Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 9^th, 2022 at 4:38pm:


Correct; have you studied MMT?

In fact (simply put),  the government's deficit is the private sector's surplus.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 10^th, 2022 at 12:10am:


No, the debt-money system itself needs to be changed, as patiently explained in your video.

Quote:


Mugabe kicked all the white farmers (not bankers)  off their farms (which occupied land stolen  by white colonialists  in the 19th century)....and Zimbabwe "went down the toilet" because the black tenants who were allocated the confiscated farms had no idea how to farm....

Quote:


Nothing to do with the white bankers who were not 'got rid of', - though they like all bankers  are part of an evil debt-money system ravaging the whole world, as explained at length  in your video. 

Frank wrote on Apr 6^th, 2022 at 2:56pm:


You have given up debating, again. Pity.   

Quote:


No, poor countries are poor because they lack the resources to house, clothe, and feed everyone...or because the First World is stealing their resources for peanuts.

It's called 'privatisation', the selling off of state assets to stave off bankruptcy caused by the bank-created debt. Third World countries are handing over control of their land and resources to the international bankers because they cannot pay back the vast loans made, on purpose, by the banks to ensnare them in this very situation. The world does not have to be in poverty and conflict, it is manipulated to be that way because it serves the bankster's agenda.

Privatization transfers the model of the entity away from service to profit.

When you do this on an infrastructure level, especially when there are protections for the company when things go wrong and governments willing to bail them out because they simply can't fail, it's even worse.

But we're getting way ahead of ourselves.

The notion that the Government shouldn't run/own anything is incredibly short-sighted and is ideologically based.  Even likening it to communism only strengthens that argument.

I know there are far more important examples of infrastructure, but take Broadband as an example.

The private ISPs put money into the most profitable areas and that was it.  Regional let alone Rural Australia was left out.  Even Telstra's billions they wanted to spend pre-NBN, it was only in profitable areas and they wanted exemptions to their minimum service obligations under legislation in return.

The private sector was never going to operate services at a loss, even if they can recoup those costs from the inner city customers, it's just not good business.  If a Government has to legislate the servicing of those unprofitable areas, what's the point of privatising?

Power, Water, Health etc, it's all the same.

There is no doubt there can be bloat when the government-run these entities, but we can learn from overseas how to manage these sorts of issues, like say Singapore.

But instead, we get told from one side of politics that the private sector can do it better but time and time again, in terms of service, that's proven to be wrong.

We know what they mean by "do it better" is actually making money.  Those services, and the people that use them (again, Power, Water, Health etc) become the commodity under these models.

Not only does the business model change from Service to Profit, but that profit comes by commoditising us and when things go wrong, because they're vital services and infrastructure, we have to pay a second time when our taxes are used to fix the problem/bail them out.

Gold Coast water was an example.  The local council had to buy back the company because costs were skyrocketing and service levels, repairs, started falling.  Water!

It should have never been privatized in the first place, but now we're left with a massive tax bill due to broken contacts that will be paid off for many many years to come.

I'm not flat out anti-privatization, there are some use cases for it, but the notion that the private sector do it better and more efficiently and Government shouldn't run/own these entities, as a blanket statement I do not support.

The idea that government deficits are bad is wrong.

https://www.keenforthesenate.com/a-resilient-economy/

"This may seem an outrageous claim to make—surely economists (if not Pauline Hansen) know how money works? However, no less an authority than The Bank of England has said that economic textbooks are wrong about how banks work:

The reality of how money is created today differs from the description found in some economics textbooks:

Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits.

Mainstream economic textbooks are as wrong about how governments operate as they are about how banks operate.

When a bank makes a loan for, say, $1 million, it puts $1 million in the borrower’s deposit account, and it records that the borrower now owes the bank $1 million. The deposit account is a Liability of the bank; the loan is the bank’s Asset. Similarly, if the government makes a payment–say paying $1 million for goods purchased from a firm–then the government puts $1 million in the deposit account and $1 million in the Reserves of the banking system.

Where does the bank get the money that it lends, and where does the government get the money that it spends? Neither the bank nor the government “get” the money: instead both banks and the government create money.

Money is primarily bank deposit accounts these days (plus a small amount of cash). Deposit accounts are a Liability of the banking sector. To create money, you have to increase the Liabilities of the banking sector. This is only possible if the Assets of the banking sector rise by the same amount, at the same time.

A bank loan of $1 million does this by increasing the Loans of the banking sector at the same time as it credits the depositor’s bank account with $1 million.
Government spending of $1 million does this by increasing the Reserves of the banking sector at the same time as it credits the depositor’s bank account with $1 million.

The same thing happens in reverse when a loan is repaid, or the government taxes the private sector: money is destroyed".