We can just make the Bellagio pay for it all! Twitch | / atrioc Twitter | / atrioc RU-vid | / atrioc VOD Channel | / @atriocvods Reddit | / atrioc Edited by | ædish / aedishedits Outro music | @CMT8 #atrioc #clips #twitch
I will say a lot of information, financial especially, is gatekept by the fact that certain vocabulary and assumptions aren't explained. Bonds as a concept are pretty straightforward but if you aren't taught it explicitly it can be kind of hard to grasp. Appreciate the explanations Dr. Carbonation
I mean.. it's only gatekept if you don't know how to use Google. At that point, you shouldn't even be worried about the financial market because you're too ignorant to even operate basic search engines.
I like segments like this, people aren't afraid to ask stupid questions that they normally wouldn't in person, and we get actual good information and explanations.
These are the first two lessons I was taught in my economics courses. The first is that there are two kinds of economics, short run and long run economics. Short run economics focus on immediate return and long run economics focus on sustained growth and long term prosperity and sustainability. Long term economics are unequivocally better for the well being of the economy and nation. The second is that in the long run, everybody now will already be dead.
@@Pulstar232 But it also benefits everyone now the most, cause no one needs to get fucked in long term strategies. Short term economics requires mass exploitation, which destroys communities in small countries and when the US engages in short term economics they require that entire countries be exploited into nothingness.
@@Pulstar232 yup, it also runs into the problem of the prisoners dilemma, a short term agent will run a long term agent into the ground in many cases. It disincentives even those who are willing as it requires some large scale level of collective buy-in to the idea.
@@MrCrunch808 in terms of the economics you're talking about, the people being exploited are a resource and not a participant; not trying to speak crassly, just from an economics perspective. Think of the average worker like a tree in a forest, the loggers make more money this year if they cut down the entire forest. Next year is the problem of the loggers next year because this year will let these loggers retire. Not a perfect analogy but it'll do
The actual way Germany fixed the Hyperinflation in 1923 was by converting the "Reichs Mark" into the "Renten Mark" at a rate of 1:1 Trillion. It was the catalyst for the Golden twentys in Germany and a major reason the Waimar Republic survived as long as it did. But this conversion would not work in Modern sociaty as Atrioc explained.
I mean... you could. If we, tomorrow, invented a simple and cheap enough way to mine an entire asteroid of gold, the US could literally back their currency up by a floating rock in space worth more than the ENTIRE world's economy for the next 100 years. All Germany did was switch from a gold standard to a GDP standard. Instead of mining for gold, the currency was held up by how strong the ACTUAL economy was, not by how much gold they were able to steal from other countries.
@@IvanSoregashi It was more than redonomination. They backed that currency up by land and business instead of gold, which by that point they had little of.
@@ryanthompson3737 Obviously Germany did more than Redenomination. But you wouldn't get it from reading the OP, who only speaks of Redenomination, as if it was key element. Which was my point.
@@IvanSoregashi yes you are right. I dont realy have the vocab in English to discribe what exactly happened because i lerned in German. Thanks for clarifying my point!
Debt forgiveness only works if the person forgiving it is also the person owed that debt, or will be the one paying for it. That's why debt forgiveness in college loans makes sense, but not debt forgiveness where we just forgive our own debt and refuse to pay out to OTHER people. If I loan you $100, it's perfectly fine for me to forgive that debt and not force you to repay it.... wouldn't be okay for YOU to turn around and tell ME you won't be paying back the loan. At that point you're just stealing.
A lot of monarchs would also just refuse to pay their debts, and the bankers would be the ones who lost out, because they would still be required to give a loan the next time, because you can't say no to the king and also keep your head
@@ryanthompson3737but isn’t the banks and insurances also involved in student loan? Multiple institutions can own a loan, similar to our mortgages. The federal government guarantee the loan which enabled that market. I really don’t know how to solve the situation now that it spiralled out of control.
@@lc9245 when people say "student load forgiveness" they are generally talking about federal student loans that the government gives to everybody, not private student loans that can be forgiven in bankruptcy and as such banks are more careful about lending
@@nevets2371 The bankers will only be willing to do all those things if they know they're going to get special treatment from the monarch in the future. If the king keeps defaulting on their debts then you can bet the bankers will fund any upstart pretender to the throne to overthrow the king
5:39 I think they are asking for automatic wage indexation? Belgium has this, when the consumer price index rises to a certain threshold, salaries are automatically adjusted upwards to maintain purchasing power.
Another thing about most likely heading towards rough times is everything tends to operate like a pendulum it will swing so far one way but always go the other before decades of time passes and it evens out. I'm Canadian and it's already rough and has been getting worse hope things do eventually get better though because things gotta get worse before they get better
Tell the government to spend less money on coffee and avocado toast, that’ll solve their budget problems. Source: Rave Damsey, Finance Expert and part time DJ
I don’t think people understand this, but the us government doesn’t need to pay all of its debt. Ever. Period. We’ve been running a deficit economy forever and it’s actually surprisingly the most goated way to run an economy (in a capitalist society). It’s just that governments don’t really function like businesses or people fiscally. They’re playing a different ball game.
If we took social security and used a voucher system to to set up a 401k like account for every tax payer, raised the age to cash out by 2 years and zeroed out the balence of people who are under 25y/o (me included) we would be able to pay the 26T dollar liabilty of social security in just 10 years. Debt would rise at the same rate as it is now for those 10 years as optimisticly we'd divert the money we would have spent on social security to paying off its debt. I would say to the youngins that this is our best shot at ever collecting social security. the alternative is having the whole ponzi scheme blow up and get nothing or having the age raised so high all but 1% of us die before we're eligible. If nothing changes and you under 30 your likelihood of getting a single social security payment is 1%
reciprocal government debt is not the same as cancelling it out, most government debts are just serviced (i.e. paying the interest on the without actually reducing the principal), I cant even find good data on what is spend o reducing principal, because for bonds that technically isnt part of the budget, they just get refinanced with new bonds. There will probably be a new Bretton-Woods style global financial agreement sooner rather than later and cancelling mutual debts is absolutely an option there, all regular finance rules just dont apply there. the US situation as the global consumer of last resort backed up more by its overall global dominance rather than its pure economy is more weird and less easy to describe though. (also balanced budgets are terrible in the long run, you want to be able to take on debt to finance stuff, its just that the expected economic growth and inflation should outpace the cost of that debt. Germany has a balanced budget amendment and it massively hinders the necessary investments needed for climate change or infrastructure.)
The US actually has no effective way of getting rid of its debt without the entire financial system collapsing because US treasuries make up the vast majority of the assets that banks have, meaning that if the US decided to declare bankruptcy it would need to also immediately bail out every bank OR pay trillions in deposit insurance, both of which would either require the money to be printed causing enormous inflation in the US, and possibly hyperinflation if another country like china tried to use the opportunity to undercut the power of the dollar or for the US to issue debt to pay for all of these, which they would end up paying a way higher interest rate on than earlier because declaring bankruptcy would make US bonds an extremely risky asset. However, Atrioc somewhat overstated the risk of the debt of the US in context: though the US has extremely high debt, its debt/GDP ratio is not horrible compared to other countries and most of its debt has an insanely low interest rate of like 2% because of all the quantitative easing the US has been doing for the past 10 years. The US also doesn't need a budget surplus in order to get the debt under control, it just needs to have a smaller yearly deficit so that the debt is shrinking, or even just by making good investments with the money that is being borrowed from it.
On the other hand, FDR completely fked us by increasing debt by 1000% during his term. Obviously that is when everything started sailing out the window. Reagan, incidentally, also ballooned the debt, nearly doubling it during his terms. FDR was unironically one of the worst things that has ever happened to the country.
fdr grew real GDP massively. you can buy a suit on a credit card if it gets you a better job, because the increase in income will outweigh the interest you pay on the card. the debt spending from 33-45 was PRODUCTIVE and lead to real GDP growth. reagan's was used for tax cuts.
@@AtriocClipsFDR is responsible for Social Security (and worse, the SEC). In other words, he started the conversion of the US into a Nanny State. The New Deal directly precipitated most of the economic-based social problems that continue to plague the US today. GDP growth is hardly the only metric on which to judge a nation and all this Keynesian horsesh- leads to the consequences we see today.
. To get corporations to stop lobbying is a non-starter but maybe by convincing your local and favorite corporations to act on your behalf... hey well that's called "socialized capitalism" or or we could call "democratized corporatism". . In my opinion, the best way to "improve" the American economy is to re-establish trust amongst Americans and all the factions that exists within America all the corporate interests, all the public interests, all the pseudo fascist oligarchical interests... Instead of having these forces and unhealthy competition with each other; we reestablish open lines of communication and put ourselves in a healthy competition with one another for the purposes of promoting the stabilization of the the global economy. To allow all countries participating in facilitating healthy global commerce in both 3rd world and 1st world nations to continue to do so as well as to continue to grow, develop and progress into the digital era.
They call treasury bonds the "risk free" rate of return, but no bond is risk free. The government could just write a law saying all Americans owning treasury bonds will now get 50% less interest instead of being taxed more.
I want to know what he thinks about modern monetary theory. I mean, I think it's pretty clear he doesn't agree with it, but I'd like to know if he's just unfamiliar with it or has legitimate counterarguments
Atrioc is the only person that can make an economics lecture entertaining. I hope he does more of this, maybe even makes it a weekly segment explaining the economics and such of governments
To clarify, you do actually have to apply to be president. In every state that you want to run for president. The deadline for the Nevada caucus was last week. That’s why Genk Uygur just announced his candidacy. Because he applied.
Lol define "be ok". Even if the US/west magically fixes it's systemic problems it's bound to happen again since in reality neo-liberal capitalism is a giant pyramid scheme. Also a good way of magically ending debt is trough war, Fun times ahead friends.
What if the government just bet all the debt but used the martingale method they have infinite money to play with once they hit they pay off all debt boom problem solved
When individual people go into debt it's bad for them because the debt pays for a car, or something else that doesn't make money. When companies and nations go into debt it's good for them because they're buying things that make money, so getting it early is like stealing money from the future. The more debt the better. Debt debt debt.
addendum: germany currently is trying to balance their spendings, and is like the only country in the world still going towards recession. the party the financial minister is from is trying to achieve that without any tax increases though (heavily lobbied by the upper class), soooooooooooo take this with a grain of salt...
I forgot the fancy name for it… the one where the govern simply type in more zeroes in their account to buy assets to recover losses then remove it once they sell it for a profit. What was the word for it… EDIT: … Right… this one… Quantitative Easing
The debt is never designed to be payed back. Think about it. How dig the first ever dollar came to existence? The goverment created it, and therefor is one dollar i debt. Money is debt. One dollar is created, it is used to pay a teacher, that teacher is buying a german car. The car company is converting The dollar to a euro with the ECB, ECB will then buy a US Bond, bc leagaly that is the only thing they are allowed to buy.
Seems like we do need to do something, i dont know what the too much number is, but 33T is kind of a lot. Feels like we need to spend less when the economy is good, instead of just spending all the fucking time. also taxing rich people more. gas tax.
US debt is used as asset backed collateral for all sorts of financing. Lol nobody has any idea how international finance works. US debt is not household debt. You don't want a national debt of 0. Debt is money. Money is debt.
ATRIOC PLZ TALK ABOUT MARIANNE WILLIAMSON. She is the only other legit dem candidate other than Biden and has some interesting economic reforms that it would be interesting to hear your opinion on
Pretty much never gonna happen cause bonds are always worth it to people who have capital cause of how safe they are. And by people I mean banks, no matter what the rich people are doing banks will always want bonds. So yes, it's like a ponzi scheme except it's not gonna fall through unless either the government or the banks collapse, at which point you've got bigger problems to worry about than the bonds.
the idea is that the money gained from selling the bonds will be used to grow the economy, giving greater returns and allowing the selling of more debt to get more growth, a ponzi scheme doesnt exactly provide growth because the return promised is really high usually 10% while the gov return is pretty low like 5% or less, but its risk free so people will buy
this is actually a great question and insight. you are smarter than you think. real answer is the govt prints money to have the Central Bank buy the bonds themselves. Its the last gasp of a country in deep debt to try and keep everything looking solvent. Japan's Central Bank owns over half of ALL of its outstanding bonds. (www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2023/03/17/business/boj-record-bond-ownership/) and has to regularly buy billions of them to keep their govt afloat. If you ever, a few years down the line, start hearing about "YCC" aka "Yield Curve Control" in the US, that means we are in that last gasp ourselves.
Hey Big A. Thanks for addressing this topic. US treasuries are transferable, so if someone holds treasuries and needs cash, they will just sell the treasuries at a slight loss right? So if the government bought everyone's treasuries, no one's net worth would increase. Most people would just reinvest that money, right? Why would that cause inflation?
Where would the government get the money to buy everyone's treasuries in this example? If it's via the printing press, that would greatly increase the money supply & would cause massive inflation
Currently discussing this question in #youtube-feedback in the discord. Inflation is caused when demand outstrips supply, right? Why would paying back loans cause an increase in demand?
The government orignally borrowed the money, presumably to spend it. They bought tanks, paid teachers, etc. The money entered the economy. THEN, in your example, they turned on the printer and repaid it all. The same amount entered the economy again. The money supply doubled. There are now more dollars chasing the same amount of goods and each individual dollar will be worth less. Inflation. I really hope this a real question and not a roundabout segue into Keltons book !
I'm having trouble avoiding your filters. You are right, this is a segue. Alternatively to the book, I recommend this blog post: "The Federal Government Always Money-Finances Its Spending: A Restatement". It is shorter and more rigorous, and shows the actual math.
You are right that the money supply doubles, if the government pays with cash. The key thing is that the money supplies already doubles, even if you pay for the spending with treasuries are counted in the money supply. Here, it is important to distinguish between M1 and M2+ money supplies. Printing money increases the M1 money supplies. Selling bonds decreases the M1 money supply, but increases the M2+ money supply an equivalent amount. It makes sense that treasuries would be included in the money supply, right? They are transferable and they show up in your net assets.
I completely agree with Big A’s idea of improving the government by removing money and politics. Another idea I’ve had that I don’t hear talked about much is increasing the number of reps in congress. This would increase the representation of each American citizen and I’d like to imagine lead to less corruption. Am I missing something or is this an obvious solution that has gone overlooked?
Nothing against Big A but with all the marketing knowledge he has, he seems to not really understand lobbyism. Like sure, from what I've heard lobbyism in the US has gotten out of control and based on the little I know about the Citizens United supreme court ruling I would agree that it should be overturned but lobbyism (as in the organised representation of interest towards politics) is an important part of any functioning democracy and it is by far not only practiced by companies.
@@Drrck_MlsIt does, in a way. The government buys things, which puts money into the economy. Then they tax, which takes money back out of the economy. Technically the only limiting thing is the resources. Taxes are just like retroactive funding. Edit: Oh damn, apparently what I described is literally MMT. I haven't heard of MMT honestly, I just decided to read about it after other people mentioned it
@@godlyvex5543 yes real resources are the only constraint, but taxes still don’t fund at a federal level. This is all explained with Modern Monetary Theory. Congress approves the budget and new money is created which the treasury disperses as told again, by congress. Taxes remove money from the pool, they are deleted and are a tool among other things to keep inflation down. The “national debt clock” is just a record of every dollar that has been spent into existence and has not been taxed out of existence.
@@godlyvex5543yes, but "cancelling all government debt" makes zero economic sense. Government debt is just a way to control the flow of money into the economy
@@godlyvex5543NO. The reason people work jobs is to pay taxes, they need to do more work than the stuff they want costs which increases the value of the dollar. Taxes induce demand for currency & spending money faster is the exact same as having more money in the system. Money is only distributed proportionally based on the tax base for only a select few things because we choose to do so & we will always spend more than we take in to devalue past work & incentivize future work (since past work that is already done is inherently more valuable) / we are supposed to be generating demand for currency abroad so cutting countries off from USD is a very shortsighted thing to do especially when USD is not a true reserve currency. Taxes & stimuluses do devalue the things the market values when distributed along political party lines for better or for worse.
Crazy that Atrioc’s grasp on economics just gets worse over time. Debt is there to fuel demand for currency just like taxes. Taxes don’t pay for anything under MMT, only some things get distributed proportional to the tax base. Overspend at home & generate demand for your money abroad would be ideal but that means that people have to want stuff individual Americans are making & more money spent at home doesn’t always lead to more getting done; some systems will just take as much money as you can give them for the same work because they aren’t efficient. e.g. NYC metro, more expensive roads, general corruption in many forms, & nonsense jobs with tall hierarchical government orgs.
It’s a bit wild. I studied Econ in college and he has no idea what he’s talking about. Debt/GDP has been consistent year over year. The total debt number is a completely useless statistic if you don’t match it to the GDP of the country. The best way to get of rid of national debt isn’t to raise taxes and cut spending, it’s to grow your economy.
bro im glad you studied econ in college. did you study how to google before making dumb fucking statements LMAO debt to gdp rocketed up from 100% to 120% in just 1 year. US is now one of the worst in the world by that metric. the entire point is that we are consistently spending more debt for less growth which is a problem that eventually leads to debasement of the currency in every empire in history. as for the first guy we are on entirely different grounds brother. if you believe in MMT its like me arguing with you about the easter bunny. you either grow up or you don't.
imagine Steve has 2 apples. He pays 1 in tax. His friend John has 100000000000 apples. He pays 3 in tax. John paid "more tax". You are right. He paid 3 times as much!! But obviously only a fool would think that is a proper / equitable tax system. Are you that fool, NOOBKILLER052? I think not!
In this analogy, the poor apple haver is paying a higher proportion (%) of his apples to tax. I would oppose that. If it were a flat tax, say 10%, steve pays .2 of an apple, and john pays 10,000,000,000. When i brought up how much more the top 1% as a comparison of all taxes, my point is to show how the broad burden of taxes is ALREADY HEAVILY on them. But now youve brought up taxes as a proportion of income, so lets delve into that. "When accounting for government "transfers" like Medicaid, the poorest U.S. households, on average, get back $1.27 for every $1 in income, while the richest pay 31 cents for every $1 they make The top quintile, meanwhile, have a combined tax and transfer rate of almost 31%, which means they pay about 31 cents for every $1 earned. In effect, the top quintile funds about 90% of all government transfers" "The bottom half of taxpayers, or taxpayers making under $42,184, faced an average income tax rate of 3.1 percent. As household income increases, average income tax rates rise. For example, taxpayers with AGI between the 10th and 5th percentiles ($152,321 and $220,521) paid an average income tax rate of 13.3 percent-almost four times the rate paid by taxpayers in the bottom half. The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI of $548,336 and above) paid the highest average income tax rate of 25.99 percent-more than eight times the rate faced by the bottom half of taxpayers." It blows my mind that anyone (you it seems) would want the U.S. government to have MORE money. Its certain at this point that they wont stay in budget no matter what, that they are corrupt, that they waste billions of dollars because they have no incentive to be just stewards of the money, and that you ALMOST CERTAINLY would spend it in ways that benefit humanity more. But most of all, they have no inherent "right" to the fruits of your labors. So, why do you want the government to have more money? The quotes are from the tax foundation, can send links or key words to google if you care.
@@NOOBKILLER052 poor billionaires have the heavy burden of paying more taxes 😢. If only they found ways to get around paying the taxes to the full extent, but surely that doesnt happen. The top 1 percent only has around 65 percent of wealth, those taxes must be so hard for them.
@@brendenrolann7617 What's your point here? "You dont even notice all the money being stolen from you so its chill"? Do you think the government is better with the money? Do you think the government has a right to the money?
Just privatize everything except for military, emergency services, and court systems. And as for military, stop playing Team America World Police. Boom easy clap.
