrowed three judge charge at 41:18 six and be on the golf course by 3 p.m 41:21 now that's where they bloody well belong 41:22 they don't long running running 41:24 washington in what i now call the 41:26 financial politico complex get them back 41:27 on the golf course where their 41:29 uselessness can be put to something 41:31 productive 41:32 well steve your proposal to bail out the 41:35 billionaires is very good for you 41:37 billionaires uh sitting there but uh the 41:39 fact is we really want to leave these 41:42 billionaires with all the money this 41:43 this debate came up with a civil war uh 41:46 when you wanted to get rid of slavery uh 41:48 people said well if abraham lincoln 41:50 cancels slavery he has to pay the slave 41:53 owners and lincoln said absolutely not 41:55 slave owning is wrong and we're not 41:57 going to create a new wealthy class to 41:59 dominate the country by paying them for 42:01 all the money that they've got from 42:02 slaves you don't want to bail out uh 42:05 to make the creditors whole come on uh 42:08 uh i don't have a billion dollars like 42:10 you but uh i certainly might want to 42:13 bail out these passages.
AT:
42:18 so paulina i want you to respond to this 42:21 but i also want to throw you one more 42:22 question from the last session that i 42:24 think 42:25 and this person asked uh the main result 42:27 of quantitative easing appeared to be an 42:29 increase in the value of assets such as 42:31 share prices and housing i'm assuming 42:33 they're talking about you know early 42:34 2020 when covid hit 42:36 when the government bought a lot of bad 42:38 corporate debt steve mentioned corporate 42:39 debt so the person asked to what extent 42:42 are the central banks captured by the 42:43 interest of the richest in society and 42:44 what should be done about this.
PT:
42:47 okay so that's exactly where i was going 42:49 to go with this conversation i mean dead 42:51 jubilees happen all the time you know 42:54 what did we do in 2008 you know the 42:57 government stepped in with extraordinary 43:00 budget and purchased enormous amount of 43:03 toxic financial assets it i i don't know 43:05 what else we can call it do you believe 43:07 not you know making these assets whole 43:10 um you know so it is it's a it's a type 43:13 of dead jubilee um what did we do during 43:16 covet you know we passed the economy uh 43:19 governments appropriated again budgets 43:22 that they had not uh appropriated in 43:24 post-war history in any crisis you know 43:26 japan i think it passed 56 percent of 43:29 gdp a budget overnight the united states 43:32 27 43:33 that has to concentrate the mind the 43:36 government has enormous the government 43:38 has all the financial resources that it 43:40 needs to grease the economic wheels to 43:44 pause student debt to pause moratorium 43:47 on on mortgage payments um on so it's 43:50 just a matter of choices um i would say 43:54 that um 43:55 you know the tax system obviously 43:57 doesn't doesn't do this what we want to 43:59 do is simply eliminate extractive 44:03 services right we want to to eliminate 44:05 kind of unproductive predatory practices 44:09 you know unsustainable practices i think 44:11 that there is a way to certainly you 44:13 know pacify the rentier class by 44:16 replacing private debts with public 44:20 debts because those are default 44:21 risk-free and that's what we do 44:24 all the time and so i think for the debt 44:26 collective this is an argument to say 44:28 you have a public purse that is 44:30 regularly used for 44:33 these kinds of purposes to forgive debts 44:34 in the private sector we can certainly 44:37 deploy it for student debts 44:39 and i so so the question here is 44:42 um the state the government creates the 44:46 only default risk-free asset that's the 44:49 only one that can do this you know 44:51 europe is grappling with this you know 44:53 they have designed a system that they 44:54 cannot create a default risk risk-free 44:57 bond and they changed and broke their 44:59 own rules during the pandemic to make 45:01 sure that the european central bank 45:03 actually purchases these government 45:04 bonds to make sure that the bills are 45:06 paid and there's no question asked that 45:09 is the monetary reality and we just work 45:11 around it to kind of limit our policy 45:14 space so qe what was huey i mean qe was 45:18 a a way of basically you know ensuring 45:21 the positive value of something that is 45:24 essentially worthless some insurance on 45:26 some you know derivative that uh you 45:29 know the financial sector created just 45:31 to create financial return financial 45:33 profits there's no productive you know 45:36 uh value to this kind of activity we are 45:38 essentially validating the 45:40 financialization of the economy through 45:42 qe in order to uh 45:45 to prevent some sort of financial global 45:47 class collapse could we have done it 45:49 differently of course we could have made 45:51 companies whole we could have made 45:52 households whole we could have made big 45:54 industrial you know firms whole we 45:56 didn't have to necessarily to rescue the 45:59 financial sector which is the way we 46:01 went about this and so 46:03 um i don't quite 46:06 believe that the qe is what fed an asset 46:09 bubble it definitely supported values of 46:13 assets that had no value the market 46:14 suddenly realized these are not worth 46:16 anything and so we supported those 46:18 assets it's that we permit the financial 46:21 sector to do what it does that feeds 46:23 this financial bubble and we don't have 46:25 the regulations i don't think interest 46:27 rates are going to do the job or 46:29 stopping qe will stop this kind of 46:31 speculative behavior so 46:34 is the banking sector captured 46:37 in many ways and one of the most 46:39 important ways is ideology is this this 46:42 belief 46:43 this this deep belief that somehow we 46:45 have to manage our economic affairs 46:48 through this this construction the 46:50 private market rather than acknowledge 46:52 the powers that we have in our public 46:54 institutions and deploy them.
AT:
46:58 i mean but part of the appeal of bond 47:00 financing things isn't just that 47:02 uh you know 47:04 rich investors get their payments but 47:06 that it's a way of circumventing 47:08 democratic deliberation too right that's 47:10 part of the benefits like oh well sorry 47:12 you know we we have to pay back the 47:14 bondholders so democracy goes out the 47:15 window right so there's all this value 47:17 added for 47:19 the one percent even that is such a 47:21 mythology like what is a bondholder 47:23 the bondholder is not financing the 47:25 government the government is providing 47:27 the bondholder an opportunity to earn 47:29 interest so it's completely upward 47:31 absolutely not a necessity 47:33 that's right we don't we don't need to 47:35 have i like to have treasuries in my 47:37 retirement portfolio okay it's the 47:40 default risk-free asset but uh it's not 47:43 for pacifying the bondholders that we 47:45 need to be doing all this so we got 47:47 we're getting i'm just trying to bring 47:48 in the questions from the q a which 47:49 there's a lot of great stuff but nicole 47:52 brummer said the bailouts and the crisis 47:53 were like a jubilee but only for the 47:55 rich one percent so we're saying yes 47:56 indeed we could call these a kind of 47:58 jubilee how to make sure the jubilee 48:00 isn't stolen by the rich well we i mean 48:02 my 48:02 sense is we haven't figured that out 48:04 because we don't have enough counter 48:05 power debtors aren't organized creditors 48:07 are 48:08 um there's all this ideology we have to 48:10 debunk but curious if other people have 48:11 some thoughts about that 48:14 moving forward 48:16 so the next emergency isn't as 48:18 profitable.
SK:
48:20 yeah i mean that i think that's a very 48:22 good point and that comes back to the 48:24 power structure talk to michael and i'm 48:25 having a difference of opinion over 48:27 there 48:27 uh because at the moment the power is 48:30 entirely uh 48:31 vested with the creditors and they 48:33 dominate how the government thinks as 48:35 well we need to break that nexus uh i i 48:38 would rather break it by a way that 48:40 actually shuts them up by stuffing money 48:42 in their mouth 48:43 which is what they seem to prefer to 48:44 have to do 48:46 rather than trying to decapitate them 48:48 because i've got a feeling that 48:49 at the moment um they have a more 48:52 powerful way of arguing than i have i 48:53 wouldn't like to see an abraham's track 48:55 uh abram's tanks turning up outside my 48:57 house because my arguments were a debt 48:58 for a debt jubilee um so 49:01 uh 49:02 we we do have in the current situation 49:04 they will take over everything so if you 49:06 remember back when obama i was supposed 49:08 to be our progressive uh president um 49:11 there was is part of the proposal to 49:14 solve the cri the financial crisis was 49:16 enormous amount of mortgage reset that 49:18 never happened what did happen with that 49:20 gigantic transfer from from uh from what 49:23 eventually became qe and just to 49:25 elaborate on pavlina to some extent uh 49:28 when qe takes place that is 49:29 fundamentally the central bank with an 49:31 unlimited capacity literally unlimited 49:35 getting reserves for for financial 49:37 institutions in return for 49:39 bonds now when they do that with banks 49:41 that are just an asset swap but the bank 49:43 can't do anything with that money but 49:45 when they buy them off non-bank 49:46 financial institutions which frankly are 49:48 owned by the banks then those are the 49:50 financial institutions end up with 49:51 reserves they can't get any investments 49:53 burned out of so they go and buy shares 49:56 so and all housing uh so in that sense 49:59 yes qe did directly boost house prices 50:01 through the purchases of bonds off the 50:03 non-bank financial sector.
AT:
50:09 so there's lots of great questions here 50:11 here's a provocative one from one of our 50:13 hosts at the uh hannah rentz center um 50:18 if we abolish this is kind of utopian 50:21 begins with the utopian premise in a way 50:23 if we abolish taxes and abolished debt 50:26 it was gone 50:28 um and the government spends to provide 50:30 welfare and services don't we experience 50:32 incredible inflation is that sustainable 50:35 so that is from roger berkowitz.
MH:
uh 50:38 it's not of course it's sustainable 50:40 because right now you have a choice 50:43 either the banks create credit and 50:45 charge interest on it or the government 50:47 creates credit and spends into the 50:48 economy uh why is the government money 50:51 any more inflationary than uh bank money 50:55 the fact is that when the government 50:56 spends money into the economy it's 50:58 usually on infrastructure on payments to 51:01 people and the production and 51:03 consumption economy when banks lend 51:05 money 51:06 create money they create it just like uh 51:08 the government prints money but they 51:10 created for people to bid up the price 51:12 of houses for people to take over other 51:14 corporations they bought to buy assets 51:17 not for goods and services so the 51:19 government creating uh this money that 51:21 banks are creating is actually much less 51:23 inflationary it will not increase the 51:25 price the cost of housing it will not uh 51:28 increase stocks and bonds it will just 51:30 be spent into the economy uh and 51:34 the fact that the government creates it 51:36 as opposed to somebody else is doesn't 51:39 mean a thing.
SK:
51:41 i'm going to come back to michael have a 51:43 good argument here we've been at this 51:44 for a long time uh but i'm actually 51:46 going to point out that one of the 51:47 problems with this is that 51:49 if you look at the scale of government 51:50 spending back there for the first world 51:52 war it literally thought in the american 51:54 economy 51:55 government spending was less than five 51:57 percent of gdp 51:58 now if you finance that by spending 52:00 without taxation that's not a problem 52:02 because you actually want your economy 52:04 to impact before we hit ecological 52:06 crisis which is another question i've 52:07 seen there before we hit the ecological 52:09 limits you wanted the money supply to be 52:11 growing by about at least five percent 52:13 per annum to enable commerce to continue 52:15 expanding in an expanding economy but 52:17 now when you when you go up after the 52:19 stage of big government which occurred 52:20 after the second the great depression at 52:22 the second world war government spending 52:24 is the order of 30 of gdp now if you 52:26 injected 30 of udp every year into the 52:29 economy with money that does not itself 52:31 depreciate 52:32 then you would have runaway inflation so 52:35 the problem actually is not just the the 52:37 the creation of money the need for 52:38 taxation and so on it's the thing we 52:40 actually create 52:42 allegedly has a value which remains 52:44 constant and doesn't fall now 52:46 gazelle keynes praised the monetary 52:49 theorist gazelle by saying gazelle's 52:51 idea of depreciating money was a very 52:53 effective idea that you could create 52:55 money and if you didn't use it it 52:56 depreciated rapidly and that was 52:59 actually used in the the town of wargle 53:00 during the second world during during 53:02 the 53:03 great depression to fight the the 53:05 collapse of the economy caused by the 53:07 credit system failing and wargle ended 53:09 up having full employment until they 53:11 were shut down by the austrian central 53:13 bank so it is actually fundamentally the 53:16 fact that money is set up so that it 53:18 shouldn't depreciate when in fact when 53:20 you look at an ecological sense and 53:22 a social sense maybe we should have 53:25 created a form of money that depreciated 53:26 on its own and then you could have had 53:28 government spending whatever scale was 53:30 necessary and the money depreciating 53:32 over time without needing taxation to 53:34 cancel its excess create creation 53:37 compared to the scale of economic 53:39 activity in the economy.
AT:
53:41 so i want to yeah go for it and then.
PT:
i 53:43 have this because i kind of agree with 53:46 both government spending is not 53:47 inherently inflationary but government 53:49 spending without taxation as steve keane 53:51 is saying is very large contribution to 53:53 the economy and tax taxes retrieve some 53:56 of this purchasing power but i would go 53:58 even further let's go back to the 53:59 history of money that that the role of 54:02 the tax is very important in the launch 54:05 of units of account and 54:07 uh of what you might call like you know 54:09 the the state money so what is the 54:12 purpose of the tax it is that the 54:14 purpose is to transfer resources to the 54:16 public sector 54:17 and so if we abolish that 54:20 if that has implications for the value 54:22 of the currency currently occur 54:24 you know without a doubt but also it has 54:27 implications for this transfer of 54:29 resources from the public private to the 54:31 public domain and so i'm very willing 54:34 and happy to entertain ideas of 54:36 collective provisioning but clearly the 54:39 tax serves this function of providing 54:42 some sort of resource to the public 54:44 sector which today we expect that will 54:46 be then redistributed in a more 54:48 equitable way 54:50 real resource not money.
AT:
54:53 so i want to take us uh i want to take 54:54 us back to the ecological question that 54:56 came up in the last session in a minute 54:58 but first there's quite a few questions 54:59 actually here about student debt which 55:00 is what we advertised the panel to be 55:02 about so i just want to read a couple of 55:05 them and i think i might be missing some 55:06 sorry 55:07 uh nay uh uh nejla asks how is the 55:11 national student debt forgiveness 55:12 program likely to affect university 55:14 enrollments wouldn't it need to be 55:15 paired with a future solution such as 55:17 free college is that problematic i do 55:18 want to say you know and this is partly 55:20 a david graberism we actually reject the 55:23 term forgiveness which implies a that 55:25 the the borrower did something wrong 55:28 part of why we try to use 55:30 uh words like cancellation uh abolition 55:33 etc uh and then this ties another 55:35 question if i can find it related 55:38 there's a um 55:39 in dr graber's book [ __ ] jobs he had 55:42 proposed universal basic income as a 55:43 potential solution in reducing the 55:45 leverage and balance between workers 55:46 employers 55:47 could this be a potential solution to 55:49 reduce and eliminate student debt i 55:50 think there were some others as well but 55:53 people want to speak on any of those.
SK:
55:57 i'll just dive into the the 56:00 extending for education is one of the 56:02 classic cases in which the government 56:03 can spend money into the economy and not 56:06 have a bureaucrat decide how it gets 56:07 spent you give it to the students and 56:09 say you spend it and in that sense it's 56:12 the it's almost the perfect means for 56:14 government money creation when one of 56:16 the replies about government creation is 56:18 you don't want bureaucrats deciding what 56:19 to do you want consumers and you want 56:22 entrepreneurs well give it to the 56:23 students they'll spend they're the 56:25 consumers and it will turn up and the 56:26 entrepreneurs will try to make 56:29 make gain out of the student spending 56:31 and and that is a very creative way for 56:33 government spending to be undertaken and 56:35 the the travesty that's one reason i'm 56:37 delighted not to be in the university 56:39 sector anymore the travesty of what 56:41 student debts how students thought about 56:43 their education 56:44 and how a bunch of moronic uh 56:48 bureaucratic uh capitalists took over 56:50 universities and screwed them up 56:52 completely uh we'd be of a far better 56:54 university sector it was completely 56:56 government-funded and the entry 56:58 requirements were not with how much 56:59 money you borrowed but how many how many 57:01 brain cells you had and how well you 57:03 didn't examine how creative you were 57:06 that should be the barrier to getting 57:07 into universities the university should 57:08 be run by the academic not run by the 57:10 bloody bureaucrats and the debt 57:11 financiers.
MH:
57:13 there's a simpler way of explaining 57:15 uh this point all over most of the world 57:18 education is free uh and for most of the 57:20 world throughout history education has 57:22 been free it's a public utility just 57:25 like there is public health that's free 57:27 what is the there's no need to charge a 57:29 penny for education china doesn't pay uh 57:32 other countries uh have free education 57:35 america is unique in uh charging an 57:38 enormous amount of uh 57:40 for 57:41 for education that should be a free 57:44 public utility 57:48 where you get there by as you say with 57:50 brains.
PT:
57:51 yeah 57:52 and this is how i see universal basic 57:54 income you know uh this is a basic 57:56 income that is a guaranteed uh you know 58:00 free access to 58:02 you know what we consider to be the 58:04 basic essentials of life uh what is 58:07 social security it is an income 58:09 guarantee because we a society we have 58:12 decided that we don't want people to be 58:14 working in their old age um free public 58:17 education free um health care i think um 58:22 i think the i the idea here is to 58:24 rethink what the good life is and how we 58:26 can attain it 58:28 the idea that somehow a income grant 58:31 alone addresses these kind of deep 58:33 structural questions i think uh you know 58:36 i would challenge that i think that 58:38 basic income guarantees are essential uh 58:42 for many people who are not 58:43 participating in 58:45 in whatever we call a market economy but 58:48 we also want to think about the 58:51 structural aspects how we provide 58:53 this quality of life i can give you 58:54 thirty thousand dollars a year and you 58:57 cannot buy health insurance rent and all 59:00 the other things on the market today.
AT:
59:05 um wonderful i'm going to actually 59:07 self-promote here and put a little 59:09 film in the uh chat that is called you 59:11 are not alone that i released earlier 59:13 this year that has some discussion of 59:16 what you know free pub we really need if 59:18 we're going to have couple student debt 59:19 cancellation with free public college we 59:20 have to make sure that it's abundant 59:22 that there are now so all sorts of you 59:24 can have you know a public good that 59:26 isn't offered at the scale that it's 59:29 needed and there can be other 59:30 inequalities that manifest in that so it 59:32 kind of gets into some of those deeper 59:33 questions and problems 59:35 um the ecology point 59:37 uh because people raised this in the 59:39 last fight club i think it's it's 59:40 important you know where how does this 59:42 all hook into the problem of growth um i 59:46 mean i see two ways one is you know debt 59:48 and interest locks us into a model of 59:50 endless growth right the idea we're 59:51 gonna have more tomorrow than we have 59:52 today so we're pushed to exploit planet 59:54 and people more but then also when we 59:56 talk about that jubilee we often go 59:58 it'll boost the economy it'll be great 60:00 there'll be growth 60:02 um 60:03 i don't know is that 60:04 is there a contradiction there uh how 60:07 does you know we're we're we're in an 60:09 ecological crisis let's talk about it 60:12 kevlin you want to go first you're on 60:13 camera.
PT:
60:14 yes sure happily i mean i i turned to 60:17 graber again you know uh the 60:21 the concept of the human economy that 60:24 you know everything is premised on on 60:27 care our entire existence is premised on 60:30 care it's not on an economy and an 60:33 economy this economy is a construct you 60:35 know it's a modern construct 60:37 but if we kind of really think deeply 60:40 about the human condition of what we do 60:42 even in a capitalist economy on our 60:44 daily life what we do is we take care of 60:46 our children of ourselves or our friends 60:48 we entertain each other we feed each 60:49 other we educate each other like the 60:51 vast majority of our work is actually 60:53 care work but we have just you know 60:55 commodified it in this particular way so 60:57 the the environment is this kind of 60:59 crucial dimension because it's 61:01 existential uh you know we can't quite 61:03 reproduce a society if we have 61:05 cannibalized you know the very basic 61:08 resources on which we vitally depend 61:10 so like you know for me it is like a 61:12 fundamental rethinking of what what is 61:15 work what the economy is doing what its 61:17 purpose is why do we have even this 61:19 market what is it supposed to deliver to 61:21 us and if it cannot why aren't we 61:23 delivering it in other ways it's it's a 61:25 kind of reimagining so the the climate 61:28 concern is i think you know the the 61:30 conversation is quite correct you know 61:32 growth cannot be a measure of success in 61:35 pretty much anything 61:37 and accept you know the profit returns 61:40 and so with respect to these very large 61:42 existential questions um we need to be 61:45 thinking about the how to's and uh 61:48 you know technology not just purely 61:50 technical solutions but also the social 61:52 implications of these technical 61:54 solutions.
SK:
61:55 i'm going to dive in with my other work 61:58 which is actually on climate change and 62:00 economics and 62:02 uh 62:02 i i have been 62:05 if there's only one thing that's 62:06 horrified me more about the thinking of 62:09 managing economists and how they treat 62:10 money it's how they've treated the 62:12 ecology uh the stuff which nord house 62:14 got a nobel prize for is garbage that 62:16 should never have been published and 62:18 what's come after that is even even 62:20 worse uh the the ridiculousness they are 62:22 actually talking about a six degree 62:24 increase in temperature causing no more 62:26 than a ten percent fall in gdp as a 62:29 recent paper saying that if we lose 62:31 every major tipping point on the planet 62:33 gdp will be 1.4 percent lower than if we 62:35 didn't lose the amazon of the 62:38 gulf stream greenland the arctic west 62:41 antarctic it's ludicrous it's nonsense 62:44 it's garbage that means we're actually 62:46 on the energy cusp of gigantic 62:47 ecological crisis and the only way out 62:49 of it i'm afraid in my opinion is to it 62:52 to finance at the monetary side of this 62:54 we have to be spending on carbon rather 62:56 than spending on money so i'll put a set 62:59 of proposals together called carbon 63:00 rationing and if you search for 63:02 carbonrationing.org you'll find those 63:04 ideas 63:05 developed by a guy called adam hardy in 63:07 the first instance and the idea there is 63:09 that we'd have a parallel of two tubes 63:11 price systems uh you'd get a universal 63:14 carbon credit which you'd have to spend 63:16 as well as spending money uh the 63:17 universal carbon credit be given out 63:19 equally richard murdoch would get the 63:20 same carbon credit that michael hudson 63:22 got uh but of course michael hudson 63:24 would never exhaust his carbon credit 63:26 whereas rupert would run out in half a 63:27 minute and have to buy it off michael 63:30 and that would be a form of 63:31 redistribution of wealth as well as a 63:33 way of limiting the damage we do for the 63:35 carbon we're putting out into the into 63:37 the atmosphere.
MH:
63:39 there is a particular relevance to 63:41 global warming 63:42 and pollution to what we're talking 63:44 about debt uh think of the economy of 63:46 debt pollution the debt uh is growing 63:49 exponentially as steve has shown uh and 63:52 any rate of interest is a doubling time 63:54 uh think of all this growth of debt this 63:56 savings that uh charges interest that's 63:59 growing exponentially this is like 64:02 carbon into the atmosphere the models 64:04 are really very similar and in both 64:06 cases uh this exponential growth 64:08 stiffens stifles the economy.
SK:
64:11 and economists are responsible 64:12 mainstream economists but frankly 64:14 neoclassical economics has to go the 64:16 most dangerous thing for capitalism is 64:18 not these lefties here talking about 64:20 dead evolution it's near classical 64:22 economics avoiding the real issues in 64:23 capitalism .
MH:
64:25 probably.
AT:
i mean what it also ties back 64:27 into how we began this which is the the 64:30 public money could do a lot of things 64:31 like finance a green new deal right like 64:33 finance adjust transition that i mean 64:35 that i think is also the the debt logic 64:38 the ideology we're in prevents us from 64:40 saying hold on we have the money to 64:41 finance the transformation we need to 64:43 make sure everyone's taken care of right 64:45 like that is that's that's kind of the 64:47 core of 64:48 of it 64:49 um 64:50 i want to ask a question here just 64:52 because i think it's uh something that 64:54 we're all hearing about 64:56 um 64:57 which is the inflation narrative um this 65:00 question is one of the first ones we got 65:03 um 65:04 as the inflation narrative is 65:05 increasingly being discussed in the 65:06 mainstream media as a phenomenon that 65:08 disproportionately punishes the poor 65:10 versus the rich well economic theory 65:12 recognizes that inflation 65:14 um 65:15 operates as a transfer of wealth from 65:17 savers to debtors what role might 65:18 inflation play in modern debt jubilee or 65:21 you know does this conversation give us 65:22 any tools to reject the the narrative 65:25 we're hearing about inflation right now.
SK:
65:29 again pardon me jumping in quickly uh 65:31 inflation can actually be seen as an 65:33 accidental form of gazellian money 65:35 uh the inflation uh actually reduces the 65:38 debt burden if the if the money in 65:40 circulation is falling in value uh while 65:43 the uh actually if the inflation is 65:45 occurring it's actually reducing the 65:46 real value of debt 65:48 and that actually is a lubricating thing 65:50 for the the global economy and since the 65:53 debt is mainly owned by the 99 cents of 65:55 the one percent i see that inflation 65:57 actually benefiting up to a certain 65:59 point not not in hyperinflation 66:01 obviously but benefiting the poor 66:04 at the expense of the bridge and that's 66:05 one reason why the rich are so 66:07 anti-inflation so um i think in michael 66:10 there's done plenty of work on that 66:12 issue as well so uh inflation i would 66:15 see it as some when it's below 66:17 hyperinflation levels uh it is actually 66:20 it actually benefits the poor more than 66:21 the rich.
PT:
66:25 i mean i'll 66:26 step in here and so inflation is one of 66:29 those other 66:31 mis-theorized macro phenomena by by the 66:34 profession that has been used so 66:37 effectively 66:38 to like justify all sorts of things like 66:40 we constantly use inflation as um not 66:43 providing enough support for the economy 66:45 or to me you know using unemployment to 66:47 fight inflation i mean that is just like 66:49 extraordinary feat of neoclassical 66:51 economics to say that working people 66:54 have to be the bulwark against inflation 66:57 there's no other phenomena that is like 66:59 supposed to be our defense against you 67:00 know the dark inflation so it's it's 67:03 just that there is just this mythology 67:05 that we can't achieve both full 67:06 employment price stability number two 67:08 inflation is used to uh constantly 67:11 disempower government spending because 67:13 the assumption is the government 67:14 spending is inherently inflationary 67:16 which we know it is not correct the 67:18 pandemic bears it out we spend a third 67:20 of the economy in one year and we see 67:23 all the inflation coming in from the 67:24 private sector from bottlenecks from 67:26 supply chains for from logistical 67:28 problems from shutting down various 67:30 sectors in the economy globally and on 67:33 top of it this is very well exploited by 67:36 firms we just saw today the bloomberg 67:38 article that the first giant 67:40 corporations in the united states are 67:43 posting record profits since the 50s 67:46 they're exploiting this kind of partly 67:50 media fueled fear of inflation a 67:52 customer has resigned themselves that 67:53 this is inevitable they're not gonna run 67:55 away from their um from the firm but 67:58 also their monopsonists like where are 68:00 we gonna go and buy our stuff when we 68:02 have this huge concentration of power 68:04 and so they're using the pricing power 68:07 that they have to be able to extract 68:09 profit margins that are far higher i 68:11 think inflation is definitely concerning 68:13 to people and that can be a 68:14 destabilizing social force and you want 68:17 to mind you know how you know what 68:19 happens to to folks purchasing power how 68:21 they perceive this but there are ways to 68:23 deal with this that are not um you know 68:26 sacrificing uh growth in employment uh 68:28 well-being etc finally 68:31 what if there is inflation are we going 68:33 to let the planet burn i do like this to 68:36 me that doesn't even make sense like we 68:38 we cannot wait we can't like structure 68:40 the right commercial return or wait for 68:42 the right inflation or get the right 68:45 private interest to do the job we have 68:48 public money we have a crisis we need to 68:50 mobilize it immediately and we need to 68:53 deal with it then we tackle inflation 68:56 there are ways you know 68:58 to deal with structure and i think there 69:00 are examples of just you know 69:01 structurally dealing with inflation 69:03 around the world but uh 69:05 i'll stop here.
AT:
69:06 yeah 69:07 there's a really uh um 69:10 sorry we're a little all over the place 69:11 but that's that's that's a live chat 69:13 here i think this one is it was is 69:15 important though all around the world 69:16 rising housing prices are locking out 69:18 first-time buyers or forcing them to 69:20 take out enormous mortgages 69:22 will a debt jubilee on mortgages affect 69:24 housing affordability uh you know and 69:26 not everyone can take out a mortgage 69:27 right that's forcing a lot of people to 69:29 be renters but it is striking that we 69:31 have historically low mortgage rates you 69:33 know uh they 69:35 really went down after the pandemic you 69:38 know when you see mortgage rates of 2.85 69:40 or 3 you sure don't see that on credit 69:42 cards or payday loans or other kinds of 69:43 consumer debt um so it feels like 69:45 there's lots of interesting things to 69:47 talk about uh this and and um 69:51 uh 69:52 someone who who feels inspired to take 69:54 it um and i'm also hearing resonances of 69:56 michael's comments about the ren the 69:59 victim moratorium's ending and i think 70:01 it's important to underscore that yes 70:02 people have had eviction more terms but 70:04 that rent has been piling up 70:06 right it wasn't 70:07 a cancellation of people's rent so some 70:09 estimates are saying people owe 50 70:11 billion 70 billion dollars of back rent 70:13 um there's not michael go for it.
SK:
70:18 you're muted michael 70:21 animate yourself.
MH:
70:24 it has to be said now can you hear me 70:26 okay this question came up in the third 70:28 century bc in sparta 70:30 the king decided that uh the spartans 70:32 were so much in debt he was going to 70:34 cancel the debts uh and uh 70:37 one of his relatives uh his uncle 70:39 actually convinced them only cancel the 70:41 mortgage debt well it turns out to 70:43 cancel the mortgage debts who had the 70:45 mortgages the the rich people if you 70:48 cancel the mortgage debts donald trump 70:50 will be the richest man in the country 70:51 the most commercial property owners have 70:55 um one percent or a tenth of a percent 70:57 of their capital it's all debt you would 71:00 be giving the biggest giveaway of wealth 71:02 in american history to the large 71:04 commercial uh in uh mortgage uh uh 71:08 property owners that all of a sudden 71:09 wouldn't have to pay the banks at all so 71:11 the last thing you want to do is to give 71:14 it away there is a way around this you 71:16 would have to if you are going to cancel 71:18 the debts on mortgage you want to make 71:20 sure that the government gets all of 71:22 that rental value that you're just 71:24 giving away to the uh to the absentee 71:27 owners by uh a property tax which is uh 71:31 what what china's doing uh look at what 71:33 happened in russia russia could have got 71:35 back all of the mineral wealth and the 71:37 housing that uh we also gave away simply 71:41 by taxing away all of the revenue from 71:43 what it gave away so if you do cancel 71:45 the mortgages you'd have to replace it 71:47 with a with a full taxation uh so that 71:50 you don't give a free lunch to the most 71:52 heavily indebted people the richer most 71:55 of the debts the rich are the biggest 71:56 debtors and you don't want to forgive 71:58 the debts of the rich you want to forget 72:00 the debts that people like 72:02 also 72:04 and that's then that's why i talk in 72:05 terms of the modern debt you believe 72:08 rather than the old traditional one 72:09 because i if i modeled this in in 72:11 manifesto you would have a modern day 72:14 jubilee which would give you 100 000 per 72:17 person to repay your debts and therefore 72:19 rupert murdoch would have your debt for 72:21 by a hundred thousand dollars and 72:22 pavlina would have a debt fall by a 72:24 hundred thousand dollars i think rupert 72:25 would noted rather less than papalina so 72:28 the idea is to do this at an equal level 72:30 an equal footing create the money is the 72:32 government's capacity to do that and 72:34 therefore it dramatically reduces the 72:36 debt of the poor and in fact the poor 72:38 could end up being 72:39 net positive uh while the rich still 72:41 have those debts they don't get out of 72:43 it so we have to think intelligently 72:45 about how to do this and also i saw one 72:47 question there about the housing issue 72:49 uh getting rid of the mortgage that's 72:51 below the mortgage of the poor rather 72:53 than the rich um 72:55 you would still have the capacity for 72:57 this for the banking sector to recreate 72:59 it and get us back in an asset bubble 73:01 again and empirical research 73:03 my own modeling shows that what actually 73:06 causes rising house prices is rising 73:08 levels of new mortgage debt so the way 73:10 to stop that is to say and this is again 73:12 it means a political shift as well to 73:14 achieve it is to say that banks can no 73:16 longer lend as much as they like for a 73:18 house they can lend say for example no 73:20 more than 10 times the annual rental 73:22 income for a house now that would remove 73:24 the 73:25 amplifying feedback that currently 73:27 exists between new mortgages and house 73:29 prices get rid of that and and therefore 73:31 you get rid of what's actually causing 73:33 the bubbles in the first place 73:34 that's exactly what happened in 1960s 73:37 when i came to new york that's how 73:39 things work uh banks would not lend uh 73:41 anyone uh where the debt service uh was 73:44 more than 25 of their income 73:47 and now it's uh 73:49 everything's been removed you're 73:50 absolutely right this is how to do it 73:52 the three of us are all talking about 73:54 the economy as a system not separating 73:56 uh debt in one part from another and 73:59 cutting it apart we're looking at the 74:00 overall system and that's not what uh uh 74:03 neoclassical economics does 74:07 papalina do you have thoughts on this or 74:09 should we move on 74:10 no yeah i mean i think just like we talk 74:12 about a student that jubilee coupled 74:14 with free public college we there's a 74:15 problem with how 74:17 we approach housing we have to approach 74:19 our housing as a speculative asset 74:20 instead of something that we live in and 74:22 so there's all sorts of forms of social 74:24 housing and other ways to provide for 74:26 that human uh need so as we as we get 74:29 towards the end i want to start asking 74:31 questions that maybe uh are even even a 74:34 bit pushed the envelope a bit further so 74:36 i want to mix two one from 74:38 um uh 74:41 one from chad elsin he asked how much 74:43 power are we willing to give to the 74:45 government to manage our lives by giving 74:46 it the control of the financial water we 74:48 swim in i want to combine that with a 74:50 question from nica that i just have to 74:52 find 74:54 uh 74:55 um 74:56 our wonderful uh co-host asks uh so the 75:00 cat so 75:01 um 75:02 so the capital is power you say that the 75:04 state 75:05 or the palace is obviously better than 75:07 private creditors i'm interested in 75:09 whether a situation with more democratic 75:11 distribution of power is possible or in 75:13 other words what would a society look 75:15 like where wealth is not automatically 75:16 converted to power 75:18 um so both of these 75:20 kind of loop us back to some of the 75:21 original questions about the creditor 75:23 being the state or the private sector 75:25 and 75:26 add some wrinkles 75:28 i think that's i think that's a very 75:30 both very good questions framing uh the 75:33 one of the strongest arguments people 75:34 make against government money as that'll 75:36 let bureaucrats control what happens 75:38 rather than letting the public rather 75:40 than letting private entrepreneurs 75:42 control it 75:44 spend the university sector and seeing 75:45 the amount of money wasted by 75:47 bureaucratic initiatives there i'm 75:48 sympathetic to part of that argument so 75:51 we do have to consider how do we stop uh 75:56 people who's 75:58 letting a subset of society control the 76:00 rest of society and that again is why 76:02 things like spending on infrastructure 76:04 on education uh on health uh by the 76:07 government over the government funds 76:09 those entirely uh removes that issue you 76:11 decide how much of your economy should 76:13 be spent in education how much should be 76:15 spent on health the government provides 76:16 that money and then that money goes out 76:19 through the professionals who decide how 76:20 it should be spent and the individuals 76:22 receive it they also decide how that 76:24 money is spent so we don't have to get 76:26 caught up in the situation where a bunch 76:27 of bureaucrats make stupid rules uh that 76:30 waste money and so on and of course at 76:32 the same time i'm going to come back 76:33 because they have a lot of very gifted 76:34 bureaucrats and we need to get back to 76:36 the stage where we can see people in the 76:38 public sector being there for public 76:39 service reasons we need to get that that 76:41 ideology back into place and part of the 76:43 nonsense buchanan has given us where we 76:45 always regard bureaucrats is bad but out 76:48 of that we've actually had a lot of bad 76:49 bureaucrats and we need to reform the 76:51 government side of things almost as much 76:52 as the private money system.
PT:
76:56 so i would answer this um to say that 77:01 it's not so much 77:03 that the state per se is the issue but 77:07 the way the state is governed and 77:09 captured right and so which would be the 77:12 disempowering narratives that we want to 77:15 tackle head on for mmt it's very clear 77:18 taxes do not pay for government spending 77:20 that immediately disempowers the wealthy 77:22 class we don't need the taxes of the 77:24 rich we don't need them to fund our 77:27 policy priorities because we have 77:28 institutions that are perfectly capable 77:32 to fund what we desire and so you see 77:34 this dichotomy of people 77:36 supporting uh you know universal 77:39 healthcare education etc but they are 77:42 kind of surrendering to this ideology 77:44 that we oh we can't do this because we 77:46 need to find the pay for that is the one 77:48 gridlock that we see play out over and 77:51 over and over again across the globe and 77:53 we need to remove this tool from the 77:56 conversation from people's liking you 77:58 know like understanding about money we 78:00 do not depend on tax says to fund um 78:04 these public priorities i also then 78:08 i am thinking about various wages in 78:10 which society organizes itself right 78:13 because we try together to to fill gaps 78:16 where the state has not contributed 78:19 right if we don't have universal health 78:20 care we have solidarity economy if we 78:22 don't have and we certainly can't expect 78:24 that there will be a bureaucrat that can 78:26 come into my community and say well you 78:28 should do this this and this like the 78:29 community knows like their environmental 78:32 needs care needs this is where my own 78:34 work comes in that you can actually 78:36 deploy you can actually effectively do 78:38 ground up support these networks 78:40 solidarity networks endless variety of 78:42 communities associations you name it 78:45 that can that are already doing the kind 78:47 of care work that we've been talking 78:49 about but they are disconnected from 78:51 this like 78:52 important source of finance and they're 78:55 captured in the ideology that they need 78:56 private credit or some attacks from 78:58 somewhere so i would you know i would 79:01 actually bring these these two 79:03 um to chain the paradigm the parents.
MH:
79:06 give the footnote to 79:08 nobody has ever said uh you have to pay 79:10 as you go when it comes to military 79:13 spending 79:14 somehow nobody's ever said where are we 79:15 going to get the money they only say it 79:17 when it comes to spending into the 79:19 economy that you and i are talking about 79:21 uh the people 79:23 yeah well it's good to tax the rich too 79:25 they don't have so much money to buy the 79:26 political influence they have which 79:29 you know absolutely this is this is 79:31 absolutely and i think you know i would 79:33 go back to the initial conversation you 79:35 know i mean how high a tax do we do we 79:38 need and the the concentration of wealth 79:40 is so high that taxing income is not 79:43 going to do the job you know do it 90 79:46 okay we've done it before but it's just 79:48 not going to disrupt these other 79:50 processes by which wealth is 79:52 accumulating and so you need to think 79:54 structurally about just removing these 79:56 opportunities to make money like that 79:58 would be my preference of restructuring 80:00 the economy um and then you know yes you 80:03 should tax certain activities out of 80:06 existence you know but i wouldn't even 80:08 say tax you just ban 80:10 you know a certain kind of extraction 80:12 you know maybe you know predatory 80:14 practices you know regulatory tools can 80:16 be used for that well somebody here asks 80:19 you know are we avoiding the p word for 80:20 planning it sounds that this is dt 80:23 cochrane uh it sounds like we need to 80:26 uh need planning to direct spending 80:27 investment rather than leaving it to the 80:29 market if so aren't we saying that if 80:30 not how else do we get where we want and 80:32 need to go i mean i i guess i would also 80:35 just underscore another theme here which 80:36 has been the way 80:38 these debt relationships uh uh 80:42 again circumvent or override democratic 80:44 deliberation and democratic planning um 80:47 you know by saying oh the again the 80:49 bonds the credit rating agency says this 80:51 we can't do that it's off the table um 80:53 but what do you think about planning 80:54 michael using every economy is planned 80:56 our america is the most centrally 80:58 planned we're more centrally planned to 81:00 china but the central planning is done 81:02 by wall street 81:04 not by the government every of course uh 81:06 it's it's centrally planned the question 81:08 is who's going to do the planning ever 81:10 since the uh the neolithic you had to 81:13 plan for the crops you had to plan to 81:15 allocate resources the government has 81:17 left the planning to the uh to the 81:19 financial sector and the financial 81:20 sector lives in the short run 81:22 governments are supposed to live in the 81:24 long term so we're talking about uh 81:27 short-term people 81:28 looking at what they can grab in the 81:30 next three months of the year uh and 81:32 what uh steve keane's model and i are 81:34 talking about or the long-term uh which 81:36 is uh the public point of view 81:39 pavlina 81:40 yeah i mean you know institutionalists 81:43 this is a kind of a starting point for 81:45 institutionalist economic theory that 81:46 you know uh planning is always there the 81:48 question is who does the planning you 81:50 know in the early roaring twenties is 81:52 the cartels and the trust and then it 81:54 was the corporate sector um we have 81:56 always had planning minsky's work which 81:59 is kind of you know evolutionary 82:00 institutionalist financial theory you 82:02 know he argues that there was a short 82:04 period of time where we had um kind of a 82:06 managerial economy where the public 82:09 sector took the larger role of public 82:11 investment directing public investment 82:13 employment that was right around world 82:14 war ii and soon thereafter but then we 82:17 quickly liberalized and then we had 82:18 planning by the financial sector as 82:20 michael uh pointed out so that i think 82:23 that that you know it's a dirty word but 82:25 i think it's absolutely unavoidable if 82:27 you just look a little closely more 82:28 closely at just the institutional 82:30 structure and the evolution of the 82:31 economy and you know there are questions 82:33 we have to ask going forward you know 82:35 how we tackle climate uh responses and 82:38 if if our insistence is that we're gonna 82:40 have some you know private um you know 82:42 mega corporations through incentives and 82:45 nudges that they will do the planning i 82:46 think we are definitely abdicating our 82:48 democratic responsibility um uh yeah so 82:52 i want to close this out with a really 82:54 simple and elegant uh question and maybe 82:56 we can channel david graber a bit who 82:59 had some 83:00 um but 83:01 they asked would the abolition of debt 83:03 also abolish borrowing right um 83:08 or are we always borrowing each other 83:10 and owing things is it something else 83:12 that's a problem but yeah maybe uh 83:14 pavlina begin with you and then we'll go 83:16 to steve and then michael and we'll 83:18 close up 83:19 i i think that the question 83:21 has certain premise that maybe i'm i'm 83:23 not super comfortable with because you 83:25 know for me 83:26 uh in the graveyard sense right money is 83:29 connected to debt but that is not social 83:31 obligation and that's not something that 83:33 we can kind of cancel and abolish we 83:35 have this kind of you know a sense of 83:37 reciprocation to one another and however 83:39 we trace the history of those 83:41 relationships money has been there and 83:43 so money uh to me represents that i know 83:46 what i think the question is asking that 83:48 we are having this you know dependence 83:50 on privately created private debt and i 83:53 think that that you know requires 83:55 restructuring but can you stop me from 83:57 giving you a loan i don't know if that 83:58 is a possibility the question is like 84:00 what do we do with that 84:03 i've i think we've taken the current 84:05 circumstances we're in of a debt cri 84:08 ecological crisis coming our way 84:11 then we have to in that situation we 84:13 have to fundamentally redefine money now 84:15 if we think about the question about 84:16 planning beforehand uh largely near 84:18 classical economics and mainstream 84:20 capitalist ideologies to let the 84:22 entrepreneurs and let the business 84:24 people decide how to plan they'll get it 84:25 right well that was true wouldn't be 84:27 facing an ecological crisis 84:29 they are short-term thinkers we do need 84:31 the long-term and the government is 84:32 normally the repository that long-term 84:34 thinking the trouble is of course their 84:36 interests have been captured by the 84:37 financial class and we've that's that's 84:39 why we've delayed action on climate 84:41 change for 50 years now if we have to 84:44 redefine money in the context of an 84:46 ecological crisis then most of the money 84:49 has to be created 84:50 in response to our ecological needs and 84:53 that's where i my idea of a of a 84:56 parallel carbon uh currency and 84:58 universal carbon credits would be part 85:00 of that to limit what we spend because 85:02 country we've spent too much we as 85:05 the human society on this planet takes 85:07 up far too much of them 85:10 well 85:11 regarding debt cancellation resources 85:13 and that is actually undermining us and 85:14 destroying our capacities.
M:
85:19 regarding debt cancellation when i began 85:21 my uh uh harvard group on the history of 85:23 debt in the 1990s uh the argument by 85:26 archaeology by the right wing uh 85:28 archaeologists and anthropologists was 85:30 you couldn't possibly cancel the debts 85:32 in uh uh in mesopotamia because who 85:36 would ever lend money well obviously as 85:38 soon as they cancel the debts it all 85:40 began as pavlina said all began all over 85:42 again and uh so then the uh people uh 85:45 the uh right-wingers said you see it 85:47 didn't work canceling doesn't work it 85:49 begins all over again well of course it 85:51 begins all over again it does work in 85:54 wiping out the overhead of death and 85:55 then the whole thing will begin all over 85:57 again until society lets too much debt 86:00 accumulate and when too much debt 86:02 accumulates then you turn on the therm 86:05 the debt thermostat and you wipe it out 86:07 uh and that happened again and again uh 86:10 with every new ruler in the bronze age 86:12 in mesopotamia uh also all throughout 86:15 antiquity uh so that's just a false 86:17 argument that uh these people not only 86:19 don't read history they try to prevent 86:22 uh anthropological history from being uh 86:24 read or or published uh just because 86:28 it's ideologically against their uh 86:30 right-wing pro-creditor arguments.
86:34 thank you all we're definitely seeing a 86:35 war on history these days um uh so you 86:38 know we know from history the debt 86:40 cancellation debt jubilee is possible 86:42 but i fully believe we need to build 86:44 better power to get there so please join 86:46 the debt collective um get organized our 86:49 slogan one of our many slogans is you 86:50 are not alone a space l-o-a-n one thing 86:54 that does is it isolates us 86:56 uh you know there's stigma there's shame 86:58 so a first step is overcoming that and 87:00 banding with others i'm gonna pass the 87:02 mic to tara from the hanaren center so 87:04 thanks all for being here.
HA:
87:06 um on behalf of this uh hannah aren't 87:09 center and um 87:12 uh all of our co-sponsors nika the 87:14 museum of care pavlina and economic 87:17 democracy initiative 87:20 i want to just thank everybody for this 87:22 fascinating 87:24 excellent relevant topical discussion 87:27 and um pavlina steve 87:30 michael astra thank you for your 87:32 tremendous moderating and 87:35 um 87:36 i hope that you all stay in contact with 87:38 our organizations including astros debt 87:40 collective 87:42 the hannah rent center you can google us 87:44 find us at bar.edu see more of our 87:46 events um we have active youtube 87:49 channels and i know nika there is there 87:52 are more fight clubs coming up and it 87:54 sounds like this conversation is still 87:57 just getting started that's that's my my 87:59 my feeling um that we could still keep 88:02 going so 88:03 and thank you most of all to our 88:05 audience for staying engaged posing such 88:07 great questions and um really pushing 88:10 this conversation where it needed to go 88:13 okay everyone 88:15 thank you again 88:17 good night
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿