4
There is one taboo of economics that the government is hiding from the public, argues David Graeber: it is the fact that if the …
source
42 comments
This view is flawed by design.
The ultimate source of wealth is the Sun which bombards our planet with one years worth of mankind's energy budget every forty minutes. It is not a finite system.
If the government goes into surplus it can put that money in the bank, and the bank will use it to lend 10 times that amount to the business world and consumers
When the business world borrows money to replace the money borrowed by government so they can fill the gap in the economy, they make money with it and grow the economy, whereas the government usually doesn't make money with it unless it's for infrastructure. But the US borrowing 20% of its budget is crazy and if they keep doing it they will go bankrupt
Now I get why so many of us are wage slaves. (we're the ones left holding the bag)
"DEBT is always passed off to those which are least able to pay" no truer words have ever been spoken. rip Mr. G
A liberal economist in England on YouTube that’s a professor claims the government doesn’t have to pay the debt back since the government allows the central bank to exist. In the UK I read the government owns the central bank but in the U.S. the federal reserve is owned by wallstreet. Point is hypothetically let’s say the government doesn’t pay the debt back or simply change the law to stop issuing new debt and simply print new currency like Abraham Lincoln did without issuing debt. They can pay the debt off sure but expanding the currency will raise prices at least one big time if they only expand it once. But it’s devalues the currency and will hurt retired people depending on bonds and those in social security
Very misleading and actually a bit too simplistic. Money is not necessarily debt. Many things can be money. Debt is only one of those things. What is more, money in the form of debt (IOU) is only temporary money. It disappears when the debt is paid back.
This video exemplifies why the left can't be trusted fiscally
The problem with his thought experiment is that it's zero sum. Value can be generated to pay off debt. Debt isn't conservative, it isn't always passed on.
Why don’t they teach you this in school? Oh right because they want you to be obedient.
It's very simple.
Stop businesses running up debt and then going bankrupt that the public end up picking up the tab for…
Money does work like that… Money is finite, you can make more…
The real forbidden topic in England is that the native English are fast disappearing, and they did not ask for this situation.
The government doesn't want you to know that it has been captured by private interests, which Adam Smith already certified as extortionist.
I am sure David Graeber meant to explain Public Debt honesty, but let us correct a few errors:
Currency is NOT Money. Although a medium of exchange Currency has no intrinsic value unless exchangeable for Gold etc.
When the Government issues Bonds, these Bonds compete with Private Corporate Bonds and Municipal Bonds, and thereby reduce the amount of capital available for residential, commercial, industrial, and municipal expansion.
Governments fund themselves through bonds and taxes, but ALSO monetization, whereby the Government simply originates (prints) currency, and this generates massive inflation, decreasing the real value of wages.
The host erroneously treated "debt" and "deficit" as interchangeable several times. Overall, his understanding of this topic (including public finance and public investment) seems quite flawed.
Is he saying that the concept of funding human rights and having a well off country not be in public debt, such that public hospitals run well for instance, is impossible, or "simple maths"? Smells like obvious bs. If we capped the maximum assests individuals could obtain, or limited the wealth a country could have per capita, together with price caps for essential mass market goods, we'd all obviously be able to live within our means, by having Income, and not continuous profit… Saying inequality is inevitable and this is simple maths is just a simple insult to anyone with intelligence and moral integrity. Note there would still be room for trading and some freedom in the market in a utopia, just not the decadent level of freedom there is now in capitalism.
So, what is the alternative? I mean I guess it would be money that had actual appreciating value (like gold). If our money had actual value, what would happen?
This is ideological mental gymnastics.
The convenient Heart attack- central banks hate truth
The argument is absurd on many layers : The analogy of Peter and Paul dividing 40 poker chips is an overly simplistic way to explain the relationship between public and private debt. Real-world economics is far more complex, and the poker chip analogy implies a zero-sum game (i.e., if one gains, the other must lose). In reality, economic systems don't work in such straightforward terms. Economies can grow, and wealth can be created (or destroyed), so it's not a direct "if the government has less debt, everyone else has more" relationship.
The relationship between government debt and private sector finances depends on many factors, such as monetary policy, interest rates, fiscal policies, foreign trade, and investment flows. Reducing government debt could involve cutting spending or increasing taxes, but it doesn't inherently mean that private citizens or businesses must take on debt in the same proportion. The speaker implies that government surpluses always cause harm by transferring debt to the private sector. However, a budget surplus simply means that the government is taking in more revenue than it spends. This doesn't automatically translate into increased private debt—surpluses can be used for debt repayment, investment in infrastructure, or reducing taxes in the future. It's possible for the private sector to thrive during times of government surpluses, depending on how the surplus is handled. This guy should take a lesson in basic economics
My previous comment but revised by chatgpt. Enjoy
The video suggests that when the government issues debt and injects dollars into the private sector, it can lower the cost of living by stimulating economic activity. However, in practice, a disproportionate amount of this government-issued debt ends up benefiting the elite, who often use loopholes to avoid paying their share of taxes. As a result, the burden of repaying this debt is shifted onto working Americans, who receive fewer government services and are left with less disposable income due to higher taxes and rising prices driven by corporate price gouging.
The issue isn’t that the government spends too much but rather that too much of this money benefits corporations and wealthy individuals. These elites use their wealth to fund luxury goods and influence political decisions, all while avoiding taxation. This shifts the burden onto everyday Americans, who face higher costs and fewer benefits. Additionally, corporations take advantage of government contracts and services, often delivering lower-quality outcomes at a higher cost due to their profit-driven motives.
To address this, more government spending should directly benefit working Americans, whether through higher wages, improved public services, or fairer taxation. Corporations should be taxed more effectively to redistribute wealth and ensure that government spending benefits society as a whole, rather than exacerbating inequality. Without these changes, we risk creating a society where the gap between the wealthy and everyone else continues to widen.
Can you please share your sources and any research on this topic?
Anyone wanting this explained in a way that 1. Makes sense, and 2. Emphasises why the current dominant view is misguided… Watch Warren mosler instead
no, mmt is not in fact something everyone knows to be true but just doesn't talk about, mmt is however completely insane
all this fiddle-faddle disapears with bitcoin
My interpretation of a government surplus is that the taxpayer has been overcharged for government or put another way stolen from taxpayer at the point of a bayonet
Bring back Jubilees!
I’m so upended by this I feel like I just watched a time travel movie and am still trying to work out all the details.
Everybody doesn't know this! Most people don't know this! Everybody needs to know this though!
He makes the usual error of thinking that Economics is a science..
Your analysis is faulty, money is power, meagre taxes on the idle rich provide some resources to those born without privilege.
rest in power
Still don't get it.
If there is someone in debt, he owes the money to me. And vice versa. Okay, clear. But so what? Could someone explain it to me in 2 or 3 sentences?
Greetings
Nice bloke. Explain this to me though, how would the govt reducing it's deficit result in higher rates? Lower Gilt supply would/should result in lower Gilt yields, therefore lower mortgage rates etc. So the argument is flawed as are most by leftists who are otherwise nice people.
You seem to be saying that once a debt is "created", evaluated/tallied and recorded, it can never be expunged. If private debts are expunged, then public debt is created and vice-versa? As explained at least, that doesn't add up to me.
"Civil war as in Syria or Ukraine" This aged well
More silly lefty nonsense.
2:46 Why/how does the debt transfer to individuals doing surplus I don't understand the reasoning.
Lo podrian subtitular al español?
unintentional asmr
this is an accidental asmr
Any idea on why France isn’t made to repay its loans? France hasn’t paid a penny on its sovereign debt since 1931 which puts what’s owed at a trillion and doubling every 14.5 years.