They have both made lots of good points and interesting statements so far

is currency part of it?

Not yet there's still like 50 minutes left

say me if it is and i skip to that blind point in both marxism and the so called capitalism.

what?

well marxism economics ignore the difference between goods and currency (its both just capital in there textes whats bullshit) and capitalism speak nonsense like you have to save money bevore it can be credited (whats also nonsense becouse that does not solve the question how the money even come into the system)

https://positivemoney.org/2013/03/why-dont-economists-understand-money-new-video/

>economists don't understand money

🧠

its as i said they realy do not understand it

ask an economics whats the job of a bank is if he says banks lends money you know he do not understand money at all.

As with all sciences generalizations and simplifications are often made in explanation

The idea that economists don't understand money is moronic

but well it is how it is many economics just do not understand money

i mean ask an economics how money is created can he answer you that question?

The question has to be treated in two parts, due to a split in the way money is talked about in academic economics. She suggested that “money and banking” was treated differently from “macroeconomics”. Money and banking was seen as on the fringe somewhat, “a frivolous option”. Keynes said, when he was writing the General Theory, that he thought that what he was writing would revolutionise the way the world thought. He had a theory where “money permeated the entire economy”. In modern economics, though, the role of money is separated from the whole analysis.

She said that economics thinks of itself as uncovering universal truths rather than being based in the context of its time. For example, the quantity theory of money is based in a historical period where gold was a major factor.

When she was a student in the late 1950s, she said, it was widely understood that loans create deposits. Now students are told that deposits create loans, which is wrong.

Much of neo-classical economics “regard banks as glorified safes.” However, “banks do not lend money” she stated. They don’t have a pot of money that they are passing on.

It is the ability of banks to create money that led Keynes to say that investment came before savings.

During the Q & A session after her presentation at the conference, Prof Chick expanded upon her main points. To a question about whether some academics were being “bought off”, she replied that there is something that “seeps into the veins of academia” rather than people being deliberately “bought off”. Although some had been “bought off” she said, if you’ve seen the film, Inside Job.

There is also social pressure to conform, she said. “You are just not part of the gang” if you don’t go along with the dominant ideology.

> https://positivemoney.org/2013/03/why-dont-economists-understand-money-new-video/
@hororizon44575 this video felt one hour long, but I somehow finished it

So was a Keynes a socialist or free markets guy?

@hororizon44575

ether nor

...

maybe you can call him an non-marxism socialist

So what was the basic principle of his theory?

And isint the main function of banks to lend loans?

well thats the main point of the video and also keynes

think about it

if banks loan money where do the have the money from?

From deposits.......?

ähm deposits have them from where?

People

and they have them from banks?

No they get them from their salaries and shit

but you see the companys first need a credit bevvore they can invest with this credit they also pay thre workers which results in bank creates money

So where do you think money comes from and what is the purpose of banks?

money is created via credit

I know it's the central bank which prints out

also depts is created that way

*debts?

the other side of money is debts

No you mis wrote it, so I asked

So what exactly is credit?