The first video became boring. The second video started on about fractional reserve banking. I can no longer stand listening to people who base their ideas on fractional reserve banking.
The Guardian article: Did all those guys really write those responses?
Lots of the old economists spouting Blah Blah Blah.
Fed up with that crap.
Keen has his head on another planet. His proposal will never, ever be accepted. He should come up with something that could be useful or say nothing and keep on “playing the blues” in his band.
“We used to think you could spend your way out of recession and increase employment by boosting government spending,” boomed the Prime Minister, Jim Callaghan, at the 1976 Labour Party conference.”
““I tell you, in all candour,” he went on, “that that option no longer exists. And in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion… by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next step…”
Well, maybe. I suppose in his time the BoE was not so supportive by buying up the government debt. Times have moved on.
As the chart pointed out, there is a massive amount of assets held by the few. But, with the relative ease these assets can now be moved around the globe, there is no way that the governments can effectively tax them. In Switzerland they do have an asset tax, but it is a very small percentage. And naturally expenses can be written off against the taxable asset value.
I think the fact that most of the assets belong to the few has always been the same throughout history, whether it has been due to theft, religion, influence and power.
Capital will continue to accumulate more capital. That’s the way it works.
Only through production or mineral extraction will real wealth be made available to the workers. All the rest working outside these areas are parasitic. With taxes the governments can redistribute some of the wealth created through production, but governments do not increase the net wealth.
The UK is a sinking global power, its wealth is funded by its history of theft.
Europe is a mixed basket of producers, consumers and opportunists. The latter two are heading for a big reset in their expectations.
The Economists give their opinion, it pays the mortgage and keeps food on the table. Unfortunately they don’t have a clue about the real world. They live in a world of Keynesian models and Peer reviewed papers.At best they only describe the morphology and know nothing of the inner workings.
The machine is changing all the time and its changing the humans as it evolves.
Humans are going in and extending out coming together and moving apart, one brain cannot conceive of it, but one million just might.
Dear Mr. Mystic:
I often wonder how many people proposing the “tax the rich [solution]” really understand what you explained in the first part of this video. The “Income Tax” system does what the name implies; It taxes INCOME. “Income” implies movement, or a “changing of hands” of money. When money velocity slows, governments’ ability to capture revenue from that movement of money also slows.
The knee-jerk “solution” is to raise “capture rates” (on high incomes, AKA - ”The Rich”). Viewing it from a perspective that assumes a “static environment”, this approach would appear to offer a solution (even if only a partial one). But in reality, the economy, by its very nature, is a “hyper-dynamic environment”. This approach offers very little in the way of solving the long term “money velocity” problem.
Taxing “static wealth” has historically been the purview of local governments. I’m not sure if our “99%” friends grasp this concept, and do date, I have heard none of the “Occupy” crowd propose a “national net worth tax”. That is why I believe this whole fuss about “raise the income tax on the 1%” is a silly waste of time.
You are both alittle …well should I say challenged and more wealthy than I. Hence I (we) need to take it from you ! Why not ? You will just get it all back in the next decade again ?
Hello Mistic. If you can please explain how in one video you say that the rich can’t pay much of anythng and in another show a chart that shows the rich have all the wealth.
It is for you to work out.
As most money is below the water line would it not make sense to introduce Robin Hood type taxes? But how to do so effectively?
If debt is unlikely to be paid off, what percentage
reduction would be necessary to take most out of risk of default? Relief could be a long term loan repayable on
sale of the asset at death, or there could be other conditions. QE for the Mr Average. Government has assets to balance the liabilities incurred. Likelihood of default reduced as the repayment is kicked into the future and life for many returns to approximating normality.
At what point does asset values start to rise again due to inflation and possible impact on currency value?
It is a strange situation, I know many who cannot borrow because the conditions are, for them, to onerous. I also know a few who will not invest in their businesses, as there is no point, no likelihood of increased demand.
Austerity on its own is not working, but how best to stimulate investment for future benefit, and by so doing improve revenue?
hard money camp V easy money camp
I am not sure which camp I fear the most?
On Bill Still’s video, pointing out the IMF’s rather strange support of a public money solution, as contained in The Chicago Plan for Monetary Reform.
Bill makes a couple of minor errors.
The IMF paper’s reference in the Abstract to Fisher’s 1936 work is not a claim that the CP was written in 1936. It was a reference to Fisher’s 1936 paper that advanced the benefits of the CP and of Fisher’s 100 Percent Money proposal.
Second, Bill says that Irving Fisher was the organizing force behind the CP proposal.
Fisher was NOT an author of, nor signatory to, the CP proposal.
Fisher’s early work recognized the true source for the idea of full-reserve banking, which was Dr. Frederick Soddy, whose photo attaches to each of my postings.
Soddy was the originator of all of the ideas that became the legacy of Fisher and of the Chicago Plan authors, all of whom were part of the founding of the early Chicago School of economics.
Whenever I get to recommend to anyone who really wants to understand the nature of money and of our monetary-economic predicament, I always recommend to read Frederick Soddy.
AS I have on a number of occasions to the Mystic Man.
But Still is correct in his emphasis of a shifting tide in our understanding about money.
The times are a-changing.
I believe I mentioned that IMF author Kumhof will be presenting this paper on the Chicago Plan at the AMI conference in Chicago next month.
I find it amazing that someone at the IMF is thinking in terms of such an outside the private bank money paradigm for solutions.