No, but it’s good to have hard data to back it up.

So these ideas are the basis of modern monetary theory (MMT) i.e. the theory of modern money, not that it’s a modern theory of money. There’s nothing very controversial here, in that the “theory” is just a description of how things work when you have a fiat currency. The controversial parts are what you do in your fiscal policy once you think about things this way.

Stephanie Kelton is a vocal proponent of this style of framing. She’s been an economic advisor to Bernie Sanders and is the author of “The Deficit Myth” which explains these concepts. She also gave a TED talk on the concepts.

Richard Murphy is a UK proponent who writes a blog and has a YouTube channel where he explains the concepts.

There are others, but these two are a good way in. Searching for them, and also the the phrase “Modern Monetary Theory” should get you lots of talks, interviews and articles on both sides of the arguments.

…and the constant war for natural resources.

The spice must flow.

The six hours you’ve watched so far is just an abridged version of the first book.

Also in Quebec they consume far more media produced locally.

Of course they do. French speaking media is less available.

Your reasoning isn’t Quebec influences culture, but Quebec influences culture in Quebec.

That would be bad if true.

“All the money” assumes there’s a finite amount of money. There isn’t. In a fiat currency, like the Dollar, Euro or Sterling, banks create money when they lend, and the money disappears again when the loan is repaid. This is what a banking license gives you; The ability to make loans without having the existing money to back them.

Government spends by telling it’s bank (The Federal Reserve, ECB or BoE) to lend money for the things it wants to buy. Taxes then repay that debt and the money doesn’t exist anymore.

In an economy where huge amounts of wealth is horded, there’s a problem of liquidity. All of that wealth is idle. It’s not circulating and there becomes a danger of economic collapse. Therefore more money has to enter the system, either through government spending or commercial banks making loans.

Horded money is also money that isn’t going back to banks to repay the lending. So the amount of money in existence goes up, driving the value of that money down. This is inflation. One dollar can no longer buy as much as it used to as it’s value has gone down.

So, billionaires cause:

• Large amounts of commercial debt to inject replacement money into the economy. That is, personal debt or corporate debt.
• Inflation caused by that cash injection

Sound familiar?

Now a government could choose to raise its spending so that it injects the required money into its economy, rather commercial banks doing it. The advantage of that is that they can balance that with raised taxes, so inflation doesn’t get out of control. They can also choose who to tax and protect areas of the economy.

Most governments don’t see it this way, arguing that they can only spend what they take in taxes (The “government spending is like a household budget” argument). This has been false ever since they all came off the gold standard. They can spend what they want and they can tax what they want. The difference will drive inflation, so has to be kept reasonable, but if they don’t spend enough the commercial banks take over and will absolutely drive inflation.

Civil servants have a lot of control not over policy but over outcomes.

That’s a difference that matters only if the people at the top of the civil service have no opinions on what constitutes a desirable outcome. I would say that’s effectively impossible.

Ciaran Martin, a former senior civil servant with past involvement in vetting work, who is a close friend of Robbins, told the BBC that the sacked official appeared to have been made a scapegoat.

He said vetting had been wrongly presented as a simple pass or fail, when it was instead a “risk assessment”, and that it was entirely standard for officials to decide whether the balance of risk was acceptable.

“There is no abuse of process, there is no failure of process. Not only is there no duty to disclose the details of a vetting case, there is a duty not to disclose them. The one thing you never do is tell ministers of any kind, because otherwise the vetting system would collapse,” he said.

I’m sorry…WHAT!!! How can civil servants hold that level of judgement. I’ve long thought that the civil service has too much power over policy, resulting in the Home Office and Foreign Office having minimal change in policy no matter who is Home/Foreign secretary.

If this is really the case then hopefully this is a catalyst for a change in how the civil service operates and where decision making really lies.

Armstrong and Miller, for those that were wondering.

Whoops. I was mistaken. It’s Monty Python.

The won after 16 years of corrupt rule. Hardly a shining example.

The democrats didn’t have to play by trump’s rules, but they had to dismantle the foundations he had put in place during his term. I mean, they didn’t even strengthen rules to avoid another Jan 6th. Didn’t protect the freedom of the press. Didn’t strengthen campaign finance laws. Didn’t approach voting reform. Didn’t ban gerrymandering. Nothing.

Democratic politicians (as opposed to Democrat Party politicians) seem to think you defeat the other side by winning elections, but it’s impossible to win all the elections. At some point you lose, and all you’ve got left is your systematic safeguards to keep your democracy. You must bolster the safeguards while you can, even if it might work against you in the short term.

No because then you’re not attacking the fascism. You’re attacking their ethnicity and by extension everybody of that ethnicity, fascist or not.

• Look at that Jewish fascist. Fuck him and all his fascist friends.
• Look at that Jewish fascist. Fuck him and all his Jewish friends.

See the difference?

Often what they want is just plain old automation of basic tasks, but they’ve been told by “Big Government Contractors Corporation” that AI will do that for them. Of course, BGCC has an AI division happy to help them.

No cyber security professional worth anything will stand there and say this is a good solution “for the children”. They all know it’s a bullshit solution to a problem of education. Therefore the only people that will bid for the work will be grifters.

Governments tend to just defer to “industry experts”, which basically means 'big dumb idiot corporation that verifies their robustness via a human centipede of paid consultants

“Industry experts” that are trying to stay on the money train of government contracts, because they know that they’re not going to be held accountable when the shit hits the fan.

Best thing we could do to kerb government spending would be removing contractors from previous failed projects from the bidding process.

Oh they did lie, but not about America. They lied about Iran.

A Boeing maintainance contract for Boeing made helicopters? Wow, they were lucky to land that contract.

Are there more solar panels than last year? Yes? You’ll probably set records every month then.

So chop-sticks are “Oneks”