Where Money Comes From with Richard Werner
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 сен 2024
- On this episode, University of Winchester professor and economist Richard Werner joins Oren Cass for a discussion on monetary policy. The two discuss where money comes from, the ways that government policy can help and hurt markets, and how to differentiate between productive and non-productive finance.
For more, read his latest book, Where Does Money Come From? A Guide to the UK Monetary and Banking System: www.amazon.com...
Professor Werner, an absolutely brilliant mind. Please add additional interviews
He WAS The BEST (and only?) REAL economist in this WORLD?
No longer?
No ‘BAU’?
‘Most’ ‘economic thinking’ is ‘short run’ and ‘redundant’?
‘It’ ignores the ‘supply side’?
‘Growth’ {and ‘civilisation’} depends upon ‘cheap’ F.F. - those so called ‘halcyon days’ are ‘over’. ?
“The crisis now unfolding, however, is entirely different to the 1970s in one crucial respect… The 1970s crisis was largely artificial. When all is said and done, the oil shock was nothing more than the emerging OPEC cartel asserting its newfound leverage following the peak of continental US oil production. There was no shortage of oil any more than the three-day-week had been caused by coal shortages. What they did, perhaps, give us a glimpse of was what might happen in the event that our economies depleted our fossil fuel reserves before we had found a more versatile and energy-dense alternative. . . . That system has been on the life-support of quantitative easing and near zero interest rates ever since. Indeed, so perilous a state has the system been in since 2008, it was essential that the people who claim to be our leaders avoid doing anything so foolish as to lockdown the economy or launch an undeclared economic war on one of the world’s biggest commodity exporters . . . And this is why the crisis we are beginning to experience will make the 1970s look like a golden age of peace and tranquility. . . . The sad reality though, is that our leaders - at least within the western empire - have bought into a vision of the future which cannot work without some new and yet-to-be-discovered high-density energy source (which rules out all of the so-called green technologies whose main purpose is to concentrate relatively weak and diffuse energy sources). . . . Even as we struggle to reimagine the 1970s in an attempt to understand the current situation, the only people on Earth today who can even begin to imagine the economic and social horrors that await western populations are the survivors of the 1980s famine in Ethiopia, the hyperinflation in 1990s Zimbabwe, or, ironically, the Russians who survived the collapse of the Soviet Union.” ?
This is the best Richard Werner video I've seen.
The BEST (and only?) REAL economist in this WORLD
Check out Von Mises, Hayek and especially Rothbard
@@gustavfourie5099 Lol, yes their ideological presuppositions are so insightful.
@@kurtjohnston6620 He WAS The BEST (and only?) REAL economist in this WORLD?
No longer?
No ‘BAU’?
‘Most’ ‘economic thinking’ is ‘short run’ and ‘redundant’?
‘It’ ignores the ‘supply side’?
‘Growth’ {and ‘civilisation’} depends upon ‘cheap’ F.F. - those so called ‘halcyon days’ are ‘over’. ?
“The crisis now unfolding, however, is entirely different to the 1970s in one crucial respect… The 1970s crisis was largely artificial. When all is said and done, the oil shock was nothing more than the emerging OPEC cartel asserting its newfound leverage following the peak of continental US oil production. There was no shortage of oil any more than the three-day-week had been caused by coal shortages. What they did, perhaps, give us a glimpse of was what might happen in the event that our economies depleted our fossil fuel reserves before we had found a more versatile and energy-dense alternative. . . . That system has been on the life-support of quantitative easing and near zero interest rates ever since. Indeed, so perilous a state has the system been in since 2008, it was essential that the people who claim to be our leaders avoid doing anything so foolish as to lockdown the economy or launch an undeclared economic war on one of the world’s biggest commodity exporters . . . And this is why the crisis we are beginning to experience will make the 1970s look like a golden age of peace and tranquility. . . . The sad reality though, is that our leaders - at least within the western empire - have bought into a vision of the future which cannot work without some new and yet-to-be-discovered high-density energy source (which rules out all of the so-called green technologies whose main purpose is to concentrate relatively weak and diffuse energy sources). . . . Even as we struggle to reimagine the 1970s in an attempt to understand the current situation, the only people on Earth today who can even begin to imagine the economic and social horrors that await western populations are the survivors of the 1980s famine in Ethiopia, the hyperinflation in 1990s Zimbabwe, or, ironically, the Russians who survived the collapse of the Soviet Union.” ?
Fantastic interview and a great primer on how the monetary system works and the ways in which policy affect it
Best of the absolute best...
How can the regulators spot bad asset allocation in an environment of uncontrolled, unaudited derivatives?
Time for the Americans to force their hand and make these plunderers prove their claims of ownership.
Honest question, if banks shouldn't provide loans to consumers for asset purchase (vechile and asset finance) who should? I know he said outside the banking sector but won't that create a shadow, riskier, banking sector?
I watched Princes of Yen again the other. Best financial documentary!
Im so glad conservatives are coming around on this issue. The truth should be nonpartisan.
Listening to this, it struck me that a key factor in determining if QE actually results in money being added to the real economy is whether the central bank buys assets from the non-banking sector or not. I’m still trying to wrap my head around the complexity of debt-based monetary systems, but I don’t see how the central bank swapping balance sheet “tokens” (i.e., bank reserves) for treasuries necessarily increases bank lending. Doesn’t it risk the opposite effect in that it sops up safe, highly liquid collateral (treasuries) that can be lent in repo and other transactions from commercial bank balance sheet?
Check out Jeff Snider.
Ok. He is spot on the rest of the video.
My apologies
Great video, we like the truth
Some commenters misunderstand Richard Werner.
He doesn't promote QE as something we should aim to do. He proposes that governments with a sovereign currency can use it to fix a banking disaster, and he admits that this is a bank bailout and thus bad and creating moral hazard.
If you listen to his wider work, he advocates that we need to stop banks from creating the boom and bust ecomomic cycles. He argues we need to stop loans for asset purchases, for example to finance the acquisition of a company, or to fund a large commercial property development. He advocates for more small regional banks who will loan to local businesses.
Werner is not part of the corrupt establishment. They detest him for exposing their corrupt self interest.
I detest the central banks and the too big to fail banks and so does richard.
Richard is very smart
35:10 "somehow"
“Taxation is a free lunch” boy if that isn’t the truth. I refuse to gift/bequests them any more.
Although this episode impressively presents the in-depth analysis of the money creation, there are serious problems with the logic of the QE. Prof. W said QE1 does not create inflation since the money given to a commercial bank remains in the Fed Reserve as a reserve credit to this bank. This money does not enter the real (non-bank) economy and therefore does not create inflation. This makes no sense since the QE money given to a bank in trouble cannot do any good for this bank unless this bank can, at least in part, use it for its day to day operation. If the QE money is to be helpful, it must be used for something and not only sit in the Central Bank as the untouchable reserve.
@Beaconism-Dollarism, I haven't watched the video yet, but your description is very clear. I suspect you're incorrect, because the Fed paid interest on excess reserves during those years, which acted as a substitute for commercial bank lending. During those years, lending into the real economy was muted, while lending for speculation was, as always, in full throttle. The interest on excess reserves rewarded banks for not doing productive lending and incentivized the banks to let those reserves sit and do nothing. The Republican Senator Phil Gram wrote an article towards the end of the Obama years making the case to end the interest on excess reserves policy.
QE should be at the individual, not financial asset level.
Generous short-term unemployment benefits could be monetized by central banks, staving off profound social issues and also ensuring aggregate demand doesn’t fall too far, so systemic credit doesn’t fail and the economy can chug along while being somewhat impaired in the short term.
Sovereign credit wouldn’t be impacted because there’d be an expectation of the economic cycle rebounding, cushioned by government supported consumer spending. Banks, corporations and securities would be bankrupted and their assets sold to new risk takers. Corporate failure should be perpetual, as a healthy symbol of risk taking and competition. This would be democratic capitalism.
There is a problem with the analysis of what caused inflation. I did not and I do not know people whose assets increased so that consumption increased causing inflation. Inflation is the imposition of liabilities on society forcing the transfer of assets to those who impose a liabilities. That impacts balance sheets by reducing equity that people in society have. Assets minus liabilities equal equity.
Those who impose the higher prices - liabilities on society - receive an increase in assets while facing the same liabilities so their balance sheets show an increase in their equity.
Higher interest rates by central banks signals the banking industry to impose liabilities on society with their higher interest rates. And that forces assets - cash/money - to be transferred to the bankers.
The power of the private bankers on money CREATION, "ex nihilo" lies on the ignorance of the people on the secrets of the banking system.
Williams Thomas Hall Jason Williams Kimberly
Let me steal a few billions and say it’s just spilt milk.
This guy is really full of sheeyet
Smart but full of sheeyet
Spent too much time in school with no wisdom
I've got an idea, let's send everybody 10 trillion dollars and let's pass a law that you can't have a recession. This is such a childish idiocy.
Thank you for the brief. I suspected modern monetary theory.
Clown world...
Some people work for a living, this guy sits around and thinks about how to wreck the civilized world.
He has empirically shown what the system and process actually is, are you anti-truth?
Right. Guy is full of sheeyet.
Only if you are brainwashed can you buy this crap. No wisdom
By his logic all the criminals steal billions and maybe trillions and he says well this is spilt milk. Let’s bail them out.
As if the fed is not part of the government Yeah. Only in theory
He has highlighted an aspect, but his galaxy brain has just created yet another progressive fix-the-world system.
Blaming the Regulators is just another incantation of “the better angels” theory. That is a hope and a prayer that this self-proclaimed “scientist” should get a firm grip on. He was a good guest but he is just another apologist for central planners.
Every developed successful economy had some form of central planning, including the United States.
All Corporations snd businesses have central planning. That is the very essence of their business model. That is how they allocate resources, funds and labor within themselves.
Can you imagine running a corporation that does not have central planning?
If it works for the corporations why can't it work for entire nations?