Why don't Economists understand money? (Conference 2013)

Подписаться 21 тыс.

Просмотров 16 тыс.

50% 1

www.positivemoney.org/
Prof Victoria Chick, Emeritus Professor of Economics, University College London, addressed the question: "Why Don't Academics Understand Money?" at the Positive Money conference in January 2013. She said there has been a regression in the way economics has been taught. This 18 mins video gives some very interesting insights.
The book mentioned in the talk can be ordered here:
www.positivemoney.org/shop/mod...
More about the 'Modernising Money' conference 2013 here:
www.positivemoney.org/conference/
--------------------------
SUBSCRIBE to Positive Money UK's videos:
ru-vid.com_c...
Like us on Facebook / positivemoney
Follow us on Twitter / positivemoneyuk
Follow us on Google+ www.positivemoney.org.uk/googl...
Positive Money is a not-for-profit research and campaign group. They work to raise awareness of the connections between our current monetary and banking system and the serious social, economic and ecological problems that face the UK and the world today. In particular they focus on the role of banks in creating the nation's money supply through the accounting process they use when they make loans - an aspect of banking which is poorly understood. Positive Money believe these fundamental flaws are at the root of - or a major contributor to - problems of poverty, excessive debt, growing inequality and environmental degradation. For more information, please visit: www.positivemoney.org/
Help us caption & translate this video!
amara.org/v/Bi6L/

Опубликовано:

5 мар 2013

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 30

@kenshikenji 11 лет назад

the role of money is to facilitate exchange. investing is just another form of exchange. one where someone desires to borrow capital now for future production. its when banks loan out other people's production under the false pretenses that they have it on demand is the problem.

@iwill9131 8 лет назад

In a debt-based currency cycle, the biggest venture of monetarists is deciding how much influence monetary velocity has on monetary value. Which is inherently silly because the problem is the debt-based currency itself; likened to the act of trying to provide recuperation for a severed limb with a butterfly bandage instead of cauterizing the wound and applying a tourniquet to staunch the bleeding and applying penicillin to remove infection. This is why people like Hayek, who also won a Nobel Prize for his work in monetary policy/economics, stated that the study should be taken back to base. Hayek understood that people had been indoctrinated into a system of economic slavery via debt currencies and in order to make the necessary changes, tried to get people to think and alter their inherent beliefs about "money" from where people like Keynes had misled them with peppy one-liners backed by government cronies like "Boost aggregate demand!" and "Animal Spirits!"

@Joe11Blue 10 лет назад

Money is a means of exchange, nothing else. It's sole role is to smooth the transfer of goods by exchanging market specific accepted norm. Credit is something entirely different than money. Credit is based on trust, not hard exchanges.

@daniel987878 11 лет назад

the lending side of banks is regulated by capital requirements, the deposit side is regulated by reserve requirements

@jstncbllr 11 лет назад

Your deposits give them a reason to charge you monthly fees, etc. :) OK simplistically: All banks have an account at central bank to track their reserve balance. It has to remain positive. If you withdraw $100, then the bank's reserves decrease $100. It can make up for loss with net new deposits or by borrowing from other banks. In theory we could have a bank whose *only* deposits come from making loans. It would borrow to cover reserve shortfalls caused by withdrawals, checks, etc.

@mjcbakker 10 лет назад

Every medium of exchange will cause lack of it as people are different, experiences more difficulties or advantages then others. As real cost prices can only be estimated before investments are done for people, companies, governments and banks we will 100% know for sure that people will underestimate risks, run short, have debts, go for loans. If making money yourself is prohibited we are sure we get into a debt based economy again. So in the long run there's only 1 option to avoid capital destruction and real property destruction: LEAVE MONEY!! Go for a WORLD WITHOUT MONEY! Give, share, don't demand (groups of) others to give more than you gave them by charging interest... O yes, let's make it happen before World War 3

@furryfan420 11 лет назад

Its only role is to fulfill banking regulations, there's a reason all the banks wanted to get out of transactional and commercial and into investment.

@AlanHarveyIDEA 11 лет назад

Absolutely well said. The rise of monetarism and the forgetting of how things worked happened at the same time, to the great detriment of the economy and for the credibility of economists.

@kingofthepaupers 11 лет назад

That saving is necessary before you can have investment is absolute nonsense if banks can create money. Jct: But they believe it! A piggy bank needs savings before it can lend but a casino bank does not before it lends out new chips. But make up a law that the casino bank may not lend out new chips until someone deposits old chips and all will believe they’re waiting to borrow the old chips being deposited; thus hiding the fact they’re getting new credits and hiding the true source of money.

@wyleong4326 2 года назад

Prof. Victoria Chick is just amazing.

@kdmarrison8845 7 часов назад

An excellent summary by Victoria Chick

@kdmarrison8845

Illuminating talk & interesting comment section

@panoswakeup 10 лет назад

kjr63

@MrMarc1504 10 лет назад

Money is endogenous to the economic system. It is demand-led and credit-driven. No money can be created if it has not been demanded by a creditworthy borrower who has accepted to pay back his loan later in exchange of a mere IOU. It is as simple as that.

@laskji 11 лет назад

Question: What is the role of the money I put in my saving account or checking account, if it is not on-lent to other people?

@tobyhdr 11 лет назад

Please read David Graeber's "Debt, the First 5000 Years". Economics still has to yield a lot of ground on the emergence of money, which, Graeber argues, had nothing to do with the difficulties of double coincidence of wants and barter. If you can find a translation of "Eigentum, Zins und Geld" (Property, Interest and Debt) by Heinsohn and Steiger, there is enormous evidence to support Graeber's position - there never has been a 'pure' exchange/barter economy.

@kjr63 11 лет назад

She suggests quantity theory is M = P? As far as i know it's MV = PT, there is 4 vatiables.

@nthperson 9 лет назад

One distinction (perhaps without a difference) is that a commercial bank that does not have sufficient cash on hand with which to make loans must go into the credit markets to obtain the necessary funds or go to the central bank. The issuance of new shares of stock or sale of shares held in portfolio will raise cash, which can then be loaned out. When the bank borrows from other banks, issues bonds or borrows from the central bank, the bank must record a corresponding liability. Regulation then determines the permitted ratio between assets, liabilities and capital.