How Can We Fix Inflation? With Economist Steve Hanke | The Problem With Jon Stewart Podcast
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 окт 2022
- Watch The Problem With Jon Stewart on Apple TV+
theproblem.link/AppleTV
Jon is joined by Steve Hanke, a Professor of Applied Economics at The Johns Hopkins University, for a chat about why we find ourselves in this current inflation disaster and how we might get out of it. They get into whether the Fed is blowing it, the role of money supply, and whether anyone is looking out for the little guy in all of this monetary maneuvering. They don’t always agree, but Jon manages to score a passing grade from the professor.
Listen to the full episode on Apple Podcasts:
theproblem.link/SteveHanke
Subscribe to The Problem with Jon Stewart podcast:
theproblem.link/ApplePodcast
Subscribe to The Problem with Jon Stewart’s RUclips channel:
theproblem.link/RUclips
Follow The Problem With Jon Stewart
Instagram:
theproblem.link/Insta
Twitter:
theproblem.link/Twitter
Follow Apple TV:
Instagram:
theproblem.link/AppleTVInsta
Facebook:
theproblem.link/AppleTVFacebook
Twitter:
theproblem.link/AppleTVTwitter
Giphy:
theproblem.link/AppleTVGiphy
Follow Apple TV+
Instagram:
theproblem.link/AppleTVPlusInsta
Apple TV+ is a streaming service with original stories from the most creative minds in TV and film. Watch now on the Apple TV app:
apple.co/AppleTVapp
#economy #inflation #podcast 
Приколы
A perfect storm is brewing in the United States. Inflation, bank collapse, severe drought in the agricultural belt, recession, food shortages, diesel fuel and heating oil shortages, baby formula shortages, available automobile shortages and prices, the price of living place. It's all coming together and it could lead to a real disaster towards the end of this year (or sooner). With inflation currently at about 6%, my primary concern is how to maximize my savings/retirement fund of about $300k which has been sitting duck since forever with zero to no gains.
These are the conditions in which life-changing money is made by those who remain calm, patient, and take controlled risks. Volatility goes both ways. The bigger the red candles, the bigger the green ones.
Investing in stocks can be a wise decision, especially if you have a dependable trading system that can lead to successful outcomes. Personally, I've been working with a financial advisor for about a year now. Starting with less than $200K and I'm now just $19,000 away from making half a million in profit.
please who is the consultant that assist you with your investment and if you don't mind, how do I get in touch with them?
Carol Vivian Constable is the licensed fiduciary I use. Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment..
She appears to be well-educated and well-read. I just ran a Google search for her name and came across her website; thank you for sharing.
Exxon Mobil: highest profit in 7 years
Chevron: highest profit in 7 years
Shell: highest profit in 7 years
BP: highest profit in 8 years
Chipotle: 26% profit increase.
Raising prices.
Starbucks: 31% profit increase.
Raising prices.
McDonalds: 59% profit increase.
Raising prices.
Shell/Mobile/BP: 60% profit increase.
Raising prices.
There's not a labor shortage.
This isn't inflation.
It is 100% corporate greed.
You are supporting his point about the money supply being the culprit. Corporations will always be greedy. If there is money out there to be taken they will increase prices and take it. Increasing the money supply creates the ability for corporations to keep increasing their prices to make record profits by getting their hands on more of that money supply out there. If money supply is increased and corporations see that you have an extra dollar in your pocket they will increase the price to take that dollar from you.
His point is the same point you are making. It’s not labor shortages. It’s not supply. It’s corporations being greedy because the corporate response to increased money supply is to increase their profits to take that money for themselves even though they didn’t need to based on supply side economics.
So you are saying these profit seeking corporations that are ALWAYS trying to cut costs to increase profits, are the devil because their profits increased?
I don’t get the argument here… it’s almost like apple telling us the new iPhone is the fastest iPhone produced in the last 7 years. Well duh… why would you make a crappier iPhone with years of improving the manufacturing and design and… many of the companies we are talking about laid people off and stopped risky investments and improved their operations … that’s why the profits are higher.
And this guy is clearly dancing in the oil money… this interview got so frustrating so quickly 😮💨
@@Rkcuddles you’re not looking at all the information. Cherry picking information won’t help you or this conversation. Watch some Beau of the Fifth Column and Adam Ruins Everything just covered the Patagonia bs. With all the information at your fingertips it’s not wise to play dumb just so you can have a corporate silver spoon shoved up you know where.
Yeah US oil is sold on the international market. So we nationalize it like OPEC+ has and we are good. No joke then we can price control within our nation and sell it for direct funding just like OPEC+ nations do. Capitalist can't think outside private/personal profits.. Boeing too you have one job and well that's not flying well... Hand the companies to a nerd social servant that just wants to do their duty well! No profit drive just a drive to do your best for your fellows, your nation, and humanity.
You cannot cut your way out of recession you've got to invest your way out of recession, the Conservative party are in the dark ages on policy they've got to think again. My primary concern is how to maximize my savings/retirement fund of about £170k which has been sitting duck since forever with zero to no gains.
A strategy to protect against inflation is through the U.S stock market, especially the S&P500 & various ETFs. Investors must know where to put their money and how to distribute it in order to protect it against inflation while still making a profit, especially during a recession.
@@corrySledd The truth is that people are finally waking up to the fact that our systems are breaking down in thousands of different ways all around us. Personally, the financial market seems like the only way to go with my long-term horizon (accumulated about £557,000 in earnings since May 2021), but if you don't have that time luck, it's a tough market out there down almost nowhere feels safe!
@@AUstinnesc I've known I've wanted to start investing for a few months but just haven't been brave enough to start due to the market so far since mid last year. I have 60k i want to transfer into an s&s isa but its hard to bite the bullet and do it. £557k is a huge milestone , Please whats your strategy ? i will love to have an insight.
@@sherryie2 Yes, a Fidelity financial advisor named "NICOLE DESIREE SIMON" put an end to my fears about investing, and after making more investments, I was able to reach the high six-figure mark in less than 3 years. A licensing advisor satisfies the necessary security criteria; hence, reimbursement is guaranteed if I'm dissatisfied with the service, so I'm much better off hiring one.
@@AUstinnesc I just copied and pasted her full name on my browser, super impressed with what I've seen so far. thanks for sharing!
It surprises me why everybody gets really worked up about inflation and inflation data. Inflation has always existed, and people have been using investments to beat the inflation. The stock mar-ket return, for example, always beats inflation. I heard of someone who invested $ 121k last October, and has grown the portfolio by more than $ 400k. I need recommendations that can give me similar return.
I don't really blame people who panic. Lack of information can be a big hurdle. I've been making more than $21k passively by just investing through an advisor, and I don't have to do much work. Inflation or no inflation, my finances remain secure. So I really don't blame people who panic.
True. I first came across investing in the market in 2019. Already stashed about $ 80k in savings then, and the free money from the Government was pouring in, increasing inflation rate. I just got an advisor and kept the money there, just because I didn't want to keep the value of the money depreciating in the bank. Tbh, it's the best investment decision I've made since then.
@@MarkFreeman-xi3rk I think this is something I should do, but I've been stalling for a long time now. I don't really know which firm to work with; I feel they are all the same.
Haha. I definitely share your sentiment about these firms. When I was starting out, I checked out a couple of freelance investors online, so you could do the same. I personally work with Margaret Johnson Arndt, and she's really good.
Thanks for sharing this. I did my own little research, and your advisor looks advanced and experienced. I wrote her and dialed her twice but she didn't pick up so I scheduled a phone call.
The best analogy I have for this interview is, a self-absorbed games developer describing the game-breaking bugs in his "masterpiece" as features.
@andi mayer ... +1. Agreed,,, kinda, sort a, yeah.
So he's basically the Todd Howard of economics?
@@vbevan *SIXTEEN TIMES THE DETAIL*
SIXTEEN TIMES THE INFLATION, FOUR TIMES THE SIZE OF THE RECESSION OF 2009
Hes totally old school ivory tower capitalist. People don't matter, just his numbers.
Hanke is technically correct in that inflation has to do with money supply. However, Jon was trying to point out how the monetary policy that results from this theory hurts the poor and helps the rich. And Hanke very firmly steered the conversation away from that concern. Because to him, it’s not a concern. It’s the inevitable cost of capitalism and he and his friends are rich. They made it on top, and don’t care about those in the underclass. Or at least they don’t care enough to want to change the system in any substantial way. Ultimately, this means the two of them were basically talking past each other the whole interview. Very frustrating.
quickest way to remove excess money from the money supply is progressive taxation of the richest. Inflation raises wages, and wages are sticky so we can't have that, better jack up the interest rates and crash the economy and push unemployment high enough to remove the bargaining power from labor. It has nothing to do with growth, it has nothing to do with inflation. Money is about power
Yeah, this one sucked. I wish we got a bit more of "Roll 212" Jon, but he never shifted into being a truly adversarial interviewer.
He absolutely should have smacked down the condescending "signal and noise" stuff once it became clear that it was just a glib and dismissive device.
Inflation has more to do with government involvement in the economy. They increase the minimum wage you get price increases. They increase regulation requirements you get price increases. They increase taxes on businesses you get price increases. They dump a bunch of free dollars into the markets you get price increases. They shutdown the economy you get price increases.
26 minutes in and I have to get out of here. If Henke ever addressed the $7 trillion plus that 45 added to the deficit I wouldn’t believe a word. Thank you for your comments and insight.
@@alejohernandez75 who said anything about taxing business. Tax individuals. Tax estates and offshore bank accounts with trillions stashed away. Tax the people hoarding all the wealth and if they are such great entrepreneurs like they keep telling us they are, they’ll go and make more money.
Inflation, bank collapse, severe drought in the agricultural belt, recession, food shortages, diesel fuel and heating oil shortages, baby formula shortages, available automobile shortages and prices, the price of living place.
Government policy has thrown the future under the bus for decades. The day of judgment is near. I predict an 80% drop in the stock market. Investors will abandon stocks in favor of real estate. There will be no money in banks... You must devise a strategy for survival.
@@hunter-bourke21I agree. I have pulled in more than $435k since 2020 through my advisor. It pays off more in the long run to just pick quality stocks and ride with those stocks.
@@edward.abraham Mind if I ask you recommend this particular professional you use their service? i have quite a lot of marketing problems.
@@Believer292 Big Credits to “Julia Ann Finnicum” she has a web presence, so you can simply search for, there are some others but it might be difficult to get them, but Julia has been a good guide through the year.
@@edward.abraham She appears to be well-educated and well-read. I ran a Google search on her name and came across her website; thank you for sharing.
I Thought Steve Hanke represented him extremely well and I thought Jon asked all the right questions and it was a respectful conversation. Thank you 🙏🏻
because inflation TOTALLY isn't exacerbated by the fact that the top 1% hoard 99% of the liquid wealth in our economic circulatory system in draconian clutches. Inflation is only a problem when every day people get hand outs, but one person having 200 billion dollars to their name is totally a non issue. Got it. I would love to see who has bought this man
I don't think he said income inequality does not exacerbate the effects of inflation on the little guy. They kind of danced around the topic of redistribution of wealth without ever actually addressing it directly.
The guy is a reaganite, say no more.
He's a capitalist in the vein of Mises and Austrian economics. His argument is basically, rich people earned it and deserve to be protected
wait really? you don't see why prices of diapers and wonderbread would be more responsive to the 200 million Americans in the bottom two thirds of the country by wealth having an extra thousand dollars apiece than if jeffrez bezos had more savings and investments to the tune of doubling his already excessive, never going to be consumed wealth? that seems incredibly obvious to me.
The problem with inequality and distribution of wealth effect the player, not the game. Like in monopoly if one person have all the money and others don't doesn't really affect the house prices and rents directly, but if the bank keeps giving out money every turn, say instead of 200dollars a round it's 2k or 20k, to one or all players, people compete to buy houses and the prices keep growing, that's what he explained.
Inflation is caused by increased money supply, and yet, the majority of new supply is disproportionately going to the top 1%.
Hoarded wealth causes inflation. When the wealthy hoard their wealth, that money is taken out of the economy, driving inflation.
@@LoriAW3791 If we took all the money from the richest Americans billionaires. Which we would have to dissolve their huge corporations to do so. Along with the jobs they provide. Which is where most of their wealth is. It would barely make an interest payment on the USA debt.
It's "trickle down economics theory" in practice, the ultra-wealthy get tax breaks, stock buybacks, and the rest get the crumbs left over.
Reagan introduced this scheme for the donors so the GOP had the money to run campaigns.
Honestly, that was my thought too. If we're adding to the supply while not removing it, we need to redistribute some wealth here rather than just add water to the money pool. At least that's the way it sounds to me.
4 replies show but only ACTUALLY 1 SHOWING. WTF RUclips?
Awesome interview! As an economist myself, I like to raise awareness about what a simple tool as Taxes can do to avoid "screwing over the little guy"
THANK YOU! I kept thinking this guy is so razor focused on inflation and supply, he cannot fathom any other levers to pull
That was screaming in my head the entire time. If inflation is only money supply and we cant help the little guy by increasing money supply there is really only one solution tax the rich and give it to the poor.
He is following the Milton Friedman's view on economics. Milton Friedman is heavily against government intervention because in his view, governments have no incentives to spent money wisely - when you spent your own money on yourself, you spent it efficiently and effectively; when you spent your own money on other people, you will spent money efficiently; when you spent other people's money on yourself, you will spent it effectively but not efficiently; and if you spent other people's money on other people, you will spent it neither effectively nor efficiently....and unfortunately the last quadrant is what the government falls under when they spent tax dollars.
I fully agree, taxes would be an ideal and positive choice for the government to enact. Not only as a tool for decreasing the allotment of privately held government bonds but additionally to redistribute wealth, diminishing the inefficiencies inequality presents. However, this is one major aspect of the debate which I believe was not touched upon being the separation of the Fed and the federal government. The Fed has two constitutional objectives; to decrease unemployment and maintain healthy inflation. With all due respect to John Stewart I believe that at times he might have conflated the responsibilities of the Fed with those of the government. In my mind it is the governments job to react to what the people need (aka the stimulus) and the feds to mitigate negative effects on inflation and unemployment from a purely monetary perspective.
People like this will never allow more taxes they deep down want to kill our country and get to one with corporation in charge 100%. John here is 100% on point there a very easy way to take care of this and not cause widespread pain raise taxes on the rich. John tried again and again to point out the rich are richer than ever their profit are historic. Meanwhile all the expert can do is argue the rest of us need to hurt so they don't have to. This is how we ended up with the Guillotine the idea that the rich should never hurt but the people should.
I would love to see a panel of: Katie Porter, Peter Zeihan, Jon Stewart, Jerome Powell, and Hanke. Stewart to keep it on track, Porter to break it down, Zeihan to keep it real, Powell to convince us to keep getting screwed for the overall good, and Hanke to tell Powell to slow the F down. Then we can know what really happens in the Room.
I suddenly felt really old and tired watching this but I hung in there, got the bathtub analogy, enjoyed the dulcet and strangely meditative tones of your guests voice and WHAM! I actually fucking learnt something! And I have to say that I just love the idea that Jon thinks that if he just pays attention and concentrates HE MIGHT JUST BE ABLE TO WORK OUT HOW TO FIX IT. You are all of us Jon, you really are. Love from Australia x
🤘😘🔥
What did you learn? Commercial banks magically create money? Regulating and constraining gamblers causes inflation. You would think that only central banks can create money- wrong. According to that guy any banker can do. The lesson to all of us is become a banker then you can create money for yourself and lend it to others. Money is not made by corporations, money is transferred from one man's pocket to another man's pocket.
@@malanalan1 thing about bank money (loans) is that money must be repaid and destroyed. No new net assets.
He probably sounds meditative because he has the exact same accent as David Lynch, who is a TM practitioner.
@@matthewmcclain9852 With one exception: the Fed.
Ok, Ok, the circle does close eventually, but it can take years. Whether this is a feature or a bug depends on your view of government in general.
I can't help but regard with skepticism someone who thinks his ideas have no flaws and everyone not following them is just wrong and stupid, or choosing to be wrong and stupid to save their reputations. He dodges or dismisses every issue that might take the shine off the theory he's pushing, and, yeah, if you ignore everything wrong with an idea, it's going to look perfect.
I don't take economic experts seriously who don't understand how a major supply disruption can affect an asset price.
This guy is seriously arguing without irony, that inflation is a 1:1 relationship to issued currency.
And they tell me we live in a meritocracy. Ha!
@@that_heretic Yeah. That damaged his credibility pretty early on. Jon made the correct point - we've HAD exploding money supply at multiple points with no inflation. But now we explode the money supply because there is an international supply + demand shock all at once and it's the money supply that created this once in a generation inflation? And the supply and demand shocks didn't cause anything? Nope.
My loss of respect began when he claimed "the relationship between monetarty supply and inflation is 1 to 1" not "0.96 to 1" and not even a confidence interval like "between 0.8 and 1.1 to 1". Any economist who can't use basic stats is sketch
Yeah, this guy is a clown and doesn’t understand how money supply works nor how our economy works. Jon hits him with great point after great point and he sticks his head in the sand. This is also the type of mentality that is running the Fed and working as White House economic advisors.
@@willingoYT Maybe he was considering the prospective audience of the podcast. If the confidence interval isn't
Economics is always fascinating to me. It's not an exact science, nor is it as simple as Hanke makes it out to be. Economists can be on opposite ends of an issue and both will be right and wrong at the same time, usually because of the assumptions they make in their research. But I absolutely appreciate the logical, scientific approach to understanding economics. It usually always leads to an insightful and informative debate.
its fairly exact. if you double the dollars out there via printing, then each dollar will be worth half as much :P
Meaning food prices will increased 2x (you will still have the same amount of dollars, just theyre buying power is lower)
The most important thing that should be on everyone mind currently should be to invest in different sources of income that doesn't depend on the government. Especially with the current economic crisis around the word. This is still a good time to invest in various stocks, Gold, silver and digital currencies.
The key to big returns is not big moving stocks. It's managing risk in relationship to reward. Having the correct size on and turning your edge as many times as necessary to reach your goal. That holds true from long term investing to day trading
Thank you for this Pointer. It was easy to find your handler, She seems very proficient and flexible. I booked a call session with her.
It's really not. If everyone just tries to invest, that's a balloon that will expand and then pop. Just be prudent with money.
@@leok7193 These are bots.
For scammers.
Who will burn in hell.
Thank you for filling this comment section with your fake BS. I want to find actually comments that originated and were executed by a human and their brain asking questions and making comments for reasons outside of making money through some crap advisor or a scam.
The facts, Jon, the fact that he and his rich cronies might have to absorb some financial pain. That is to be avoided at all costs. This guy is a rich man's best friend.
Yep. No doubt an Ivy Leaque man.
I have been hearing this bullshit my whole life, about the deficit.
One way we could reduce the money supply that this economist doesn’t talk about: Tax the fucking rich, just tax them, tax them 40%, Tax their dividends, Tax their capital gains, Tax their assets. If it really is a money supply issue, then why not take money from people who are making out like bandits?
Beautifully said. Another ‘War on the Poor’ - not the irresponsibility of these ‘economists’. I’d ask for my college money back if he was my professor….the weakest argument I’ve ever heard for the 2008 crisis. It’s not the fault of the banks & Lehman brothers - it was the fault of the American people. Not due to the financial scams the banks were running.
"I've seen things you wouldn't believe. These people don't lose money. They don't mind if everyone else does, but at the end of the day, they don't lose."
- Margin Call, 2011
Jon knows this he’s just trying to get as much info he can directly from the horses mouth. Jon did this on the Daily Show all the time. Both of these guys know they don’t agree with each other, but they know there’s value in learning from one another. As much as I’d like Jon to air out this Reaganomics geezer, there’s much more value in a conversation such as this.
"Fuck the little guy. The world is built for the investor, not the home owner and laborer." - Steve Hanke
The little guy = "noise" in his argument
Just because you don't like it it doesn't make it untrue.
Eh, actually not at all what he said here *shrug". And in fact, what he said was a refusal of Keynesian Economics. Actually a rebellion against the worst kind of rich people out there, who would (and actively do/have) murk the waters to continue to grab your money's value without blame. John Keynes was born into riches, and with no formal history in anything economics (other than being quite rich himself) managed to guess at the economy in such a way that would benefit... himself... and the government, who also liked the sound of this dollar-value-reducing blame-removal, latched onto strictly in order to benefit who...? Again, no comment on how well Steve here succeeded in communicating this, but that he tried alone is actually bad ass! And also very much in favor of any "little person" lost in noise, and therefore in line with the principles of Mr. Jon Stewart himself.
Investor makes money, issues credit, finances projects. We know economy without investors, it's Medieval Europe, where GDP was consistently at the level of poorest countries in the world today. Homeowner and laborer doesn't organize building sewers, doesn'f drive innovation. So as frustrating as it may be to the poor little guy (which all of us are, realistically), none of us would really want to live in an economy where it is otherwise
Accurate paraphrase. "Get rich or die trying" is another one.
I learned so much from this episode (not saying much since I'm very poorly educated in Economic concepts). This is probably the best 45 minutes I've spent, since I also was able to finish 3 loads of laundry and wash a sink full of dishes while playing this video intermittently. THANK YOU JOHN STEWART!
The sad thing is the world of Econ is full of ideologues like this guy. They usually pick a side earlier in their careers or their academic lives and stick with it from there on out, despite the emergence of new information which might contradict their side.
You don’t see that in hard sciences.
@@mosab643 Yep, US econ courses are almost completely right-wing supply-side Reaganesque propaganda. Friedman is one of the worst economists ever. The philosophy shifts money up to rich so it can float in vortexes while the rest of us scramble around for scraps.
You learned that this guys shouldn't be respected as an economist.
@@mosab643 Yup. When Jon mentioned the fact that inequality skyrocketed during and after the Reagan administration's actions, the guy skipped over it with "You've been reading the ads but not the facts". He had no real answer as to why his precious theory did what it always does in practice: Pumped money to the top and screwed the little guy.
@@gotzmadskittlez3406 His precious little theory is what Volcker used to end double digit inflation and give the country 20 years of almost uninterrupted growth. We live in the future. It worked.
Thank you Jon. This was extremely helpful. Thank you for standing up for Veterans.
Its a good thing that Jon was so uninformed and misinformed to ask the right questions so that the economist could give the truthful answer.
@@scuddyleblanc8637 Supply side economics rapes economies and is totally based in short term gains which is unsustainable
It also doesn't apply to corporations, so it's bullshit
Just because you agree with someone, doesn't mean they're right
The man came up in different economic situations and the same modes of thought aren't always going to work, they can't. Life and civilization are progressing too quickly for that.
If this guy is the expert and he offers no way to fix the problem, then that is why we are where we are. So glad he's not my cardioligist
OMG RIGHT??!!!
the solution is wage increases...as soon as possible.
He has a solution completely driven by his ideology: Let the poors suffer.
Of course Keynesian / FDR solutions and simple things like right to housing and and food are completely achievable, but this clown would never acknowledge it.
@@TNM001 actually its the opposite. cut as many jobs as possible and reduce wages. Get the money out of the system and get fucked in a recession.
That would not happen though.
@@TNM001 but that my friend only increases the money flow, thus increases inflation......
Watching this, all I can reminded of is that money is made up, and we made up the rules, and this guy is the one making up the rule to make it harder for people who are poorer than him.
The “signal” is John bringing up how these policies hurt regular people. The “noise” is this guy ignoring it and diverting the conversation.
Steve Hanke is part of the Cato institute. That's all you need to know about his ideology and biases. Of course, he going to blame the money supply when a Dem is POTUS. Didn't seem to have any problems/ issues when we bailed out Wall St in 2009, endless wars, bloated defense or the $1.9T tax cut by King Trumpo. This guy is a RW extremist/ fraud. Next!!!
The Cato Institute is libertarian in its political philosophy, and advocates a limited role for government in domestic and foreign affairs as well as a strong protection of civil liberties.
You're missing it. Money is made up. And the Fed is making up the rules. They are making up the rules in a way that make life harder for people poorer than us. And this guy, Hanke, is one of old guys calling them out for doing it.
Yes, to an extent, but also no. Economies follow rules of nature that cannot be tricked. Money is merely a model for those rules of nature and is bound by them. Libertarian, whose views Steve Hanke echoed here, are arguing for no extra rules, and to let everything happen naturally.
The problem is that, in a perfectly free market, the poor always lose. It takes deliberate policies and effort to help the lower classes.
@@darkmater4tm his point was that if bonds were available for people to buy instead of the Fed, those who bought it would no longer have cash to move inflation up (reduction in spending).
If that happens, inflation levels aren't at current levels according to him, which not only helps poor people now but also helps them later by not needing to induce significant unemployment later, which crushes poor people as well.
Hanke & Stewart, they’re a real Laurel and Hardy. Can’t wait to see more from this comedic duo.
I just totally cracked up at the ‘monetary bathtub’ - Jon you are awesome. ‘There’s a lot of money in there now, you might want to get in there.’
‘No.’ 😂😂
15:25
Does anyone else watch these interviews and just marvel at Jon's capacity for patience?
Patience? I'm shocked Jon doesn't fly over to the guys house and (justly and rightly) beats him to death.
💯
I would have lost it with this prof
@@winstonfaulkner537 no because i don’t even have enough to sit through the video. These jokers are paid to waste our time and distract us from real progress. Not Jon, he’s done more activism than me by far.
He interrupted the guy a lot, could have been more patient.
Like sitting in a classroom with a Nobel winner explaining things in a down to earth way. There will always be debates but the professor is going to eat your lunch in the end.
There is no way that this guy can help us solve our financial problems. He is so close minded he doesn't even know he's in the box, let alone think outside of it!
😂😂😂
So don’t believe the economist? What is your solution?
Steve Hanke is part of the Cato institute. That's all you need to know about his ideology and biases. Of course, he’s going to blame the money supply when a Dem is POTUS. Didn't seem to have any problems/ issues when we bailed out Wall St in 2009, endless wars, bloated defense or the $1.9T tax cut by King Trumpo. This guy is a RW extremist/ fraud. Next!!!
The Cato Institute is libertarian in its political philosophy, and advocates a limited role for government in domestic and foreign affairs as well as a strong protection of civil liberties.
If people dig deep enough, you’ll find the Koch brothers funding/pushing their toxic policies to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. Hanke is the latest stooge/sycophant to do so. What a bleeping loser!
Conservatives still believe in voodoo economics, ie Trickle-Down Theory which means endless tax cuts for the wealthy elites/corporations. Must support the Kleptocracy at all costs!! Nothing but a bogus wealth transfer upwards. Works like a charm in any economic environment over the last 40+ years. How are we going to pay for it?? They ain't. Not their stink'in problem, but yours!!
C’mon, Libertarians believe in “free market”, little regulation, pull yourself up by your damn bootstraps and little to no government. They don’t give a damn about the “money supply” except to use as a ruse to get what they want like lower stock prices, stock buybacks and paying dividends, baby!!
Now we have a new bogeyman - inflation caused by supply chain issues, the war in Ukraine, endless price gouging and a rapacious OPEC with rising oil prices. Oh my!! How can they profit off that? By throwing the damn economy into a bleeping man-made recession, thus forcing massive layoffs, freezing wages while controlling costs as they keep their prices/profit margin high. Price gouging anyone?? Who does this recession benefit?? The wealthy elites/ corporations!! Well duh!! The little guy gets screwed - again! Genius!!
So, this whole stupid discussion has nothing to do with the damn money supply. (too much money chasing too little goods). Completely bogus! Seems the average middle/lower class doesn't have enough money to pay for gas, food, shelter/rent, exorbitant - airline fees, college and drugs/healthcare. CC debt is rising so people have less money not more. Their flat wages certainly haven't matched the CPI/inflation rate so Hanke is just blowing smoke! Just a diversion/red herring they trot out as they carry out their dastardly plans/schemes to enrich themselves. 99.9% of the people buy their BS hook-line-and sinker. Always voting against their own best interests!!
We’re screwed people, both figuratively and literally!!
You Reap what you Sow!!
@@jramone8567 break up the monopolies (tech, food producers, oil, etc) and tax the price gouging (windfall profits tax). Inflation at a 40 year high and corporate profits at a 70 year high are correlated.
He kept talking about money supply being the reason for inflation as if it was some major revelation. That's the first thing you learn in any economics class.
What he fails to grasp (or more likely refuses to admit) is that the reason the money supply is so large is because the vast majority of it is increasingly tied up in corporate. Then whenever Jon brings up any topic on the equity of the money supply he just reiterates his elementary point that everyone knows and moves on without actually talking about it.
This interview was Jon falling into insanity trying to get this man to discuss the distribution of the wealth
I love Jon's responses! He can actually laugh and make fun humor even though he doesn't agree with what he's hearing. I wish Most people on either side of our political spectrum could handle discussions this way.
I can’t even pretend to understand what is being discussed in this video 😳. It feels like a confusing math class to me. But I really appreciate how Jon Stewart does deep dives into important topics like inflation and also how he really listens to his guests and reflects thoughtfully on a topic. Even without really getting it, I appreciate him sharing it.
The dude that put ALL of his weight and influence behind “REAGANOMICS” is NEVER going to be anything other than a GRIFTER. He’s among the top 2% because of the way he convinced an entire populous to sign their worth away.
Jon Lived through this shit, and knows it all too well.
“COMPLEXITIES” is Jon’s way of saying the word BULLSHIT to a man that doesn’t truly deserve that respect.
Nah, just lefties want to inject social policy into economics, which skews economic outcomes, and hurts everyone. When you have the government do something like force mortgage banks to loan to low-income mortgage applicants, the mortgage banks create a sub-prime market, and then when the first downturn hits, the sub-prime applicants then foreclose. Boom - 2008 happens because governments injected social policy into economics.
Exactly!
Trickle-down econ is the biggest lie of all. Just repeat enough + reality changes. Geez. They can't be rich w/o the workers, we make it all work.
Power coupons.
@@hollyhold6960 That is correct.
@@Dave-hb7lx I've never understood why people believe that old tired lie that "tax cuts create jobs". Why would a company hire people just because they get a tax cut? They hire people ONLY when the demand exceeds their ability to produce a good or service. They need to increase PRODUCTION, so the hire more producers. That's the ONLY time companies hire.
If what this man is saying is true, then it's a tacit admission that our economy is not based on supply and demand, but rather a price gouging apparatus that says businesses get to price gouge me just because I have more money in my pocket.
I don't think he'd disagree. When it comes to gouging I suspect he'd want to ensure true competition (not oligopoly) to ensure proper pricing of products.
Yes.
What do you think monopoly is for? The free market is a fantasy which has never existed.
Yep. Probably because it's observably true and the only argument worth having is to what degree, and how can we fix it without completely uprooting the whole thing. Understanding that there are going to be significant short term externalities that are incredibly negative for many it would otherwise help in a longer term.
It's the same issue with infrastructure. It's a cancer that gets worse the longer you delay treatment. But, many of the most effective tools in dealing with it could also kill you.
Nuh uh. If you hold constant the quantity of goods, more cash in our pockets means we'll bid up prices.
I really like Jon Stewart. I don't always agree with him, but I appreciate his openness to the other side's arguments. Great interview.
Wow that was frustrating, Jon always manages to make an interview productive. Thanks for continuing to ask about the little guy. I kept getting the “let them eat cake vibe” from this guy. I did find the info on global inflation not really true an eye opener(Japan, Switzerland )Would definitely like to hear follow on topics
I live in Japan… inflation IS a thing here and about to get worse… my seat of the pants feeling is that inflation is close to 10% here over the last year on things most folks need to buy (groceries, electricity, clothes etc)... I know of nothing that has not gone up in the last 6 months… other than gasoline which has stabilized… and housing which is over saturated (shrinking population so been going down for years already)… wages have been stagnant here for decades… interest rates have been rock bottom for years… and remain so…
The guest conveniently left of the fact that Japan's inflation rate was 0.5% before it ballooned to 3% just so that he could defend his point of view. So yes, Japan does have an inflation problem, just not as bad.
One of the unfortunate beliefs that needs to be loaded and shot out of the torpedo tubes is this idea that we must focus on the little guy.
Usually this involves screwing the Un-little guys - whomever that might mean! Perhaps, you are one of them, or perhaps you are one of the people whom are targeted. It’s all relative my friend. In a third world country, even our poor look rich!
It is a much better policy that focuses on good monetary policies, limiting tax burdens, encouraging growth, not overspending, and so forth.
A perhaps better policy is the “rising tide raises all boats” policy, that allows growth for all classes of people?
This would mean a government not picking on one group of people to punish, or promoting another group of people. This breeds discontent. Is that not the basis of our American system? Where discrimination is seen as discriminatory?
The government’s sole role in an economy is to protect the currency’s purchasing ability, and grow the economy, while taxing the minimum needed to provide certain functions that governments provide - like defending it from foreign interests/enemies
When a government no longer fulfill that role, it is a drag on both the economy and it’s citizens.
It should not direct an economy beyond these areas. Adam Smith - the Father Of Free Trade had 2 instances where governments needed to “interfere” in Trade: National Security; and Other Nations “dumping” of Goods, and returning with ballast -only- on their ships.
Big government or Big Nanny Governments being all for all is a government that will fail. History has shown this to be true in every instance.
Cheers.
@@johnbirman5840 But John, what happened with Covid was very much something the government had to get involved in. It was not an option to just sit back and see if the bodies started to pile up as they very well might have, or to tell people "you're on your own, do whatever you want." That would have been dereliction of duty. Remember we had no idea what was happening at first. Governments around the world in general did the right thing -- precautions against worst-case scenarios. You disagree? Glad you're not in charge then. Prof. Hanke seems to think we should not have told people to hunker down and shouldn't have paid people to stay home -- that's maybe good economic policy but it's horrible public health policy. He also came off sounding ridiculous about the lockdowns hurting affluent people's investments as if that is in the same universe as struggling people needing to feed their families -- what rubbish! And on top of that, in the US we had bad leadership -- hunches and rumors carried the same weight as opinions from scientists; the President failed to call for shared sacrifice and patience with the evolving knowledge, which created horrible disagreements instead of getting everyone to pull together in the same direction. And at first the cash relief was flowing disproportionately to the affluent. Nightmarish. Hanke's non-response on that was striking. I think it's pretty clear that cranking all that money into the economy plus all the other stuff Hanke called "noise" did feed the inflation. Hanke failed to address major issues. Nothing about how it should have been essential to prioritize those in mortal danger during Covid. Nothing about the out-sized power of energy speculators. Very little about record oil company profits. No acknowledgement of Russia's role. Yikes. I think Jon's idea to get an opposing view on the show to debate Hanke is good. Get Liz Warren in there.
Never really gave an answer to how to get this excess money supply out of the economy except for having a recession. Hus answer about giving bonds to people. Well you can't eat bonds and I don't know any gas station that take bonds etc... Jon also expresses my question (that never gets answered) why dudn't year of quantitative easing over year's and years not cause inflation.
Please keep this going as a series including rebuttals. I think I’m going to learn a lot.
New flash. Big money and big power take care of themselves. One day, when the great unwashed raise up they'll wonder what went wrong.
Jon has had at least 2 other interviews with opposite and compelling arguments. They seemed much more coherent than this baffon's dogma.
@@francoisbouvier7861 already knew the bad news. Just trying to rebut Republican arguments
Man… humility is a virtue you don’t notice how important it is until you listen to someone without any.
What do you mean exactly?
Also, what does humility have to do with inflation?
The dude being interviewed is not humble at all and staunchly refuses to consider alternative explanations. Hence, he had no humility because he left no room in his analysis for other explanations.
The conversation was about inflation. Dude talking about inflation has no humility. There is the connection between humility and inflation.
Was that really too difficult to understand? You can agree with this dude 100% and still understand this comment. I hope it’s an English issue with the meaning of “humility.”
What a dumb Comment
100%
As recession fears mount on Wall Street and inflation remains well above the Fed's 2% target, some of the top commentators in markets, business, and economics have been sounding off on just how bad they think the next downturn might be - and how far stocks may have to fall. I need ideas and advice on what investments to make to set myself up for retirement, my goal is to have a portfolio of at least $850k at the age of 60.
It’s precisely at times like these that investors need to be on guard against the next certainty. You don’t have to act on every forecast, hence i will suggest you get yourself a financial-advisor that can provide you with entry and exit points on the shares/ETF you focus on.
I'll suggest you create a diversification strategy because building a good financial-portfolio has been more complex since covid. Recently my colleague advised me to hire an advisor, surprisingly I have accrued over $120K under the guidance of my coach during this crash. She figured out Defensive strategies to protect my portfolio and make profit from this roller coaster market.
@@lawerencemiller9720 Glad to have stumbled on this conversation. Please can you leave the info of your investment advisor here? I’m in dire need for one.
@@stephaniestella213 Having a coach is key in a volatile market, My advisor is " *Ingrid Cecilia Raad* " You can easily look her up, she has years of financial market experience.
@@lawerencemiller9720 Thank you for this tip. it was easy to find your coach. Did my due diligence on her before scheduling a phone call with her. She seems proficient considering her résumé.
With inflation currently at about 7.7%, my primary concern is how to grow my reserve of $240k which has been sitting duck since forever with zero to no gains, sure I'm all in on the long term game, but with my savings are lying waste to inflation and my portfolio losing gains everyday, I need a remedy asap.
there are loads of ways to make a killing right now, but such high-volume near impeccable tradess can only be carried out by real-time experts.
Check out i-bonds, my dude. Federal bonds, high interest right now (changes every 6 mo, next is May 1). Sold by the U.S. treasury online. If you cash out before you've held them 5 years, you only lose the last 3 months of interest. After 5 years, no interest gains lost, but you can have it for up to 30 year (probably want to cash out earlier once inflation comes down).
I like how more people are living pay check to pay check, and were being told "eat this inflation, I need to increase my savings!" Its like what? My savings vanished at start of coivd, and they go "its harder to make easy money in the market, we need to lay off more people so market changes in preiditable ways and I make more money!" While other people are just killing it right now every one else is going "hey now I can only make money if we do mass lay offs, and screw over working class, I sitting stable at some big number I was suppose to be bigger!" And again working class is going "hey I got more credit card debt then ever before and look inflation went up, and experts are saying I got lose my job to fix the economy, so the wealthy get more wealthy..."
Get into money market funds or buy treasuries. Savings accounts are essentially theft rn with the low rates they’re paying
PLEASE have Professor Richard Wolff on!!!
We need to have his take on inflation and refute the claims here because he certainly will argue the pain is not necessary.
Oh Jon Stewart, I'm so happy you exist and are still giving your time for this show and a bunch of great causes.
Me too!
Me three!
Woulda been great if he and Colbert had used that rally they held to run for President+Vice!
@@Serialkoala Got my vote!
"inflation is preceded by increases in money supply" to the extent that is true, it is correlation not causation. Govts don't print more money just for the hell of it. They print more money to deal with real or perceived crises, like natural disasters and supply shortages. I bet if you look at each instance of prolonged inflation you will find that increased money supply was preceded by some kind of social crisis. This dude would just let everyone who lost their job from covid get evicted
There's one thing that bothers me, going to Jon's point about bailing out corporations: That permits them to continue to consume resources, continue to add to the money supply, while they bank the bailout dollars.
If making the little guy feel pain is good, then it's equally good for the corporation. Allowing them to crash will free up the resources they'd normally consume. This unused supply reduces demand, and that reduces prices.
However, the fat cats won't like that rough treatment. They'd never apply that part of the money theory.
The answer is to raise interest rates to reduce private money supply and increase direct money supply to individual people to offset the reduction in money supply to corporate America
'Bank the bailout' is spot on, but also raises question of what the corps (public entities) did with the capital injection from Uncle Sam. Profits are reported as a net in any given quarter. Businesses can retire capital debt, pay dividends, build a reserve for some purpose with the net proceeds. It is not always a rake off, but a build up of capital that might be used for future expansion, hence jobs. 'Profits' and net income are often treated as one and the same. Even so-called business channel news obscures this big difference.
@@jamescrawford8959 they've all had over a decade of stock buybacks, but still nobody's reinvesting. Even railroad companies can't keep their cars on the tracks anymore
Exactly...like why would billionaire sht on a 9_5 person making $15 per hour SMDH....so we have billionaire vs 9_5 person making $15 per hour....... It's all BS
IN OTHER WORDS IF BILLIONAIRE IS IN FINANCIAL TROUBLE THE GOVT BAIL THEM OUT BUT IF 9_5 AKA $15 PER HOUR PERSON GET IN FINANCIAL TROUBLE NOBODY HELP THEM?????? WTF KINNA BACKWARDS ISH IS THIS??????..
Awesome! your potential seems timeless.* Understanding your financial needs and chalking out a plan remains the smart way to prepare for the unexpected. 11yrs in investing space and extremely pleased with the decision I made. The good news is - it’s not too late, I'll suggest you find a mentor or someone with experience guide you especially in this recession.
Congrats! I'm fascinated with investing, as a single parent and juggling all these things are quite difficult. Invested $ in few sectors but haven't seen any profit yet. Do you think I'm missing out something?
@@williamskohler8337 Success Depends on the action or step you take to achieve it. Show me a man who has no investments and I'll tell you how soon he'll be broke
@@sheliaswelttk2535 Just because there are opportunities in the market doesn’t mean you should go in blindly. To understand the potential factors that contribute to your financial growth, I'll advise you to seek the help of a professional investment coach
@@davidnewbury1721
@@williamskohler8337 I invest with (Amy Priscilla Raskin) a widely known investment consultant. You can make a quick internet research with her name mentioned where you can easily get in touch..
Fascinating discussion. When the professor said he would've issued bonds instead of checks in 2020 and 21, though, my question would've been whether they'd've been tastier with ketchup to people out of work.
Apparently this man has never had a day without food.
Imagine not factoring in that bonds don’t pay rent. This guy is detached from the reality of middle and lower America, and does not care about us. This is the face of oppression in America, telling us we deserve it.
My thoughts exactly
I believe he said for us all to "hunker down" and get through it. Then we could use all those bonds cool cool cool!
he said it himself when he said if you spend every dollar you make, that's inflation. How to make it possible for that person to save some of that money? That's an answer he did not have.
So glad to hear the lions' opinion about how it was all that free grass that made the antelope disappear.
Not sure what's worse, that he believes all that or that he is covering for greedy banks and corporations. Hank Paulson and the Bush regime also played a huge part in screwing not only specific players on Wall Street that they didn't like, but also almist everyone on Main Street. Inflation cannit be blamed on one single factor, plus the CPI can arbitrarily include or exclude goods or services in order to spin the story and aid an agenda.
Nicely said
Which one of them is the lion?
@@adamm6329 not Stewart. I mean I’m no fan of his and as much as I hate centrists these financial ghouls are a different species afaic.
Don't act like you understood a word he said. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I find this subject hard to understand, and your questions and comments help a lot. Keep on going, Jon. I’m one of your biggest fans.
Mr. Hanke mastered a 3000 % inflation in Bulgaria in the 90s, he is genius and his tools still work here
This guy sort of confirms my observation about many economists. They seem to favor policy that helps the rich maintain their wealth and power and have a hard time thinking about the little guy and how to improve their lives or design policy that is not so harmful to those at the bottom. This seems in line with the fact that many (most actually) grew up wealthy and attended elite institutions like Harvard.
And they all have the same ideology from the Chicago Business School where regular people don't exist.
When he replied to Jonhs question is it possible to conceive of a way to get out of inflation by shifting some of the pain off the little guy and he immediately replied "no" that encapsulates your exact point. If I toss him a bone that maybe he has thought about it over the course of his career without finding an answer he could still say "we haven't come up with it yet," or "ultimately I believe companies being profitable is good for ppl" and we could debate that, but he just can't conceive of that.
@@sebastienlundby-thomas7823 I was rolling my eyes after every time he spoke. Its incredible to me that someone like him can honestly say there isn't a way to tame inflation without hurting middle to lower income. At the very least, we should be trying to do so. The problem with people like him is that they don't care about the little guy. He can't conceive of anything different because he has money and doesn't really care. I also don't understand how you could believe such a complicated problem can be explained/solved by a one size fits all solution. It's intellectually lazy. I'm a scientist myself (specifically, a mathematician) and people like this guy really discredit the entire field of economics for me.
@@frevazz3364 Exactly these types of theories from Milton Friedman screwed the average American but certainly made the rich richer.
@@frevazz3364 this isn't the 70s
I'd love to see Jon interview Richard Wolff or Mark Blyth or Robert Reich right about now.
Yeah, interview someone about Marxism "Yeah it's never worked before and people get shot when they try to flee it, but let's try it again."
I was thinking I'd love to see Robert Reich on the same chat with this clown Hanke. I think he'd get a lot more push back than he did from Jon.
Not Reich or Wolff, Blyth would be way way better.
@@ryana42
I think I'd prefer Blyth because Jon wouldn't let him talk over our heads.
@@JerikoFeng
Yeah Reich would contradict him stronger than Jon did.
I just want to extend my thanks and appreciation for conversations like these. I wish larger media outlets would follow suit and pursue more in depth discussions instead of sound bites from the echo chamber. Hooray for civil discourse!
This is really more simple than our economic professors try to make it sound. We KNOW where the money is in our money supply. The simply thing is to TAKE IT FROM THEM. IT'S CALLED TAXES!!!
Exactly. But this guy tries to say all the poor people have it. And 90 percent of these comments actually blind enough to believe it.
You are right, taxes will take money out, temporarily. However who spends money more efficiently, you or the government. My bet is that you can stretch a dollar much better than the government can. As for inflation, the definition is too many dollars chasing too few goods. We pumped all the oil we needed in 2019 but now we import from the Middle East just when OPEC reduced supply. We had plenty of eggs, now poultry processing plants have been suffering “fires”, so the money is in competition for the remaining eggs.
@@Greg-yu4ij so you're saying. When people have too much money they buy everything up. And then it costs business money to keep up with demand. Agreed. So they raise prices to slow it down and have a better time managing the supply chain. Oh fucking well. Step your game up. Hire more workers. Hire more truck drivers pay the Walmart workers a wage they'll work for. It should be the companies taking the hit. Period. But instead they lay everyone off and cry supply and demand problems. Come on man.
@@marshcurt8930 Marsh, when paper money is injected into the economy, your money and my money is diluted and worth less. We ALL take the hit, not just those pesky complaining companies. Imagine that printed money is used to build fighter jets, new bridges, etc. Truckers are hired to haul material on site. Trucking rates go up a little to entice enough drivers. But that means wal mart takes a hit on their shipping costs. If walmart doesn’t raise their prices they will rack up losses and go bankrupt and close. So the eggs which were already high priced go up even more. You to feed your family so you ask for a raise at work. If your boss says no, you go where the money is and become a trucker. If the government then raises taxes to control inflation you need even higher wages to survive. This puts upward pressure on prices even more. If the government raises interest rates, the us dollar becomes worth more compared to other countries with lower rates. They will ship eggs to us at lower prices. However, Local egg farmers go out of business, lowering our productivity. Producing less means our money is not backed by as much goods and services so it becomes worth less so raising interest rates just takes liquidity out of the economy and causes stagnation. This situation is called “stagflation”. The way out of stagflation is to 1. STOP PRINTING MONEY 2. Temporarily raise interest rates, stopping inflation but causing a temporary recession. 3. Encourage productivity by lowering taxes and regulations. 4. Regain liquidity by Lowering interest rates but keep inflation at 3%. 5. As the economy roars back, raise taxes to reverse earlier cuts. We have been through all this before however this time the CCP has control of our government and their goal is to get us into a civil war or nuclear war to defeat us so we can’t fix inflation or anything else until we stop fighting with each other and escape the CCPs trap. I don’t want an AI with cameras and social credit system ruling the world so let’s stop fighting. It’s been 20 years since we solved problems by talking to each other.
@@Greg-yu4ij well said. The Keynes doctrine has been proven to be a deterrent in economic growth. The govt should provide regulation (if necessary), but asking the govt to tax us more and somehow make that money work for us is a recipe for a future disaster.
It’s like Jon is talking to a robot with 3 programmed responses
Thats what he is.
The guy is partially right but his ideas would have led us back to another depression. The feds weighed both options and chose a year or two of inflation instead of a depression. There are no winners here....just the least of two evils. In the process cooperations are racking in massive profits. .
So arrogant. Just can't listen to anything he says.
Its almost as if he wants viewpoints he disagrees with to come on his show so he can talk about them
Nope. Sounds like you just don't have the patience for it.
Bring Katie Porter in, she has a chart for this
she is nothing short of amazing
Exactly.
Terrific discussion! I learned a lot. Thanks John !!
Very good interview. Learned a lot from this and hopefully this becomes a series.
I demand a Richard wolff rebuttal immediately lol
Absolutely!
Yup. I REALLY wish Jon would moderate a long discussion between two big brains who think each other is wrong.
I'm just a dumb data analyst so I will never make sense of this stuff if the big brains can't give me a straight story.
💯 John is uninformed & weak!
I find him just as rigid in his explanations as any other economist, just in the other direction. I'm glad someone in the field is out there advocating for working people, but just because something feels good doesn't make it true and I often find Wolff to be more driven by ideology and dogma than by exploring real technical analysis of the systems.
F-ING A!
These supply side guys can never explain the Golden Age of FDR and Keynesian economics where a decent amount of profits went to investments and wages.
Actually they can, it’s not that difficult
Thanks Jon & Dr. Hanke. I hope there is a rebuttal in the near future. What will the other side say? I've been hearing the same noise , Jon; thank you for bringing it up.
Ok...I finished it and have a better understanding of economics for having finished it. Not sure I liked some of the things said but I like to be challenged in thought. Jon is always companioning for the little guy!
I love /sarcasm/ that Jon says, "the problem is that big corporations are making record profits, but when they aren't they get cash from taxpayers," and this guy hears "the problem is Putin and oil prices."
It's all those things.
The oil companies are absolutely price gouging. OPEC just recently decided to cut oil production yet we saw gas prices skyrocket two years ago. While they saw record profits. How could they make record profits when fewer people and companies were driving due to the pandemic, and they SUPPOSEDLY weren’t just raising prices of gas because they could? If their costs go up, and demand goes down, the price increase wouldn’t lead to record profits. It’s simple math.
Dang, the gaslighting is going so hard I think he might have to join OPEC.
I think what he's actually saying is that consumer buying power is ultimately the source of inflation, not actually the money supply. He can't let you have money because discretionary spending is inherently inflationary.
You just are'nt smart enough to have money. Only the rich are.
His "fix" is literally to reduce buying power of the consumer. By buying bonds from the gov, the average person would have LESS income to spend. They would be tying up their money in government assets that will, at best, be worth the same money spent on it in the first place. He expects the average consumer to "hunker down" and budget and not spend. That is just the other side of the circle on a deflationary mode. Instead of using the Fed to start the deflation process, he wants to shift responsibility to the consumer. In any case, regardless of where the process starts, consumers will reduce spending if they have less money or fear having less money in the future.
This guy is definitely in the conservative pocket trying to push the narrative that ordinary people just have to bite the bullet and suffer while the top 1% keep raking in profits. I mean, for fuck's sake, econ 101 teaches the impact of supply/demand on inflation. It is real. However, what I will sort of agree with him on, is that in some sectors, supply chain interruptions aren't the actual cause of inflation, but there are many that did have, and still continue to have, interruptions that are impacting inflation. I work in supply chain management. I see this every day. The US imports a ton of product from China and they're still struggling to get raw materials which interrupts the whole pipeline and impacts costs of goods resulting in inflated costs.
The other side of inflation is definitely profiteering of big businesses. There's no ifs ands or buts about it. Money supply is also a contributor, but it certainly is not the sole contributor. Even if he wants to focus on money supply, lets look at where that money supply went. $1600 bucks for every day consumers is pennies compared to the billions in PPP loans that were unnecessarily distributed and forgiven (stolen). The government can help workers, especially those out of work from a pandemic, with subsidizing their paychecks while not giving away billions to businesses that don't need it. That would reduce money supply real easy.
That's exactly what he is saying which is BS.
@@adidas2684 OH he's wasn't speaking of offering bonds to the public now.. He was referring to the start of the pandemic which would have been a recipe for another great depression. Sounds great for long term investing but I needed food, clothing, and shelter and my creditors don't understand bond talk. They only understand cash. I was patiently waiting to here his theory go off the rails.just like I thought it would. This guy has great depression vibes to me. We all would have been in soup lines if the fed had listen to this man.
That's not what he was saying at all. People having money has nothing to do with it.
It's new money coming out of nowhere, devalues the worth of all the existing money, and thus your 1 dollar bill, can now only buy a portion of what it could buy before the new money was created.
Super cool to hear all this. Feel like I'm actually learning.
Thank God for Jon Stewart. Kudos for actually doing a deep dive and talking to people to finally get to the root of things and help dispel the myths.
This is a prime example of the adage “To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.”
To a professor with a prepared statement about the money supply, every question looks like his prepared statement about the money supply.
@@rdean150 But that was the topic, no?
Jon was bringing up other issues which might also be true and important, but which were simply off-topic.
The video is called "How Can We Fix Inflation?" The guest answered that question.
If the topic had been: "How to help poor people during an economic collapse?" Jon would have needed another specialist.
I personally liked, that he did not stray from the main issue and hammered his point home. Too many lies have been told about inflation.
@@0ntimetaiment921 but the professor ignores that the is an ongoing energy and oil crisis, that there are still supply issues. If those were solved and there was still inflation, his points would be valid. But hisntheory/model can't handle ongoing issues, so he simply ignored them. Thus he is just another person telling us lies.
@@TheJonHolstein But there is a difference between general inflation and a rise in prices in certain areas. He gave good examples how these two things can be separated depending on monetary policies.
The only "trick" he used was defining inflation in a way. That is not a lie though, as I think that is the only honest way to defining it.
@@TheJonHolstein He acknowledged all those things but states that they do not create long lasting inflation.
Maybe you can claim that he is wrong but he certainly addressed all those issues.
I love how at the end he ALMOST admitted that the solution under his own theory is wealth redistribution. Also, that he said sell treasury bonds but not RAISE CORPORATE TAXES.
Well, he did spend a lot of time crapping on Dodd-Frank and lamenting over-regulation "all over the place." When people like this guy talk about inflation, I'm nearly convinced they have in their heads that inflation is de facto just an increase in the money supply, regardless of whether it impacts prices or not. The terms are ambiguous from the outset. I wish Jon had hit him out of the gate about price inflation and not just inflation more broadly. Looking at it structurally like that necessarily ignores the human beings at the center of all economic activity. Why would someone increase their prices? I know if I ran a shop, I wouldn't even consider the money supply when thinking about the prospect. The money supply is some nebulous thing out there in the ether. If my costs go up to produce a good or service, I might increase my prices. But I might also do it if I felt like consumers could absorb the increase without diminishing my volume of orders.
@@intricatic If your costs went up, because of inflation on your raw materials coming in to you, and you raised your prices proportionally to compensate, then your profits would remain "flat", or level. That's NOT what we're seeing. We're seeing record high profits across multiple segments. It's as if all the C.E.O.s in unison said, "Everybody is talking about inflation, let's take our prices up a notch and see if consumers flee". And C.E.O.s doing exactly that here ruclips.net/user/shortspsYyiu9j1VI?feature=share
@@intricatic that's what is called "whatever the market could bare". And it is the mantra of capitalism. They will charge you whatever you're willing to pay. No matter if that affects you negatively or positively. To capitalism, it's all the same. Maximize profit and cut costs. That is why we need common sense regulation. The system will eat itself alive if you let it.
The taxes on corps and the rich must be marginal or they'll just pass them on to us.
There’s no evidence that corporations and their profit margins are a determinant of inflation so why should we expect corporate tax reform to do anything?
Love this podcast! Such a great analysis!!!
Excellent discussion, thank you Jon.
Actual tweet from Steve Hanke: "Supply-Side economics has a flawless record." 🤡
"There is no supply chain disruption".
@@rogersmith7396 "There is no war in Ba Sing Se."
And I couldn't help but find it rich that Steve claimed Jon was saying a 'bunch of noise' when Steve approached this whole interview with the same level of businessman-turned-college-professor level buzzword speak common to ALL economics professors who's continued employment hinges on making 3-step economics sound like some infathomable Machiavellian astrophysics problem by loading up on the lingo and slow walking the explanation of what really can just be mapped out on a flowchart.
@@WindFireAllThatKindOfThing Great 4-line one-paragraph sentence
The keep great records of their mistakes
SMH. Over regulation of Dodd-Frank? That kind of makes me chuckle. There was basically no regulation before the 2008 crisis and Dodd-Frank put in very basic rules and regulations, mostly to protect consumers from abuse from financial institutions. What a crazy overreach.
Ok, bank regulations. Two countries that had stiffer bank regulations NEVER went through the "financial crises" of 2007-8.
No monetary crises, no financial services failures, no bankruptcies, property defaults.
Which countries? Canada and Australia. Both had regulations that demanded any financial institutions have at least 30% of the outstanding loan monies IN the banks to ensure the banks were kept solvent.
The 2007-8 crisis brought in very weak regulations, but better than none, as before.
Credit Default Swaps were traded wildly on markets, where various "property bundles" were bought and sold without any actual funds to cover them.
But without Dodd-Frank, the banks wouldn't have had to worry about keeping a reasonable amount of cash on hand and could have kept freely buying debt from themselves with cash that didn't exist.
It's a well known fact that the Adam Smith quote about the benefits of a well regulated markets always misses the end, where he finishes with "except banks, they should have no regulation and it's totes reasonable for them to use the economic system like a casino".
Thanks, John for taking me on a spin around the planet old Steve Hanke is orbiting! It was fun watching the 'money supply' guy contort himself into a pretzel to make his ideology fit. I particularly enjoyed how he glommed onto Japan and Switzerland like two wooden planks keeping him afloat after a shipwreck! Steve's prescription for a cure, 'you ordinary Joes have to suffer pain!' Only if you come down from your well padded ivory tower, Stevie and join the rest of us feeling the pain. Been there, done that, sweetie, won't fall for it again.
I really enjoyed how you skewered this old fart, John. Keep it up!
John, I really want to thank you for doing the videos where you are talking with some of our countries smartest people. Hearing their honest, knee jerk thoughts about their specialities is so enlightening about the way things actually work instead of the promised ideal. Set up your studio cause this will be way bigger than your old show.
Psychics use endorsements from scientists (smart people). According to George Orwell psychics don't get endorsements from magicians.
My wife owns a retail store. During the pandemic, it was nearly impossible to buy the goods we needed to stock the store. When the goods started coming in, shipping prices caused the prices to soar. We had to raise prices. Shipping prices have come down, but the wave of price increases hasn’t subsided. I don’t see the Federal Reserve having much to do with it.
Thank you for this comment. With my limited understanding, it does seem like the issue isn't the portion of people who have extra to spend, but those who've decided to continue raising prices because they know *someone* will pay it.
I don't understand how making things harder for consumers who can and cannot afford it is the answer, then.
Not expecting a response, just something on my mind and this comment underscores my personal impression.
Shipping prices were high because of the price of diesel and gas.
@@bryanking3760 as a cover yes. When you look at Maersk’s 21 to 22 to 23 profit actuals and estimated, it becomes clear it’s demand, and gouging built on high demand
@@bryanking3760 Its not proportional. Fuel costs are minimal compared to how much money went into their pockets, normally in the form of stock buybacks.
@@schofell84 Stock buybacks is how they spend money, not make it. It pushes the stock price up, so the shareholders individual assets grow, but the company as a whole doesn't make more profit.
Someone get this man a Werther's Original.
Don't worry, I got Circus Peanuts for this clown.
I snorted.
Fucking killed me.
@@ym160 This clown is a fraud. Why would anyone hire him?
Thanks for this interview Jon, very enlightening.
They clearly have diverging viewpoints on the topic, but make an effort to talk with each other. Jon always does a good job of providing the benefit of the doubt and making an effort to listen even if he disagrees.
This really needs another economist. Or a rebuttal. Neoclassical theory isn't the only game in town, and an advocate of neoliberal monetary policy isn't necessarily the best voice right now. There are some throw away comments that need unpicking, like the whole issue of Chinese economic policies and their impact not only within China but elsewhere. Like the issue that inflation isn't a global phenomenon, when obviously a bunch of countries are dealing with a similar problem in a similar way. And he's saying supply-push is the only cause of inflation, when demand-pull is another inflationary lever.
Great interview, just filled with "facts" that are more like hypotheses.
Yes, I'd love to hear J Pow supporter say how a lot (not a little bit) of cheap money is good.
Finally, a reasoned response with a clear understanding of Prof. Hanke’s words and where he is coming from. Not saying I agree with you (or Hanke) but there is so much noise in this comment section (including, irrelevantly, criticisms of Hanke’s delivery) that I despaired anyone was really paying attention.
I wasn’t convinced Jon Stewart could make finance interesting, but now I hope he does more such economics/finance interviews.
Insight by "Communist Professor Explains Causes of Inflation" ruclips.net/video/jc8cgOsXQgk/видео.html,
Ask Prof Wolff: Wages, Prices & Inflation”
ruclips.net/video/69nokG4dP1A/видео.html
He lost credibility when he said inflation is not global.
I noticed that while he complained there was too much money supply causing the infection the solution wasn't for the government to remove money from the supply by taxing excess profits which would decrease the monetary supply. His solutions always by definition have to benefit the wealthy and increase inequality
Yes that was a dumb solution but so is taxing it's to late now. The money supply started growing not because of a few small spendings on ppl, it came for the trillions to the companies, which was the biggest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in history
@@ermining1 it isn't too late to tax the money back away from the wealthy and the corporations that is what needs to happen now. Also make stock buybacks illegal again
Taxes don't remove the supply of money unless the government destroys the money coming in instead of spending it. Taxes will end up being passed through government programs to government contractors through more wartime funding and whatever programs they can blow money on, thereby continuing to pull from our pockets (or in the best case, corporate pockets - which means they up prices to pull from our own) and then transfer that through the government to other corporate interests. While I agree that taxes on corporations and the rich should be higher, that taxrate only serves to reduce the deficit, not reduce inflation. With the major caveat being that if the rising taxes are earmarked to specific social programs to help people who are struggling, which is what I wish they would do (but due to the nature of people in power will never happen, in my opinion). -Sorry for the long reply.... it got away from me, lol.
@@iamjeramy taxes offset government deficit spending and as a result definitely reduce the money in the monetary system. You can't say deficit spending causes the monetary supply to increase and deny that taxes are the alternative to deficit spending.
@@DanA-nl5uo I'm definitely NOT saying that deficit spending causes the money supply to go down. I'm saying raising taxes doesn't reduce the supply. With no other change in goverment laws and programs other than raising the tax rate, the money just goes to the government pool of funds which gets spent on established government programs (which ends up reducing the deficit). The vast majority of those programs go on to put money into larger corporations' pockets, so you are just swapping money between rich people when you raise corporate taxes. The exception to this (in my opinion and in my hope) is if you create a new program to funnel the money to that actually helps people. Unfortunately that's not where we are with how the government operates right now. Everything is set up to pull the maximum amount of money from us little guys.
Fantastic topic as always Jon. And you see how difficult this was for you to understand it and imagine how to compel the average American to even have a conversation about this. I wish more time was spent on what strategies can now be taken to get ourselves out of this situation now that we have printed this much money without causing pain to the little guy. Would have loved to hear from experts on this topic.
Interesting repartee.
I love Jon but I appreciate how the economist kept veering the discussion to stay on point. This fella was 'keeping it real'.
✨The "Quantity Theory of Money".
This guy has his theories established and will never get off of em’
Milton is his god.
Unfortunately he sold his soul to these theories decades ago and admitting their faults would also admit that he has failed in his previous roles
It's very old school. It's like the stuff I was taught in economics 101 decades ago.
Because those theories are correct, whether you like them or not
@@brando_handle Keep carrying Yellens water.
trump spent 7.5 trillion in 4 years, started reverse repo operations( welfare for banks) in 2018 to 2021 at about 1 billion dollars a day, gave tax cuts to the rich(which is a form of spending money) and along with his fed chair nominee(Powell) lowered fed interest rates to 25 basis points. When Hanke talks about lag keep all this in mind.
See but that is a dishonest argument. It's amazing how little Americans understand their system of goverment. Presidents don't control the spending of the USA goverment. That is what congress spent. Democrats called for trillions of more In spending so keep that in mind.
@@franklin9400 trump is responsible for congress spending 1/3 of all money ever printed by the USA, he had the power to veto. What exactly am I not understanding?
@@franklin9400 the president gave the highest tax break in history to the top 1%. When you feed the economy from the top, it doesn't trickle down. It goes into stock buy backs. The US dollar is now at a 20 year high....That wouldn't happen if they were printing money.
PS, the democrats have no choice but to spend, since they keep inheriting recessions from republicans. The only other alternative is to blow it up, and have us on bread lines...No excuse for Bush and Trump to feed the rich after they inherited good economies.
@@franklin9400 You understand trump started a trade war that landed us in this recession right? COVID actually _prevented_ the recession for a while because everything basically stopped globally. The supply chain issues started before the pandemic.
@@franklin9400 just feels like the majority of politicians are bending the majority of its citizens over at this point, and not just in the US
More people should be listening to Steve Hanke simply because he makes accurate observations of the facts. Not speculation and not hypothesis but fact. His revelation about money supply increases are accurate and have been so for as long as statistics are available. The reality of prices being a mathematical relationship between the amount of money in the system and the amount of goods and services at ANY particular time or an extended time is a long standing fact that has never been refuted by evidence.
“They don’t wanna be FINGERED as the bad guys!” 🤣
42:28 instead of fixing prices, you could fix the profit margin. That way companies can’t use inflation as an excuse for record breaking profits. And it’s doesn’t cause the artificial distortions in the market, since prices can still float freely. But God forbid we regulate the market even a little bit, right?
He never answered this question, "why did it take 12 years for us to see inflation after 2008 despite rapid and dramatic increases in the money supply?
Actually he answered by saying that there was only 4.5%-5.5% of money supply growth during QE after 2008 meanwhile from Feb 2020 money supply growth’s 40%
Wow...this economic conversation is not for the regular Joe. Definitely a professor that was speaking to a specific audience.
I give Jon so much credit for tackling these issues.
How many times is this guy gonna ignore Jon's questions? This is not an interview. This is a guy reading a script about money supply, and an interviewer asking great questions that are totally ignored by the guy reading his script.
Questions…that’s just noise
“Everyone is wrong but me.”
I summed his responses up.
That's not fair. Hanke came in with reasonable data to back up his core thesis. He's restricted his scope to one metric: inflation, and cited reasonable evidence to support that inflation is causally related to the supply of money. Within this scope it's difficult to refute the conclusion without stronger counter-evidence. A better critique might point out how that singular metric does not capture the complexities of an economy and that any argument he made against more complex - and risker - methods of stabilizing the economy are based on a risk-averse mindset caused by already existing in the upper class that does not feel the current economic pain. Hanke has no incentive to promote or investigate untested economic stabilization mechanisms and every incentive to point out how previous experiments have failed, which causes him to push the (perhaps) unfounded conclusion that there doesn't exist a way to stabilize the economy without causing disproportionate pain to those who already have the least assets.
He seems (based solely on this interview, which perhaps is also unfair) unwilling to explore any solution that may involve risk or untested waters. The failure to explore or consider those solutions is what I see as the major weakness in his position. That being said, I do think that any experimental solution should be guided by fundamentals, and supply of money versus its value seems to (my non-economist sensibilities) be a fairly strong constraint.
I think it's safe to say that I will literally never, ever forget that it's the money supply's fault.
I want more Hanke. I need more Hanke and Stewart! This was an interesting discussion.
jon please invite jeff snider to talk about all of this, i dont think this professor is listening to what you're saying. i think he just has his points lined up and throwing them out regardless of what you're saying lol.
Agree 100%
Yep, his and Emil Kalinowski are good info. He talks about the bond markets specifically and how they're used in the back-end
Yes, though I appreciate that Jon had guests who don't always agree with my view point. I like to hear what other sides have to say. I'm this case I felt it lacked a lot/any substance.
@@ViruzFitia he talks more than just the bond market. he talks about the mechanics of finance, the monetary system, currency itself. all of which involves bonds in some way, but he goes way deeper than just the bond market
@@jlr06005 this guest just straight up dismissed a lot of what jon was asking lmao and just mocked his questions or didnt even bother addressing his concerns about alternative views of inflation. this professor was actually awful
WIKI : "Steve H. Hanke is a senior fellow and director of the Troubled Currencies Project at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, DC (...) He was a senior economist with President Ronald Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers from 1981 to 1982 (...)
So, basically, We should do the opposite of what he says.
Cato Institute = Koch brothers. Right-wing hard-line people who believe in "smaller gov't" (read no gov't) and few if any regulations regarding banking, stocks, corporations, business and profits, and especially wages and worker safety.
In fact, if you combine the Cato Institute, the Federalist Society, and Judicial Watch, you get a few billionaires pumping billions into undercutting voting, appointing hard-line judges, and cutting funding for schools and all public services so they're moved to private ownership for profit.
If Ben Carson says my kid needs neurosurgery I'm going to hear him out. I may not take his advice but dismissing him out of hand seems unwise. You do realize that he is basing is economic theory on the same one as AOC -- modern monetary theory.
@@MsSgent And if I want to know if there is a (valid) proof that a god exists, should I ask an evangelist that "earns" money thanks to donations ? Despite his biases ? Not a good analogy either.
Oh he's a director at the Cato Institute? Why, that's the organization created by the Kochs, the most trustworthy billionaires in America!
What's that? The Kochs did what? Oh. Oh my. They funded what now? Oh. My god, that too?
Ok, scratch my original statement. We need to burn this. Burn it all to the ground.
@@MsSgent
No, and a bad comparison. Dr. Carson is a board certified surgeon with decades in the practice and demonstrable proficiency. If he effs up really bad, his license to practice can be taken away (which is an important part of being an actual professional). Economics is not a profession and nobody can stop him from ruining nation states because he's seriously wrong.
I get the sentiment, but I think you haven't thought this through.
Mr Hanke does have some valid points regarding money supply.
The Oil cartel is real, what really occurred is the cartel tolerated low prices with the express purpose to drive the higher “cost of production” producers (shale oil) out of business.
This savvy long term approach results in way less US domestic production, less competition, and sustainably higher prices.
Had we taxed oil imports that were priced below a minimum cap that reflected the shale cost of production, we could have protected that industry.
On the other hand, higher fuel costs drive conservation and reduce consumption over longer time periods which is really the most reliable means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
What’s also “missed” is that after the 2022 substantial surge of inflation, the month to month inflation has ebbed and we’re seeing some mild deflation the past few months.
When measured year over year, which is how the Fed has been measuring, inflation has dropped a bit in rate, and will continue to drop as we get to summer 2023 where it will be substantially negative as 2023 goods/services will be way less than it was at the 2022 peak.
Loved it gents!
This is like the video with the Economist. You walk away feeling like the expert doesn’t “get” our/John’s perspective.
Economists like him basically only care about the big picture. I have several colleagues like him and it's not that they don't personally care, just that their line of work is geared in that way. It's often avcompanied by shit politics but not always.
In the big picture, maybe 2 million people die, but overall it's better and that's what it is.
Btw, probably the opposing view would be keynesian economics, where, in this case maybe we stimulate supply, in this case, to match the previous increase in money.
I think a lot of times economists have a terrible way to express themselves, they're often using technical languange that seemingly passes of as normal language, while for them it has very specific meanings.
@@Martcapt That last paragraph...might I suggest another phrasing?
"I think a lot of times women have a terrible way to express themselves, they're often using emotional language that seemingly passes of as normal language, while for them it has very specific meanings."
what is love? what is a woman?
Figure this out and we'll solve all the world's problems.
Yes, he's basically the type of economist from The Economist. Not all economist are like that though, there ARE differing views. As for economists seeming out of touch personally, it's because macroecon is marco, which basically means we'll shift the trolly to kill 1 person instead of 10. We'll make that decision every time, and very easily. Because anyone who doesn't isn't doing macroecon, they're doing personal finance.
A great discussion would be with Robert Riech and Steve Hanks with John Stewart
I want to see Hanke go against Reich. I would argue Reich would win.
Not that I don't like Robert Reich, but he is very much in the realm of "pop culture expert" at this point, and with a very intense polemic angle.
I mean his son is the head of College Humor, it's very clear that showmanship runs in the family.
This is not the kind of personality I want in a debate. I'd rather they pull somebody who's esteemed within the circles of heterodox economics.
Good on Jon to have him on, Hanke is 100% correct.
I'm digging this team up. John is good peoples.
I’m an idiot so maybe some can explain. How am I suppose to pay for my groceries, health insurance and/or rent, with a bond from the government? The cash is what saved many people. Great conversation, but would have liked to hear a little more detail about the proposed solution. Five stars otherwise. Love this podcast!
The relief Cash that was given during the lockdowns to workers and poorer Americans is gone it's already spent. It's in Hands of Corporations. The messaging that the Inflations is caused by all that money going to Working Americans is BS. Its Pure BS . All the extra Cash is being Held by Corporations and they are the ones also controlling the supply chain . So its double penetration on about 250mil Million Americans. Democrats and the Biden Admin are not holding Corporations accountable . Actually they are giving them more money and more power. Putting you and I into debt slavery. Looks like Dems are going to get their Slaves back. But this time it will be all of us. It will be Mulit-Cultrue Slavery LOL. See They made it equal LOL
Hanke's "solution" is that 100 million Americans should be further pushed into poverty. The fact that his ideas are taken seriously at all by anyone, let alone Jon, is another sign of the current day level of ignorance and gullibility of what thirty years ago were extremely knowledgeable liberals and leftists.
The answer is we never should have shut down. That is the fundamental problem with the inflation. We printed money to not be productive which is contrary to all past stimulus. Past stimulus gave money to be productive.
@Nathan Anderson "the Fed" is not the government, it's a private company. that has a monopoly over the banking system. it's complex. not going to get into the who distinction here. but just wanted to point out because it confuses allot of folks. "The Fed", and "The Treasury" are two separate things.
@@beddythecorgi4269 What's the point in even being a country if we can't use our resources properly to make things work during hard times and disasters? A country with as much wealth as ours should be able to weather a shutdown without people being pushed out onto the street. Being productive isn't the only important thing, sometimes other things come into play, like how to deal with sickness, overrun hospitals, and people dying.
The "Velocity of Money" (Lifting of 'All'
Boats) is hypercharged when it flows
from the bottom-up and is severely
squelched when it is 'trick'led-down.
John’s amazing for bringing topics and opposing views to the table
Jon Stewart, you were right about all your comment's, doubt's and questions... This aren't complex issues, they made them complex and we know why!