A video explaining modern monetary theory and how with a little Marxism it can benefit everyone.
This other video at 29:43 also blew my mind, I just never thought about tax in that way, and it’s embarrassing.
Basic mmt with a socialist touch.
Debt just means that the government decides to make something happen. It is neither inherently good or bad. It depends on the context. The biggest opponents are capitalist who want to stop good things from happening as this will reduce their profit. E. G. : more public housing would destroy the business case of landlords.
Amazing summary, and I’m glad you mentioned landlords. I am having such a struggle lately when people tell me about their ‘side hustle’ as a landlord, and how they make so much passive income. I just wanna scream “so you feel good about making money doing basically nothing while there are so many people unsheltered, and living paycheck to paycheck?”.
As the amount of currency approaches infinity, the value of the currency approaches zero
Which is bad if you have a lot of money, but not so bad if you have a lot of debt and can still sell your labor and its produce.
But also bad if you have pay for things like food and shelter. Then you are just bartering which is less efficient than having actual currency. You can’t buy or sell someone half a haircut.
So, what hadn’t clicked until I watch this video, is that federal taxes don’t ‘pay for things’, they are just the mechanism by which federal government ensures the currency has value: They compel us to pay taxes (via courts, police, etc.) and those taxes must be paid in the same currency, and so we have to do work to acquire that currency, and so it has value.
Money existed before the government started using it.
The idea that taxes remove money form the economy and government spending prints new money is an abstraction created for macroeconomics to simplify its models. But it’s a lossy abstraction, so don’t go thinking this is exactly what happens on the real world.
Centralized, minted currencies definitely did not exist before states started using them. Minted currencies were invented multiple times independently across multiple cultures, but one of the biggest through lines between them is that they required a centralized state who held large reserves, and that they were, in every known case, used to support standing armies for those states.
Fiat money maintains its value largely because the government will purchase labor, goods, and other assets without any concern for gain versus loss.
The state therefore generates demand even when and where private entities will not or cannot hire workers, make purchases, or invest.
No, this is not how currency gets or keeps its value. The work itself is what creates value, which is paid back in currency. If you pay taxes, you transfer some of that value you created to the state. The money would not become worthless if the state did not collect taxes. Money is a way to transfer value, not to create it and taxes are like any payment just that, a transfer of value.
Value is generated by work, but valorization is based on processes of use or exchange. Generally assets have intrinsic value. Fiat currency has no intrinsic value. Its value derives from the state assuring a demand for goods and labor, which will be purchased in the currency, from assuring the availability of investment assets, which will promise a return above an original value, and from regulating the supply, to assure that the values of ordinary goods will remain generally stable.
That’s not how infinity works. It’s not a number you can ever reach. It’s not a number at all really. It’s more a set of all numbers.
The value of the currency will never approach zero.
A limit isn’t infinity though. Infinity has no limit. Its the oposite of a limit.
However high you may count, there is still infinitely more you could count. And an infinite number of fractions between each and every number you counted. And all of that is included in infinity.
In mathematical terms it’s perfectly acceptable to talk about the limit of an expression as some value tends towards infinity. E.g.:
limit (1/x) = 0
x→∞
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(mathematics)#Infinity_as_a_limit
Okay. My last try.
That’s a way of saying there is no specific value that is the end. The “Limit” is endless.
If we created a currency with 10^100 units. There would me more units than the atoms in a billion universes. And it would still be infinitely far from infinity.
So if the currency’s unit value is inversely proportional its proximity to infinity, the value of every unit of currency we could ever make is infinite. Even if we made 10^100 of them.
Interesting take on inflation: One of the big issues is who gets the printed money. Not us. It’s the rich and banks, who buyout all of our resources to hurt us.
Example: 2008 recession, government made blackrock, who then ate up the housing market so that no one owns their home yet they WILL be happy.
Daily reminder that Second Thought (zero Thought) is a genocide defending tankie who ideologically supports ruzzia. https://youtu.be/4qIDOx-Pnzo?si=Bwf2tvCRKgM68FKL
Wow this is horrible. I only recently started watching his content and liking it. But this is surprising, also why is this on some other channel?
To hide it. He is also on a podcast with Yugopnik and Hakim, both of which are tankies.
The fact that the video isn’t posted on his own channel is likely just because the video isn’t a Second Thought video, which has a very specific format. Why should he post it there?
Yes their podcast is called “The Deprogram” and you can check it out here. They all make great content, go check them out! I really liked Yugopnik’s video about the commodification of people’s romantic lives for example. It was very interesting and thought provoking, a very “Žižekian” approach.
Dude is giving iffy vibes for a while now. Watch a few videos of his and a clear pattern emerges:
- Every negative aspect of the modern world is reframed as an intentional conspiracy of capitalism.
- A fantastical version is sold for the socialism of Nordic countries, and all ground realities and challenges are conveniently ignored.
- Uncomfortable leeway is given to past communism crimes, because the evil capitalist sabotaged them.
- A vision of the world is sold where away from capitalism, somehow all inherent human evils will vanish, and we all will act like Captain Picard for some reason.
It’s a perfectly fine channel to counter PragerU garbage, but don’t take anything he says without a sack full of salt.
I disagree with your characterizations, especially about Nordic states. There was an entire episode criticizing the shortcomings of the Nordic model.
Most of the criticisms of capital are simply explanations of books that have gained attention and acclaim, and none conflates systemic criticism with conspiratorial intention.
Not really. Even in the video you yourself links he’s calling an end to the conflict between Ukraine and Russia and an end to US involvement.
Wow. You are either incredibly dumb or incredibly disingenuous, just as zero thought funnily enough.
Calling it “end to the conflict” is such a slimy way to say what he actually wants. He wants ukraine to give up. He wants ruzzia to get away with everything they have done and to ignore all the atrocities they have committed.
It’s like saying that allies should have given up after Nazi germany and ussr conquered Poland. “Oh, end the conflict, so many people have died!!!” Sure, lets just let nazis happily do their genocide while we look the other way. Same as ruzzians committing active genocide in ukraine.
US involvement is the thing that actively saves innocent lives in this conflict. Shooting down missiles, giving ukranian soldiers more protection, and more ways to remove invaders from their lands.
And what do you think putting and “end” to the conflict would achieve? Ruzzia would resupply and attack in 5 years again.
If you have watched the video and not noticed the insane amount of lies, something is genuinely wrong with you. It is pure unfiltered ruzzian and Chinese propaganda. Nothing else.
I’m not going to engage with your personal attacks and you should feel shameful for saying such nasty things to a stranger you hardly know.
The Ukraine-Russia conflict can be viewed in many different ways. One of them is Russia being an aggressor and waging an illegal war of conquest like Nazi Germany, and that’s a valid way to look at the conflict. I’m sure even he would agree of that. However the conflict is also very dangerous, especially with NATO involvement. The biggest threat is actually if the war would escalate into nuclear annihilation because Putin has threatened that if Russia loses, they’re going to start nuking. Have you forgotten about that?
US involvement is the thing that actively saves innocent lives in this conflict. Shooting down missiles, giving ukranian soldiers more protection, and more ways to remove invaders from their lands.
That is your opinion. A missile can be used to shoot a helicopter just as easily on the Ukraine side of the border as on the Russian side of the border.
If we assume that Ukraine would manage to sue for some sort of white peace or extended ceasefire, what would that mean with the supplies that has been lent to Ukraine and the Ukrainian people and all the debt that Ukraine is racking up? Who do you think will have to pay for all that and what would the consequences be for Ukrainians? Probably not very good things. Possibly privatizations, international loans from WTO or other forms of neocolonialism. The intent of involvement from the west is highly suspicious and deserve its own scrutiny.
And what do you think putting and “end” to the conflict would achieve? Ruzzia would resupply and attack in 5 years again.
Maybe so, or maybe there might be a regime change in 5 years? Maybe with some time passing Putin somehow dies? Of sickness, old age or some other reason? In 5 years Putin would be over the average life expectancy of Russians. Maybe the Russians don’t try again in 5 years because they got humiliated this time? The world isn’t static and time changes things.
Second thought released its own video surrounding the Ukraine conflict and in a comment he posted he outlined his positions surrounding the conflict. I quote:
- This war doesn’t benefit the average people of Ukraine or Russia. They’re suffering needlessly for the sake of geopolitical jockeying.
- Sanctions on Russia will only hurt the everyday citizen, not the oligarchs or the powerful. Sanctions are a brutal, inhumane tool and we should oppose them.
- Anti-war is the only principled position. Escalating into a hot war with another nuclear power is a death sentence.
- This conflict should be resolved diplomatically. That must include an end to hostilities, as well as a new agreement that prevents NATO expansion towards “unfriendly” states. NATO is a relic of the Cold War, and it doesn’t do anyone any good. A bomb is a bomb, no matter what language you use to make it seem justified.
This is similar to the things he said in your video you linked. What has he lied about? Can you name even one contradiction? That doesn’t mean that he wants Ukraine to surrender or give up, rather that’s just your interpretation of his stance which is blatantly wrong and has no evidence. The fact that you try to claim otherwise because he calls for peace is just slander.
JT, the creator of ST, certainly has expressed various views that many find problematic, respecting Marxism-Leninism and related historic events.
Nevertheless, the ST channel itself is curated to explain values and objectives that are largely noncontroversial in leftist circles, anti-capitalist and socialist. I feel JT deserves some acknowledgment for successfully explaining such ideas while separating some of his own more controversial leanings.
The broad observation is that the political world is not divided between those who criticize NATO and also laud Putin, versus those with sympathies exactly the inverse. It is possible to criticize the practices and alignments of one’s own nation, without having distorted views about another.
Views about the Russian invasion of Ukraine are too nuanced and complex that anyone’s may be reduced meaningfully to a few lines of text. It is helpful to avoid attempting clean demarcations between right versus wrong.
Advanced "both side"ing going on here. What does it even mean to call an end to conflict? Russia is welcome to go back home and lick its wound, why is the onus on Ukraine to end conflict?
And end US involvement? So Russia can overrun an independent country?
That you have to ask Second Thought. This is what he has said about the conflict:
- This war doesn’t benefit the average people of Ukraine or Russia. They’re suffering needlessly for the sake of geopolitical jockeying.
- Sanctions on Russia will only hurt the everyday citizen, not the oligarchs or the powerful. Sanctions are a brutal, inhumane tool and we should oppose them.
- Anti-war is the only principled position. Escalating into a hot war with another nuclear power is a death sentence.
- This conflict should be resolved diplomatically. That must include an end to hostilities, as well as a new agreement that prevents NATO expansion towards “unfriendly” states. NATO is a relic of the Cold War, and it doesn’t do anyone any good. A bomb is a bomb, no matter what language you use to make it seem justified.
You should read the thread if you’re interested.
#BITCOIN