https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFhKVCaadzE
Compare news coverage. Spot media bias. Avoid algorithms. Try Ground News today and get 30% off your subscription by visiting https://ground.news/secondthoug...
A video explaining modern monetary theory and how with a little Marxism it can benefit everyone.
As the amount of currency approaches infinity, the value of the currency approaches zero
So, what hadn't clicked until I watch this video, is that federal taxes don't 'pay for things', they are just the mechanism by which federal government ensures the currency has value: They compel us to pay taxes (via courts, police, etc.) and those taxes must be paid in the same currency, and so we have to do work to acquire that currency, and so it has value.
No, this is not how currency gets or keeps its value. The work itself is what creates value, which is paid back in currency. If you pay taxes, you transfer some of that value you created to the state. The money would not become worthless if the state did not collect taxes. Money is a way to transfer value, not to create it and taxes are like any payment just that, a transfer of value.
Value is generated by work, but valorization is based on processes of use or exchange. Generally assets have intrinsic value. Fiat currency has no intrinsic value. Its value derives from the state assuring a demand for goods and labor, which will be purchased in the currency, from assuring the availability of investment assets, which will promise a return above an original value, and from regulating the supply, to assure that the values of ordinary goods will remain generally stable.
Well, and also by removing currency from general use, raising value by decreasing availability.
Money existed before the government started using it.
The idea that taxes remove money form the economy and government spending prints new money is an abstraction created for macroeconomics to simplify its models. But it's a lossy abstraction, so don't go thinking this is exactly what happens on the real world.
Centralized, minted currencies definitely did not exist before states started using them. Minted currencies were invented multiple times independently across multiple cultures, but one of the biggest through lines between them is that they required a centralized state who held large reserves, and that they were, in every known case, used to support standing armies for those states.
Fiat money maintains its value largely because the government will purchase labor, goods, and other assets without any concern for gain versus loss.
The state therefore generates demand even when and where private entities will not or cannot hire workers, make purchases, or invest.
Not really. The US dollar is taking longer hit rock bottom because other countries are forced to payback their debts in dollars. Eventually all FIAT currencies go to zero.
Which is bad if you have a lot of money, but not so bad if you have a lot of debt and can still sell your labor and its produce.
But also bad if you have pay for things like food and shelter. Then you are just bartering which is less efficient than having actual currency. You can't buy or sell someone half a haircut.
If wages rise with inflation, then workers gain relative to those with accumulated fortunes.
That's not how infinity works. It's not a number you can ever reach. It's not a number at all really. It's more a set of all numbers.
The value of the currency will never approach zero.
A limit isn't infinity though. Infinity has no limit. Its the oposite of a limit.
However high you may count, there is still infinitely more you could count. And an infinite number of fractions between each and every number you counted. And all of that is included in infinity.
That's the technical language used to refer to a limit. Take it up with a calculus book
In mathematical terms it's perfectly acceptable to talk about the limit of an expression as some value tends towards infinity. E.g.:
limit (1/x) = 0
x→∞
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(mathematics)#Infinity_as_a_limit
Okay. My last try.
That's a way of saying there is no specific value that is the end. The "Limit" is endless.
If we created a currency with 10^100 units. There would me more units than the atoms in a billion universes. And it would still be infinitely far from infinity.
So if the currency's unit value is inversely proportional its proximity to infinity, the value of every unit of currency we could ever make is infinite. Even if we made 10^100 of them.
The term limit is used in mathematics differently from how you are understanding it from vernacular usage. A mathematical limit expresses directionality toward an unreachable value.
The meaning of the statement is that every marginal augmentation of the money supply carries some marginal diminution of the currency value, without any possibility that the supply may be exhausted absolutely or the value annihilated.
Interesting take on inflation: One of the big issues is who gets the printed money. Not us. It's the rich and banks, who buyout all of our resources to hurt us.
Example: 2008 recession, government made blackrock, who then ate up the housing market so that no one owns their home yet they WILL be happy.
It could be given either to workers or to oligarchs.
The postwar model was Keynsian, or demand side, meaning the state supported prosperity of workers.
Supply side has only helped oligarchs.
Daily reminder that Second Thought (zero Thought) is a genocide defending tankie who ideologically supports ruzzia. https://youtu.be/4qIDOx-Pnzo?si=Bwf2tvCRKgM68FKL
Wow this is horrible. I only recently started watching his content and liking it. But this is surprising, also why is this on some other channel?
I think it is fine that the channels are separate.
I am happy to receive the general leftist education on ST without bothering with any ML.
The fact that the video isn't posted on his own channel is likely just because the video isn't a Second Thought video, which has a very specific format. Why should he post it there?
Yes their podcast is called "The Deprogram" and you can check it out here. They all make great content, go check them out! I really liked Yugopnik's video about the commodification of people's romantic lives for example. It was very interesting and thought provoking, a very "Žižekian" approach.
Dude is giving iffy vibes for a while now. Watch a few videos of his and a clear pattern emerges:
It's a perfectly fine channel to counter PragerU garbage, but don't take anything he says without a sack full of salt.
I disagree with your characterizations, especially about Nordic states. There was an entire episode criticizing the shortcomings of the Nordic model.
Most of the criticisms of capital are simply explanations of books that have gained attention and acclaim, and none conflates systemic criticism with conspiratorial intention.
Not really. Even in the video you yourself links he's calling an end to the conflict between Ukraine and Russia and an end to US involvement.
Wow. You are either incredibly dumb or incredibly disingenuous, just as zero thought funnily enough.
Calling it "end to the conflict" is such a slimy way to say what he actually wants. He wants ukraine to give up. He wants ruzzia to get away with everything they have done and to ignore all the atrocities they have committed.
It's like saying that allies should have given up after Nazi germany and ussr conquered Poland. "Oh, end the conflict, so many people have died!!!" Sure, lets just let nazis happily do their genocide while we look the other way. Same as ruzzians committing active genocide in ukraine.
US involvement is the thing that actively saves innocent lives in this conflict. Shooting down missiles, giving ukranian soldiers more protection, and more ways to remove invaders from their lands.
And what do you think putting and "end" to the conflict would achieve? Ruzzia would resupply and attack in 5 years again.
If you have watched the video and not noticed the insane amount of lies, something is genuinely wrong with you. It is pure unfiltered ruzzian and Chinese propaganda. Nothing else.
I'm not going to engage with your personal attacks and you should feel shameful for saying such nasty things to a stranger you hardly know.
The Ukraine-Russia conflict can be viewed in many different ways. One of them is Russia being an aggressor and waging an illegal war of conquest like Nazi Germany, and that's a valid way to look at the conflict. I'm sure even he would agree of that. However the conflict is also very dangerous, especially with NATO involvement. The biggest threat is actually if the war would escalate into nuclear annihilation because Putin has threatened that if Russia loses, they're going to start nuking. Have you forgotten about that?
US involvement is the thing that actively saves innocent lives in this conflict. Shooting down missiles, giving ukranian soldiers more protection, and more ways to remove invaders from their lands.
That is your opinion. A missile can be used to shoot a helicopter just as easily on the Ukraine side of the border as on the Russian side of the border.
If we assume that Ukraine would manage to sue for some sort of white peace or extended ceasefire, what would that mean with the supplies that has been lent to Ukraine and the Ukrainian people and all the debt that Ukraine is racking up? Who do you think will have to pay for all that and what would the consequences be for Ukrainians? Probably not very good things. Possibly privatizations, international loans from WTO or other forms of neocolonialism. The intent of involvement from the west is highly suspicious and deserve its own scrutiny.
And what do you think putting and “end” to the conflict would achieve? Ruzzia would resupply and attack in 5 years again.
Maybe so, or maybe there might be a regime change in 5 years? Maybe with some time passing Putin somehow dies? Of sickness, old age or some other reason? In 5 years Putin would be over the average life expectancy of Russians. Maybe the Russians don't try again in 5 years because they got humiliated this time? The world isn't static and time changes things.
Second thought released its own video surrounding the Ukraine conflict and in a comment he posted he outlined his positions surrounding the conflict. I quote:
- This war doesn't benefit the average people of Ukraine or Russia. They're suffering needlessly for the sake of geopolitical jockeying.
- Sanctions on Russia will only hurt the everyday citizen, not the oligarchs or the powerful. Sanctions are a brutal, inhumane tool and we should oppose them.
- Anti-war is the only principled position. Escalating into a hot war with another nuclear power is a death sentence.
- This conflict should be resolved diplomatically. That must include an end to hostilities, as well as a new agreement that prevents NATO expansion towards "unfriendly" states. NATO is a relic of the Cold War, and it doesn't do anyone any good. A bomb is a bomb, no matter what language you use to make it seem justified.
This is similar to the things he said in your video you linked. What has he lied about? Can you name even one contradiction? That doesn't mean that he wants Ukraine to surrender or give up, rather that's just your interpretation of his stance which is blatantly wrong and has no evidence. The fact that you try to claim otherwise because he calls for peace is just slander.
One of them is Russia being an aggressor and waging an illegal war of conquest like Nazi Germany, and that's a valid way to look at the conflict.
That is the ONLY valid way to look at the conflict. Ruzzia illegaly invaded ukraine both in 2014 and 2021.
I'm sure even he would agree of that.
He would not.
However the conflict is also very dangerous, especially with NATO involvement. The biggest threat is actually if the war would escalate into nuclear annihilation because Putin has threatened that if Russia loses, they're going to start nuking. Have you forgotten about that?
Those are empty threats, if you have seen the state of Ruzzian equipment you would understand that. The only country that would get annihilated in this conflict would be Ruzzia.
"US involvement is the thing that actively saves innocent lives in this conflict. Shooting down missiles, giving ukranian soldiers more protection, and more ways to remove invaders from their lands." That is your opinion. A missile can be used to shoot a helicopter just as easily on the Ukraine side of the border as on the Russian side of the border.
How is that an argument? Both are valid and good ways to protect Ukraine. One less helicopter means one less chance for an innocent ukrainan to be harmed.
If we assume that Ukraine would manage to sue for some sort of white peace or extended ceasefire, what would that mean with the supplies that has been lent to Ukraine and the Ukrainian people and all the debt that Ukraine is racking up? Who do you think will have to pay for all that and what would the consequences be for Ukrainians? Probably not very good things. Possibly privatizations, international loans from WTO or other forms of neocolonialism. The intent of involvement from the west is highly suspicious and deserve its own scrutiny.
Those supplies would be used to defend ukraine and bolster the border with the two fascist nations that border it. Banks have frozen accounts of ork oligarchs, have seized materiel and such. Those can be the start. The international community can band together to help. It would not be the first time.
Europes involvement is not at all suspicious. It's a brutal attack on a sovereign nation near their borders. You would be insane to not support them.
"And what do you think putting and “end” to the conflict would achieve? Ruzzia would resupply and attack in 5 years again." Maybe so, or maybe there might be a regime change in 5 years? Maybe with some time passing Putin somehow dies? Of sickness, old age or some other reason? In 5 years Putin would be over the average life expectancy of Russians. Maybe the Russians don't try again in 5 years because they got humiliated this time? The world isn't static and time changes things.
If Ruzzians are not humiliated on the world stage in a way that wakes up even the most politically dead in the country, nothing will change. If we give them ANY concession, nothing will change. Total and absolute withdrawal, that is what needs to happen.
Second thought released its own video surrounding the Ukraine conflict and in a comment he posted he outlined his positions surrounding the conflict. I quote:
How hard is it to fucking understand, RUZZIA. INVADED. UKRAINE. People suffer BECAUSE OF RUZZIA, not because of "geopolitical jockeying" Jesus fucking chirst man. The only one who is in fault is ruzzia, if they wanted they could retreat now
- Sanctions on Russia will only hurt the everyday citizen, not the oligarchs or the powerful. Sanctions are a brutal, inhumane tool and we should oppose them.
Again, wrong. Sanctions have drastically reduced the capability of ruzzia to make new tanks, weapons, and rockets. Thanks to sanctions, ruzzia is unable to make long range rockets that have been indiscriminately killing civilians.
- Anti-war is the only principled position. Escalating into a hot war with another nuclear power is a death sentence.
It absolutely fucking isn't. Once again, tell that to WW2 veterans who have fought and died for the free world. A just society who accepts unjustifiable people and positions is not just.
- This conflict should be resolved diplomatically. That must include an end to hostilities, as well as a new agreement that prevents NATO expansion towards "unfriendly" states. NATO is a relic of the Cold War, and it doesn't do anyone any good. A bomb is a bomb, no matter what language you use to make it seem justified.
Holy fucking shit here we go. The myth of NATO expansion. Such a funny lie and I am so happy you brought it up. Thankfully it has been completely annihilated. https://youtu.be/FVmmASrAL-Q?si=gN80y0EnM2W1qJuT
This is similar to the things he said in your video you linked. What has he lied about? Can you name even one contradiction? That doesn't mean that he wants Ukraine to surrender or give up, rather that's just your interpretation of his stance which is blatantly wrong and has no evidence. The fact that you try to claim otherwise because he calls for peace is just slander.
It isn't, if I tried to explain every single contradiction and lie he has spouted in that video i would hit the character limit. Instead, I am liking a debunk of dylan burns and keffals.
It isn’t, if I tried to explain every single contradiction and lie he has spouted in that video i would hit the character limit.
No you literally couldn't because you have nothing to say. If you have something of substance to say, say it. Don't hide between a long and obnoxious reaction video.
The rest of your post is just... ridiculous. You can argue the 4 points he raised to him if you want, but I'd rather choose not to engage with that nonsense since it's not my arguments.
You're not wrong about these arguments such as Russia being the aggressor and them being able to retreat. Nobody is disputing those facts. Preferably I would also like Russia to realize that they did wrong, surrender to Ukraine and pay them war reparations, but I live in the real world where that seems pretty unlikely. That's why I don't expect for such an outcome, not because I don't think it's the right thing to do. You can scream yourself hoarse about what Russia ought to do, but that's a factor we cannot control and we should approach the conflict with that in mind.
I do agree with him that we should have anti-war and your argument against that isn't an argument even. War is just a political event where workers are sent to kill other workers. Anti-war is the position of the worker movement and everybody who are social democrat or more left leaning agrees on that fact. Since you think otherwise, you must be a reactionary and are blowing some sort of dog whistle right now.
This is not WW2, this is a war where one country is a nuclear power, the largest nuclear power in the world in fact! The performance of the Russian army during the conflict doesn't really mean that they cannot launch nukes. Even if their nukes aren't fully effective, they can most likely still cause tremendous harm and the threat of the nuclear war isn't just the initial salvo but the retaliation and the threat of nuclear winter. For us who live in Europe, Russia's arsenal is a nasty and scary threat, but maybe you don't care because I assume you live in USA and feel more confident? I think that confidence is also misplaced, there's no defense against nuclear armageddon. If that happens, billions will die and suffer.
I live next to Ukraine, I have seen the destruction personally, I have lost people I love and see bullshit when it's there.
In this "political event," which I would rather describe as a brutal uncalled for attack, Ruzzia sent its own workers (and prisoners) to go indiscriminately murder any and every ukranian they come across. I agree with your definition of war, never said otherwise.
But okay, I will go through the first minute alone and point out every single lie.
Calling euromaidan a "far right coup" is complete lie, it is ruzzian propaganda. Euromaidan was unilateral and supported by left and right. Neonazis joined it, of course as they saw an opportunity. Since then the far right party has been getting less and less support, today being the lowest.
Calling the new government a puppet regime is disingenuous, just like any of his and your claims. First government almost immediately held a public vote, thats how zelenski got into government.
It was never a provocation, it was a civilian uprising
They did not plan a proxy war. Ruzzia started this war for its own imperial means. That reality was not swept under the rug, its a blatant fucking lie.
That is just the first minute. Once again, I am not willing to write paragraph after paragraph when all of this has been debunked much more eloquently by Dylan, someone who knows much more than me, your or zero thought.
I live next to Ukraine, I have seen the destruction personally, I have lost people I love and see bullshit when it’s there.
Ah you're Polish then I assume? My condolences and I think that maybe that fact makes you quite impartial toward a narrative where Ukraine is seen as the victim, which I agree to, Ukraine IS the victim here.
I agree with your definition of war, never said otherwise.
Yet you're pro-war. So you apparently agree with my definition but are also pro-war. Therefore workers should fight each other if the ends justify the means? Is that right?
Calling euromaidan a “far right coup” is complete lie, it is ruzzian propaganda. Euromaidan was unilateral and supported by left and right. Neonazis joined it, of course as they saw an opportunity. Since then the far right party has been getting less and less support, today being the lowest.
When a ML says "far right", he might mean a neonazi, a conservative or a liberal. On the political scale from that perspective a "centrist" would be a social democrat. However the far right party might stand in polls isn't exactly interesting. If the goal is to make Ukraine compatible with the west like Second Thought claims, then nazi ideology would be counterproductive toward that goal anyway so I'm not sure what you think that proves.
Calling the new government a puppet regime is disingenuous, just like any of his and your claims. First government almost immediately held a public vote, thats how zelenski got into government.
Maybe? I mean if we're supposed to entertain that argument then we could guess that Russia's elections in the regions they conquered also prove that there's a genuine sentiment in breaking off? I don't think so. Election results isn't a sign of consent. I would also like to know why he decides to call it a "puppet regime". At the same time, it's pretty common for MLs to be suspicious of any cooperation with the west. It sounds like something he would have said on his own channel but maybe it greater detail argue why that is the case.
They (USA and EU) did not plan a proxy war. Ruzzia started this war for its own imperial means. That reality was not swept under the rug, its a blatant fucking lie.
Okay and you're sure about this why? In the video Dylan doesn't give any explanation either why he thinks otherwise. If Ukraine really is a puppet state and the protests were backed by USA, maybe that was the plan?
I have to admit that the things you bring up weren't the things I expected you to want to highlight since you seemed to argue that he has a different stance toward the conflict between his own channel and the video you posted, which doesn't seem to be the case. The video you posted of Dylan is just nitpicking on the points presented in the video. Dylan doesn't give his own evidence to his claims and while the burden of proof is on Second Thought it's important to realize that he's talking about this topic to a completely different audience who already are (or at least should be) informed of what he's talking about. He's hardly trying to present a case to convince outsiders, so making a nitpicking video against it is very easy, because the format isn't meant to convince anyone. Why should I be impressed or convinced by Dylan? Come on...
JT, the creator of ST, certainly has expressed various views that many find problematic, respecting Marxism-Leninism and related historic events.
Nevertheless, the ST channel itself is curated to explain values and objectives that are largely noncontroversial in leftist circles, anti-capitalist and socialist. I feel JT deserves some acknowledgment for successfully explaining such ideas while separating some of his own more controversial leanings.
The broad observation is that the political world is not divided between those who criticize NATO and also laud Putin, versus those with sympathies exactly the inverse. It is possible to criticize the practices and alignments of one's own nation, without having distorted views about another.
Views about the Russian invasion of Ukraine are too nuanced and complex that anyone's may be reduced meaningfully to a few lines of text. It is helpful to avoid attempting clean demarcations between right versus wrong.
Views about the Ruzzian invasion are not nuanced and complex. You either support a democratic nation that is under attack from a dictatorial fascist regime or you dont.
No, I wouldn't expect you to recognize nuance or complexity on any subject.
Everyone who holds a different view from you, who emphasizes different objectives, concerns, or values, is by your description slimy and stupid.
No one can make you engage nuance. All I can do is reiterate that the subject is broader than what may be captured in your curt generalizations.
Oh, let me bow upon you my centrist deity!!
Do give me the nuance then. Where is the fucking nuance in this brutal attack?
I am not seeking a debate on the subject.
I am only calling for advancing beyond simplistic generalizations.
At the moment, your response to anyone who challenges your very strong views is to hurl insults. Plainly, any conditions under which a debate might be productive would require a revision of your attitude.
Advanced "both side"ing going on here. What does it even mean to call an end to conflict? Russia is welcome to go back home and lick its wound, why is the onus on Ukraine to end conflict?
And end US involvement? So Russia can overrun an independent country?
That you have to ask Second Thought. This is what he has said about the conflict:
- This war doesn’t benefit the average people of Ukraine or Russia. They’re suffering needlessly for the sake of geopolitical jockeying.
- Sanctions on Russia will only hurt the everyday citizen, not the oligarchs or the powerful. Sanctions are a brutal, inhumane tool and we should oppose them.
- Anti-war is the only principled position. Escalating into a hot war with another nuclear power is a death sentence.
- This conflict should be resolved diplomatically. That must include an end to hostilities, as well as a new agreement that prevents NATO expansion towards “unfriendly” states. NATO is a relic of the Cold War, and it doesn’t do anyone any good. A bomb is a bomb, no matter what language you use to make it seem justified.
You should read the thread if you're interested.
This other video at 29:43 also blew my mind, I just never thought about tax in that way, and it's embarrassing.
Basic mmt with a socialist touch.
Debt just means that the government decides to make something happen. It is neither inherently good or bad. It depends on the context. The biggest opponents are capitalist who want to stop good things from happening as this will reduce their profit. E. G. : more public housing would destroy the business case of landlords.
Amazing summary, and I'm glad you mentioned landlords. I am having such a struggle lately when people tell me about their 'side hustle' as a landlord, and how they make so much passive income. I just wanna scream "so you feel good about making money doing basically nothing while there are so many people unsheltered, and living paycheck to paycheck?".
Capitalists absolutely love government debt, because it provides a vehicle for safe investment.
They bellyache about debt to bolster the austerity narrative that they use against public spending supporting working class interests.
Never support Second Thought. If you wanna learn about monetary theory and marxism go watch Unlearning Economics.
He's a crypto tankie like he genuinely supports bonkers evil regimes and has anti-democratic beliefs but hides it in his main channel videos.
It is being claimed that JT, the creator of ST, supports Putin, due to JT's view that the US and other NATO-aligned states militarily supporting Ukraine broadly serves to exacerbate the same trajectory of geopolitical tension that has helped enable Putin's aggression.
JT has called for NATO weakening ties with Ukraine, and reversing its course of expansion, as part of a process for seeking stronger diplomacy between the West and Russia.
I believe he regards such a strategy as best supporting the long term interests of mitigating the incidence of armed conflict and gaining power for the working class internationally.
He has also criticized Ukrainian elites as prioritizing their own class interests aligned with foreign oligarchs, above the broader interests of the working class in Ukraine and elsewhere.
Much of JT's rhetoric and many of his connections are ML, which has not helped him reach common ground with many outside such circles.
He advertises his other channels within his segments on ST.
If he is trying to keep them hidden, then his strategy is extremely ill conceived.
Federal Agent - "Hmm. i could really use a No Whip, Chocolate, White Macchiato"
Other federal agent turns on money printing machines - "how many sheets do you want?"
Fed - "about tree fiddy"
???????
Profit
Because they can print as much money as they want, devaluing yours in the process. Just like they did for the bank bailouts. A trillion dollar wealth transfer from the 99% to the 1%. Bitcoin was designed to solve this, the first block even contains a reference to it. BTC is neutral, international currency that knows no borders and which has a fixed supply and clear, unambiguous monetary policy. Nobody can ever turn on the money printer. It has been faithfully relaying transactions for people for 15 years without a single hack or day of downtime.
It makes functional currency available to anybody with a phone and an internet connection, which matters a lot in the global south and to the "unbanked" and "underbanked". There are billions of people who have cell phones but no stable banking or monetary system or who regularly experience hyperinflation, Bitcoin solves this problem for them. Transactions settle in seconds to minutes which is much much faster than most in-country bank transfers let alone international. Fees can be as low as a penny with Bitcoin's lightning network which can scale basically infinitely.
It does all of this with about .1% of global energy usage, most of which comes from renewables since Bitcoin miners inherently seek out the cheapest electricity available which tends to come from over-provisioned renewables during times of low electric demand. This is massively less electrical usage than even remittance services alone (western union etc) use, let alone the entire banking system and the carbon impact of moving around physical money from place to place.
Because they can print as much money as they want, devaluing yours in the process
The observation that is politically relevant is that availability of money is not a constraint for the capacity of the state to ensure adequate provisions for everyone, as long as such provisions continue to be available through production.
Cryptocurrency is based on a fantasy of apolitical money. Bitcoin is not currency because designation of an asset as currency is political. The moment everyone realizes that Bitcoin has neither intrinsic value, like gold, nor state backing, like the dollar, the value crashes.