I noticed what you call easy money take hold in the Obama years. I call it massive government spending and it is fitting to call it easy money. Obama and the Fed printed money to borrow from the future in order to avoid paying for the past. Then, he and others, in the US and elsewhere , just kept right on doing it through 2024 because it helped them amass and keep power. This is the source of cash that has inflated what they call assets and what the rest of us call houses, stocks, fine art, …
Regulations are good though. Free market with no regulations has never been able to self-regulate away toxic waste like asbestos, lead, forever plastics or pollution.
But it's kind of true, real capitalism with a based currency does not excist anymore. These days the fiat money system is based on "hot air" it's created whenever it's needed and is used to keep people enslaved true taxes and debt. It's a form of control, not a form of a free market. The common people are still slaves but with the idea of freedom. Sadly most people dont understand that.
@@The.world.has.gone.crazy... Without money, growth is difficult, that's why it was abandoned. The highest economic growth in history has happened after gold backed currency was abandoned.
@@CISAus It is morally defensible for those who decry publicly-funded scholarships, Social Security benefits, and unemployment insurance to turn around and accept them, Rand argued, because the government had taken money from them by force (via taxes). There's only one catch: the recipient must regard the receipt of said benefits as restitution, not a social entitlement. "Those who advocate public scholarships [or Social Security benefits] have no right to them; those who oppose them have," Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others - the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it. Precisely because Rand views welfare programs like Social Security as legalized plunder, she thinks the only condition under which it is moral to collect Social Security is if one “regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism” (emphasis hers). The seeming contradiction that only the opponent of Social Security has the moral right to collect it dissolves, she argues, once you recognize the crucial difference between the voluntary and the coerced. Social Security is not voluntary. Your participation is forced through payroll taxes, with no choice to opt out even if you think the program harmful to your interests. If you consider such forced “participation” unjust, as Rand does, the harm inflicted on you would only be compounded if your announcement of the program’s injustice precludes you from collecting Social Security. This being said, your moral integrity does require that you view the funds only as (partial) restitution for all that has been taken from you by such welfare schemes and that you continue, sincerely, to oppose the welfare state. The flaw in this argument is that it only adds up if you accept Rand's characterization of involuntary taxation as "legalized plunder" and her assertion that it confers upon those who object to it on principle (and, by some interpretations, only those who object to it on principle) the right to financial restitution. Flawed or not, however, the fact that she articulated the position puts paid to the charge that her acceptance of Social Security benefits in later life was hypocritical. On her own terms, it was not. Taken from: Snopes.com www.snopes.com/fact-check/ayn-rand-social-security/
@@CISAus Specifically, Friedman argues that "[the] revival of belief in the potency of monetary policy ... was strongly fostered among economists by the theoretical developments initiated by Haberler but named for Pigou that pointed out a channel - namely changes in wealth - whereby changes in the real quantity of money can affect aggregate demand even if they do not alter interest rates". Friedman is clear that money must be produced "in other ways" than open-market operations, which - like QE - involve "simply substituting money for other assets without changing total wealth". Friedman references a paper by Gottfried Haberler written in 1952, where Haberler says: "Suppose the quantity of money is increased by tax reductions or government transfer payments, and the resulting deficit is financed by borrowing from the central bank or simply printing money Wikipedia.com: Helicopter Money
@@CISAus Dont get me wrong, i believe in a free market. But when company's and banks become to big to fail and pay of politicians, we cant speak about a free market anymore.
I noticed what you call easy money take hold in the Obama years. I call it massive government spending and it is fitting to call it easy money. Obama and the Fed printed money to borrow from the future in order to avoid paying for the past. Then, he and others, in the US and elsewhere , just kept right on doing it through 2024 because it helped them amass and keep power. This is the source of cash that has inflated what they call assets and what the rest of us call houses, stocks, fine art, …
This is true. Increasing the money supply leads to inflation.
Regulations are good though. Free market with no regulations has never been able to self-regulate away toxic waste like asbestos, lead, forever plastics or pollution.
This is a solid point: the tragedy of the commons.
But protectionist regulation is about a lot more than protecting shared resources like the planet.
No the rich have, it went to those who already had it all. I didn’t strengthen the hole economy just the privileged fur.
It is much more nuanced than that. But I get it, hating the rich can be cathartic. It just doesn't lead to real solutions.
Money destroyed Capitalism, now that's not what I imagined I would hear.
Didn't Ayn Rand like free money?
But it's kind of true, real capitalism with a based currency does not excist anymore. These days the fiat money system is based on "hot air" it's created whenever it's needed and is used to keep people enslaved true taxes and debt. It's a form of control, not a form of a free market. The common people are still slaves but with the idea of freedom. Sadly most people dont understand that.
@@The.world.has.gone.crazy... Without money, growth is difficult, that's why it was abandoned.
The highest economic growth in history has happened after gold backed currency was abandoned.
I don't think Ayn Rand was a fan of crony capitalism and printing money.
@@CISAus It is morally defensible for those who decry publicly-funded scholarships, Social Security benefits, and unemployment insurance to turn around and accept them, Rand argued, because the government had taken money from them by force (via taxes). There's only one catch: the recipient must regard the receipt of said benefits as restitution, not a social entitlement.
"Those who advocate public scholarships [or Social Security benefits] have no right to them; those who oppose them have,"
Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others - the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it.
Precisely because Rand views welfare programs like Social Security as legalized plunder, she thinks the only condition under which it is moral to collect Social Security is if one “regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism” (emphasis hers). The seeming contradiction that only the opponent of Social Security has the moral right to collect it dissolves, she argues, once you recognize the crucial difference between the voluntary and the coerced.
Social Security is not voluntary. Your participation is forced through payroll taxes, with no choice to opt out even if you think the program harmful to your interests. If you consider such forced “participation” unjust, as Rand does, the harm inflicted on you would only be compounded if your announcement of the program’s injustice precludes you from collecting Social Security.
This being said, your moral integrity does require that you view the funds only as (partial) restitution for all that has been taken from you by such welfare schemes and that you continue, sincerely, to oppose the welfare state.
The flaw in this argument is that it only adds up if you accept Rand's characterization of involuntary taxation as "legalized plunder" and her assertion that it confers upon those who object to it on principle (and, by some interpretations, only those who object to it on principle) the right to financial restitution.
Flawed or not, however, the fact that she articulated the position puts paid to the charge that her acceptance of Social Security benefits in later life was hypocritical. On her own terms, it was not.
Taken from: Snopes.com
www.snopes.com/fact-check/ayn-rand-social-security/
@@CISAus Specifically, Friedman argues that "[the] revival of belief in the potency of monetary policy ... was strongly fostered among economists by the theoretical developments initiated by Haberler but named for Pigou that pointed out a channel - namely changes in wealth - whereby changes in the real quantity of money can affect aggregate demand even if they do not alter interest rates". Friedman is clear that money must be produced "in other ways" than open-market operations, which - like QE - involve "simply substituting money for other assets without changing total wealth". Friedman references a paper by Gottfried Haberler written in 1952, where Haberler says: "Suppose the quantity of money is increased by tax reductions or government transfer payments, and the resulting deficit is financed by borrowing from the central bank or simply printing money
Wikipedia.com: Helicopter Money
In Europe houses are unaffordable aswell. 😢
Sadly, Australia is leading the world when it comes to unaffordable housing.
@@CISAus It's a verry bad and sad evolution.
Does easy money mess things up. Yes
Yup!
Hyperinflation followed by new currencies will solve the problem.
With a lot of real pain for the people living in those countries. There are lots of good examples.
Maybe things will change when people cant buy what the big company's produce.
We should be working to increase competition and get rid of protectionism regulation.
@@CISAus Dont get me wrong, i believe in a free market. But when company's and banks become to big to fail and pay of politicians, we cant speak about a free market anymore.
Thompson Carol Allen Linda Robinson Jeffrey
Thanks for commenting.