by Summary:
Debt Loop Strangling Economy - Watch
Topics:
Steve Keen considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Debt Loop Strangling Economy - Watch
Topics:
Steve Keen considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Robert Vienneau writes Another Hayekian Triangle Not Supporting The Austrian School
Joel Eissenberg writes Access to medical care: right or privilege?
NewDealdemocrat writes Production turns more negative
Bill Haskell writes Lawler: Early Read on Existing Home Sales in October
| Debt Loop Strangling Economy - Watch |
What do you think about this? Responding to the best comments.
It's fundamentally parasitic
It hurts my head , being a successful capitalist.
I do see professor Michael Hudsons point.
There is nothing wrong with capitalism if we would truely understand it.
Finance is not capitalism at all since it is non productive but only creates cost. It is just a bookkeeping system of the debt within the society. I think, we should strictly restrict it to this job.
And capitalism works best when wages are high. So the government should act like a referee, which takes care, that we do play fair.
Then capitalism will increase everybodys wealth.
@@ThomasVWorm , thank you for your insightful reply.
I agree with your observations & beliefs.
✨Happy New Year ✨.
I
Profesor, what do you think about the current situation of argentina now that an insane libertarian Is in charge of their economy?
A major reason for China's economic expansion is that the Chinese gov. controls the debt loop by heavy regulation of bankers. (thx Michael Hudson 🙂👍)
I became aware of some of the massive deception in 2008. And more, since then. That knowledge has made me an outcast or misfit. In order TO prosper in this society one must agree to BE taken advantage of AND to do so to others. As much as I would love to separate myself from this horrible system, I do not wish to become a cave man. The best answer to this dilemma is of great bravery AND sorrow.
True . When you work for a company, they own your time. Which we know in finite .
Imo ; the best "We" can do is escape the company town , and work for ourselves.
Good luck & Happy New Year.
Tbh the stock market is great it's like a gambling place but the odds are way better now it is true that the more money you can spend on the stock market the more you'll make (snowball effect) anyone who got 100usd a month to spare can make good money. Now I'd recomend spending atleast 200-300 usd every month and if you buy stocks diversify buy atleast 12 or more stocks it's a really good portfolio
All I can say from a German perspective is, that at least in these regions this vicious loop or rather spiral is additionally fueled by substance taxes. Especially regarding the real estate market, but companies, too. The result is a toxic brew of speculation, interest rates and taxes that continues to drive up prices and reduce the purchasing power of the ordinary people (or even cities and municipalities). I also think that's something wrong with statistics that claim otherwise as they do not take into account the ever-widening gap of asset inequality and do also not consider other details like regional or demographic factors.
But the government, though it taxes, is a net injector of money to the private sector. Or in other words: it taxes less than it should and by this it creates an extra demand, which counteracts to what Hudson describes.
And the rentier class owns the "substance" and uses it to extract rents. So taxes on the substance are the best taxes you can have and much better than eg. income taxes which reduces the demand of the workers and true producers of wealth.
And from the German perspective: we need to reintroduce the property tax. Esp. the German government supports the rentier class way too much, which causes problems to Germany for about more than 40 years now and it did even become worse in the past 20 years.
@@ThomasVWorm "taxes on the substance are the best taxes you can have and much better than eg. income taxes". That's not true as this is one reason why the price spiral goes up and purchasing power goes down, not only regarding real estate but rents, too. And this exactly is one reason why a lot of people cannot afford housing anymore. And municipalities, too. But I repeat myself.
"we need to reintroduce the property tax." Substance tax is already a property tax and we need to waive it exactly for the aforementioned reason. And interest-based fiat money, too, by the way.
What we need is a stricter capital gains tax on property without holding periods as soon as substance is converted into (fiat) money and is not reinvested in the substance market.
At least, substance tax must be subject to the ability to fulfil the payment obligations, that means income! Because otherwise it is exactly low income people that cannot afford property anymore. Moreover, when loans have to be taken out for substance taxes, this naturally fuels the banks' inflation-driving money creation. And that's the spiral I'm talking about. Apart from the fact, that again, it's low income people who are more burdened by this than others.
This being said, another problem pops up: The tax-free amounts and protected assets are too low, particularly for high-priced regions and especially for self-employed people as more than one million euros in assets alone is needed just to reach roughly the pension of a primary school teacher. And one million, that's also the price of some one room apartments that came onto the market in Germany in 2022. In particular, this means that the aforementioned amounts did not grow in line with market developments. Which also means that out of all things it is the low purchasing power of low income people that is overly taxed by substance taxes.
@@amerubix185 substance taxes are always paid from income or from savings. Esp. for the latter reason they are great. Hoarding money is a problem in Germany.
Substance taxes are not the reason for price increases in a world where profits are optimized. No matter whether you tax the substance or not, the rentier class will always charge the maximum price it can get. It is independent from the tax. The tax only decreases their wealth and how fast it can grow.
The property tax did always have a tax-free amount, which makes poorer people pay no tax at all for their property.
@@ThomasVWorm "substance taxes are always paid from income or from savings. Esp. for the latter reason they are great."
Sorry, that is simply RIDICULOUS!! Apparently you have absolutely NO CLUE what you are talking about.
"Substance taxes are not the reason for price increases in a world"
Of course they are! And that is BECAUSE if you sell your property, you try AT LEAST to recover your expenses. Including the original purchasing price PLUS interest rates PLUS taxes. This alone already leads to a system-inherent price increase. Especially if you simply want to exchange your property for an equivalent one (also known as RELOCATION), you are naturally interested in squeezing the full price out of your old property, including not only your original investment costs but also the acquisition costs of the new property (including property transfer taxes = substance taxes). Otherwise an equivalent exchange wouldn't be possible. But an equivalent exchange for YOU means a PRICE INCREASE for ANOTHER person. PLUS (!) substance taxes once again. And it's exactly the same in the next round of sales. And the next one and the next one. This is why interest rates and property taxes inherently push up prices. And, of course, rents too!
AND (!) we are STILL not talking about speculative profits!
"The property tax did always have a tax-free amount, which makes poorer people pay no tax at all for their property."
Sorry, that is ridiculous, too. As I already mentioned before, especially in regions with high property prices and therefore low purchasing power, the tax-free amounts have long since ceased to be sufficient. And in regard to property transfer taxes from a buyer's perspective there are no tax-free allowances at all.
Cannot believe that someone indeed gave you a like for your statements. Probably you gave it yourself.
@@amerubix185 nobody gives a damn, what you do try at least, when you sell a property.
You could see this when the subprime bubble did burst: the banks needed to sell the houses at least for the price they were bought and the amount of loan they did give. But nobody did want to buy those houses for this price nor did anybody want to buy those houses at all. This is why the banks went bust.
On the other side, if a house is for sale, the seller want's to get as much as he can get. Whether he gets it or not depends upon the demand. And the demand depends upon how much money the people have or how big the loans are, they get. The smaller the interest rate the more they can pay for the house.