@Death in June I had no idea, thank you fren

Debt enslavement. Selling assets to china, Saudi, Qatar, and Israel, in turn they raise our credit score, and we can tax their economic achievements. But in actuality, we really don't

As a result each American citizen owes about 300k in debt

something something broken record

Because they spend your money regardless of your personal credit

e🅱ic win

It's not capitalism

It's technically post capitalism

the unifying theme of the different schools is the rejection of say's law, that is, the idea that there cannot be a general glut in aggregate demand, and that shortfalls in aggregate demand can be rectified via some sort of stimulus

wtf does that mean

the most popular brand of keynesian econ nowadays generally prescribes the manipulation of interest rates and growth of private credit as the method to do so

It's internationalism

basically you can look at demand and supply in aggregate

a glut means that supply outstrips demand in aggregate

The point of me saying "I'm a layman" is so that you don't use techinqual terms so that I can understand

@Muten

so in a recession for example people may not be spending enough for the economy to perform at capacity

which results in high levels of unemployment

@Comando where is legend?

like new deal

the reason why keynesian stimulus takes the form it does is precisely because of capitalism

give people jobs

even if you 'couldn't afford' it

it makes them spend money

Okay, well how about this. We have more debt than we can ever pay back, and spend more and more each year. The socialists and kikes want more spending, because that means they can further disperse owenership of production and jobs outside the country. Outsourcing is a huge part of Keynesian economics.

well with fiat currency you can always afford anything the only limit is inflation

It was also supposed to be replaced, but instead those in charge of our institutions would rather continue digging our own grave

outsourcing is a huge probrlem

the public debt only really matters because it is required (legally) that the deficit be financed through bonds when this doesn't have to be the case

^ because we lost control of our system.

@Muten
P = Price level (inflation)
Y = Real income(quantity of stuff produced)
AD = Aggregate demand (Aggregate meaning total)
LRAS = Long Run Aggregate Supply (the total capacity of the economy)

It's now international, and without constant support from our """"allies"""" America and the rest of the west would collapse

our economy wants off of keyne's wild ride

Part of that support is the migrant crisis, fyi

<:poggers:583775485620781087>

Im liking this new board loads

THIS IS SHIT I ACTUALLY LEARNED

very sturdy feeling

One of the key differences between economics prior to Kenyes was that the economy would always rebound. For S O M E R E A S O N it didn't.

@Comando yer making me feel smart for going to college now <:hypersmugon:544638648721604608>

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

H<:sarGOY:462286263622303754> <:sarGOY:462286263622303754> <:sarGOY:462286263622303754> <:sarGOY:462286263622303754> <:sarGOY:462286263622303754>

@Comando certainly no one behind that

Hi niggers

(((some reason)))

pre-keynesian (bourgeois) economists generally thought there couldn't be a general glut in aggregate demand

a belief based on very silly assumptions

Keynes in contrast identified that something had changed. He conceptulized that there was a force which unlike before, was cutting into the effective demand (aggregate demand) of the economy.

So whilst the country had the factories, and the people willing to work them, the money that existed was not being applied to the economy.

^

Interesting, isn't it

i don't get it

Almost like we lost control of our entire system, in 1936

Keynes solution? Use Government spending to increase aggregate demand to get out of the rut, then scale back involvement, during the good times so you can do it again later.

but im taking economics in a month so ill find out then

When Keynesian Econ was in it's very beginning

yeah like borrowing from the future

or saving up rather

Keynesism worked really well... until it didn't, and broke western economies in the late 1960's and 70's in the form of inflation

The problem being that there is no such thing as a Keynesian politician

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xZeafSsGYw sky kitty

it didn't break them

"Saving up" by alliance with childfuckers, and taking their criminals as asylum seekers

stagflation broke them

and keynesian schools at the time couldn't explain stagflation

it provided the impetus for the ascendance of neoliberalism

They bloody well could explain what had happened, but weren't willing to accept that Governments had over applied fiscal policy

@Comando my understanding is that it was only supposed to be temporary. To be replaced within a few decades, and it never was.

^Politicians will always have an incentive to spend and do something. This means that they will rarely cut back spending in practice. so Keynesianism is good when your in a rut, but will eventually break your economy if you continue it onwards.

Today's economists are basically complete Keynesian hacks. They do not intend to revitalize the west, only increase its dependency on internationalism

i'm pretty sure the consensus at the time was that there existed an inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation

I myself fall into being a post-Keynesian.

I think that Keynes was using tools, which while not... wrong, weren't correct in their understanding.

No shit. They were designed to skirt the costs of the Second World War, not to supposed an empire

Keynes sucessfully identified that SOMETHING had changed, and that money was not being applied to the economy in the 30's and onwards

Let alone the entire world

post-keynesianism seems better than mainstream econ

but it's important to not remove the political from political economy

The way things are now, if china or Saudi crash, so does every western country

All our eggs in on fucking basket

i'm not sure that the sort of prescriptions people tend to derive from post-keynes econ would be viable in the long term in a liberal state

One of the chief differences is that... what if we completely misunderstood how money works?

Money, and debt...

Debt is supposed to be avoided. Under Keynes, it's the game

there has to be a deficit somewhere

We will likely have to adapt a completely different set of economics, and to do so will need to isolate that system, to prevent dependence

assuming net imports/exports are at zero a public sector surplus necessitates a private sector deficit and vice versa

Alliances are one thing, but allowing other nations into your economy isn't actually helpful, nor stable

What if... lending out money... creates new money...
What if, having loans repaid, takes money out of the economy?

And what if repaying loans takes out more money from the economy that it adds in? <:hyperthink:462282519883284480>

If this hypothesis were true, then there would be economic crashes, whenever there was a period of credit creation, and whenever the credit stopped being created... there was a crash.

Oh fuck

lending out money doesn't create money unless you print it

Uhh

i mean that's basically what happens

the only way it wouldn't mean that is if you had a reserve ratio of 100% i believe

@n meowzers What do you do with money from a loan? You apply it to the economy immediately.

Either way the system we have now isn't looking to be replaced. If anything, they want more debt, and they want to spend more of that debt on migrants

<:ahegon:566797166258028548>

yes

No longer is it a cushion which someday will not support us. Instead, the support is going entirely to minorities, and the very countries who we hold debt to.

If anyone can understand more technical documents

This is how money actually works, according to the Bank of England in 2014.

what if i don't want to read it

I saved it in telegram

lmao

then don't

you cuck

The first page is a summary

wait this is saying that they aren't using the money in their savings

but you can't just create money by being a bank

Maybe it will change my perception, but the way I view money now, is that it's essentially a token system, which you exchange for food housing power and clothing. It represents a void in terms of fiscal value.

https://i.gyazo.com/8e9ee1a0879b6fcfe04abee1555de51a.png

They're ration tokens

No

Loans literally create money

The bank

Of fucking England

i don't get some of the terms

multiplied up

yeah most money is created by the private sector

and simultaneously does what

Didn't realize that loans de facto create money, until 2014 <:thinkcide2:462282425486147585>

through loans

@Comando rip uk

How is that a good thing, exactly?

Hahahahah

Thing is Muten, this is the same system across the entire western world. The UK just discorvered this first 🤡

wait so are these niggers using your money to make money off of the inflation that they are causing to make more money

the whole system is based on finance capital

I mean I didn't know shit about money until like 10 minutes ago, so them figuring it out by 2014 is much better than me

<:sarGOY:462286263622303754>

oh shit they were the FIRST?

Of fuck

I swear to fuck, these political figures and ceos are foreskin golems

OH

OH

They make the money because they control the arbitrary electronic numbers in your bank account

and everybody accepts it

deny money

so they literally print money

and you win

Yes

2nd was the Bundesbank(Germany) and then the US Fed had one of its board members believe this as well.

So, its general knowledge now.

but why do people accept the bank's money?

why can't i just create loans as well

You don't have a banking lisence.

OI DO YOU HAVE A LOICENSE FOR DAT!?

you need a loicence for that one bucko

You aren't allowed to, because of legal restrictions put on the actual citizens

so here's how to win

imagine literally the government making people rich

become a bank man

We don't have an economy. Not really. (((They))) have an economy, that we borrow.

and loan out to as many people as possible

profit

This mess is why Crypto became popular.

no inflation

isn't crypto crap?

or at least

finite inflation

@Muten it's unstable

I don't think its a good solution, but its understandable as to why people would seek out alternative stores of value.

as an actual currency it seems garbage for anything other than black market transcations

but what happens to the deposits the banks actually have

Not crap, it's just not easy to make safe money

it seems too volatile to be a decent currency

it's good for extremely short term transactions

?

Not really anymore

it was good

for extremely short term transactions

Was. As was everything before they took it

?

(((they)))

are money goblins

In the past, we did have a good banking system.

It is possible.

tbh we are the ones who screwed ourselves

we forced them into finance

But then we took the exact same people who were pulling this scam in Germany

tho this is according to (((them))) so IDK

what happens to the deposits the banks actually have

@Muten we didn't though. That was literally what their professions were, in the countries they came from

ha

This is like expecting Mexicans to farm, because that's the service they've come to offer

I knew (((they))) were lying

If they wanted to do something different, they'd have presented it on the way in

Mind you, we were at war when we took them

Or rather, the beginning of it

In the past banks, printed THEIR OWN currency. This currency was then owned by the owners of the banks. They handed over legal tender, in exchange for the currency of the bank. They could use it for trade if others wanted it but 🤷🏻 You weren't forced to take it.
The amount of money in circulation only increased because it was printed by the Government.

That system needed culture though, goy

so the government should take back control of the banks?

Partially

What happens if a bank lent out too much money? It collapsed. Everyone who invested in it lost their money

Your white picket fence costs interest now, goy

I.e. provide the lowest level of banking to keep private banks in check

And stop relying on international economy. Stop taking money from overseas

Stop allowing Saudi to buy out our businesses

Stop shipping tech jobs to india

What happens now? Everyone loses all their money, because the banks can print legal tender now, whereas before they could not.

State can have the shittiest bank that would never hope to compete with private bank service, but its mere existence and cheapness of services would limit the amount of exploitation the banks can bestow upon their clients in an olygopolic business

but what if a really big bank failed

@Comando thanks for the explanation

The root of the problem, is Fractional Reserve Lending.

wouldn't the economy still take a big hit

(Not the Jews)

what if they all made the same mistake to stay competitive

Jews, Chinese, and Saudi.

It's not just one group

chinese are more regional

they are very bad in AU but from what I can see

i saw someone buy a property in a city near me for 2 million cash

they don't cause too much trouble outside of their backyard

and it's a small city

chinese

So here's the amount of US dollars that exist.

🤡

The part we'd like to skip by, is that this issue arose literally as we took the Jewish migrants.

what the hell

why isn't there triple inflation

x4

But indeed. Why hasn't there been x4 inflation?

not in this country

the dollars are overseas

To say it's not at all related seems odd to me. If Britain legalized child marriage, while taking the mudslimes, we'd totally be ready to make this equation

it's because jews run the show

they are compartmentalized as a victim

No, the Jews run the banks

afaik it's because most of the money is just injected into reserves

@Reprehensibletrash fuck off its the niggers

they have no agency and unlike women, they know this

it's in not dollars

maybe assets

Well inflation only occurs in relation to the products that the money is applied to. So if this new money was... say... all given to the banks, and therefore only the banks spent this money... then there's no reason it would be applied to the price of cloths and food.

Bingo

It's basically middle eastern interests who run the show, of which the Jews are more subversive than the rest, but not the top

Sir

why am i getting hyperthink

Stop before you disappear

Stocks, land and houses.

You'd never know if I did @JewishBastard

Hence why all have gone through the roof.

@Reprehensibletrash no we wouldn't know, (((he))) would

*calls buzzfeed*

Remember kids. Its not inflation, if its assets **increasing in value**