Thread: Quiz about money.

Modern Money: the way a sovereign currency works.

Take the quiz! Which of the following statements are true or false?

Go through the statements, write down your answer. Answers and explanations in the video.

1. Just like a household, the government has to finance its spending out of its income or through borrowing.

2. The role of taxes is to provide finance for government spending.

3. The National Government borrows money from the private sector to finance the budget deficit.

4. By running budget surpluses the government takes pressure off interest rates because more funds are then available for private sector investment projects.

5. Persistent budget deficits will burden future generations with inflation and higher taxes.

6. Running budget surpluses now will help build up funds necessary to cope with the ageing population in the future.



Transcript will be coming later, if speech is not comprehensible.

Originally Posted by Seraph

Modern Money: the way a sovereign currency works.

I don't think anyone could pass my quiz.

Trying watching this video. I watched it a few years ago.

I should have mentioned that the first video above with Prof. Randall Wray of the University of Missouri-Kansas City, is from a series at Columbia University, New York. Nothing prof. Wray says is controversial to economists, though politicians contradict it.

It is part of a larger video, with questions from audience. Also, another speaker about money and accounts in ancient history, Sumeria, Babylon, etc.

Modern Money & Public Purpose 1: The Historical Evolution of Money and Debt - YouTube

The next seminar, about the Eurozone: Oct. 5, 2012.

More from seminar series:


.

.

And another:

Originally Posted by Seraph

Modern Money: the way a sovereign currency works.

Well... there are consequences too.
The more the US government prints, the more money is taken out from real economy (and the less jobs available).
In other words what is the point of investing in real sector if finance sector is the most lucrative?
Based on this theory, US real sector exists more as a diversification function...

All sovereign governments can bypass financial sector. Financial sector can be severely restricted to not impair real economy. Credit creation can be operated as a public infrastructure, public utility, to eliminate не трудовые доходы.

Originally Posted by Seraph

All sovereign governments can bypass financial sector. Financial sector can be severely restricted to not impair real economy. Credit creation can be operated as a public infrastructure, public utility, to eliminate не трудовые доходы.

Imho: In theory...

But also any credit has a beneficiary - the roads are build by someone, the utility is run by someone, the credits are operated by someone. It is not always нетрудовые доходы, it is a premium/ Profit/ %/ bonus and etc. Any businessman are attracted by the opportunity of getting even more profit, isn't it? Also there is no point to work more for less profit if there is a choice.

Also they will be taking funding from the government for various projects. And give the money away in bonuses and premiums for suppliers, and their suppliers, and their suppliers... And they won't forget themselves and the guys who helped them to win the tender, consultants and experts...

Besides, the recent events showed that the government has no enough competence to close the holes in legislation in due time.

And also sovereign governments (in our case US) are returning (printing) national debt to....yes, other countries (and foreign banks, funds, trusts, and etc.) too...which can't be that easily controlled. Where do you think they will invest the money?

And I'd like to add that increasing taxes on rich can at least partially reduce the money drainage into finance sector for some time. As it is not the janitor or school teacher who plays on stock exchange. In the long run, as a Russian proverb says - should the prices go up, it is not me who will be smoking less, it is you, my son, who will be eating less. So, there should be other measures implemented too.

Ah yes. It is not only the fault of composition that the vast majority have accepted without inspection. The real distinction between earned and unearned, what constitutes earned and unearned, this has been blurred by special interests. And what is a free-market - generally miscomprehended as meaning something like free of regulation, free of government interference. Here are some points about 'free markets': http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/02/...ge-of-looting/

"Economic writers from the 16th through 20th centuries recognized that free markets required government oversight to prevent monopoly pricing and other charges levied by special privilege. By contrast, today’s neoliberal ideologues are public relations advocates for vested interests to depict a “free market” is one free of government regulation, “free” of anti-trust protection, and even of protection against fraud, as evidenced by the SEC’s refusal to move against Madoff, Enron, Citibank et al.). The neoliberal ideal of free markets is thus basically that of a bank robber or embezzler, wishing for a world without police so as to be sufficiently free to siphon off other peoples’ money without constraint."

The best thing would be to read some of the blogs of the various economists in the videos. They accept questions.

Originally Posted by Seraph

Ah yes. It is not only the fault of composition that the vast majority have accepted without inspection. The real distinction between earned and unearned, what constitutes earned and unearned, this has been blurred by special interests. And what is a free-market - generally miscomprehended as meaning something like free of regulation, free of government interference. Here are some points about 'free markets': The Language of Looting

"Economic writers from the 16th through 20th centuries recognized that free markets required government oversight to prevent monopoly pricing and other charges levied by special privilege. By contrast, today’s neoliberal ideologues are public relations advocates for vested interests to depict a “free market” is one free of government regulation, “free” of anti-trust protection, and even of protection against fraud, as evidenced by the SEC’s refusal to move against Madoff, Enron, Citibank et al.). The neoliberal ideal of free markets is thus basically that of a bank robber or embezzler, wishing for a world without police so as to be sufficiently free to siphon off other peoples’ money without constraint."

The best thing would be to read some of the blogs of the various economists in the videos. They accept questions.

EDIT: The Government colludes with these bankers and Elites that allow them to accumulate this wealth. For e.g., regarding the U.S., I posted a video that explains it.

I am just giving my humble opinion here, FWIW. I was just curious what you think about it and I hope you might consider this perspective.

"It is not only the fault of composition that the vast majority have accepted without inspection."
I am not sure what you mean.

In every country (in particular, Western but also these 'pro-Soviet' FSU Republics), the Governments DOESN'T allow free markets. These 'faux' free market democracies are frauds and they enable these banking and money industries to do the embezzling and basically act as 'accepted' mafias, all of them. They artificially manage (make that mis-manage) these economies that both push inflation and devalue currency. Only through more borrowing and spending, do they temporarily sustain their economies. It's an illusion, though.

Edit: Asking Economists to explain is a bit laughable. The majority are academics who receive funding via Governments and most are Keynesian. There are those who are not but they won't be giving speeches and be on your cable TV programs every day.

I hope you might offer your thoughts about this. I edited the post because I want to offer something different to think about. I honestly don't trust the academics and your official 'economic' explanations that these so-called experts publish. Even if they don't have an agenda, they are too connected to Government agencies and they profit either way regardless of which official economic policies are pursued. Understand? :-/

Yes, I agree with 14Russian too.

You hardly can find an economist, who is free from the system.

US elite and Government has common interests... so often they share the state pie to help each other. Claw me and I will claw thee.

"In...'pro-Soviet' FSU Republics), the Governments DOESN'T allow free markets."
Yes, to some degree it is true. But we still have schemes for money laundering, and withdrawal, and etc. And these money then enjoy free markets benefits. And not allowing "free markets" just creates other beneficiary - bureaucracy. Besides, our Elite and Government are related in the same manner...

In my view there should be more balance between free markets and regulation, but it is impossible until the corruption exists. I believe they have less degree of corruption in Northern Europe and Germany, so that is the beacon to follow.

What I am getting at is that to discuss economics (or any field) requires talking the same language. Look at the wikipedia definition: Free market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.
"A free market is an economic system in which the supply and demand of a good and service, labour, savings, investment, along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods, is coordinated entirely by individual market values (prices, interest rates, wage rates) rather than by governmental regulation, or bureaucratic mandate and dictate.^[1][2] A free market contrasts with a controlled market or regulated market, in which supply or demand are distorted by regulation or direct control by government. An economy composed entirely of free markets is referred to as a free-market economy or free-market anarchism.".

Now compare to what Professor Hudson wrote in the article above, (more of which can be found on his website) To be sure, there are academics that use the definitions as on wikipedia. A historical analysis reveals that terms, definitions, concepts have been altered, some of which begins in the ~1950s. The result is that some economists have a larger more complete historical perspective of economics, and some have not.

In one definition, a free market is free of monopoly, cartels, collusive powers. In the other, the market is free for monopoly, cartels etc to dominate. The definitions have been altered precisely to favour corruption. Shifts of definitions have occurred throughout the field of economics.

Some of the upcoming videos from the Cornell seminar series will be able to answer some of your questions and points, but the videos have not yet come out.

Under free I meant the least degree of government interference. But I am not pretending to have academic knowledge on the issue.

Economics (along with politics) is perhaps one of the fields most confused by disinformation and jargon.
.Mainstream economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.Heterodox economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.Within mainstream and heterodox are several competing branches. After going through enough of it, the picture clarifies, who is telling the truth, and who is a mouth piece for the mob. Of course, the old fashioned 'follow the money trail' or 'cui bono' are useful, along with a healthy degree of scepticism.
.