"They discuss the history of money, the relationship between war and currency" - heh, I am just finishing up David Graeber's "Debt: The First 5,000 Year", and the history of money, and its relationship to the state and war is featured prominently. Looking forward to this listen!
Money is an invented device to control and direct labor and surplus.
As an Australian I had to laugh when you said that Labor may have to go into coalition with the Greens. This has been the constant attack talking point from the Liberal party.
Labor goes out of its way to distance from the Greens and there is animosity between them as Labor sees the Greens "stealing their voters".
This election was a historic one, the Liberal party had their worst result since their formation, Labor also did not do well, as voters used Australia's preferential voting system well and we now have 12 Independents and 4 Greens in the lower house.
Sorry. How is Ukraine "none of my business" when absent US funding Ukranian, the war would have been over within a month? As far as I can tell, the US is bankrolling 90% of the effort, providing training and intelligence and amazing political cover. Americans have full right to opine on this war. Bad take Derrick.
Sorry, I just don't agree. Americans have every right to opine on the assistance their government is supplying to Ukraine or whether it should be supplying any assistance at all. But as far as when the Ukrainians ought to stop fighting or what kind of deal they should accept, that's their decision. This attitude that US arms grant Washington the right to dictate policy to its client states is an element of empire that I reject. That logic isn't right when it comes to, e.g., South Korea, and it's not right here either.
You have a moral point. But the reality is that without our funding the Ukrainian resistance would be over in thirty seconds. Therefore, the decision to keep fighting is not really theirs alone. What would Ukraine use to fight, rocks?
But since I agree with most of your takes and always enjoy your analysis, I'll stand down.
Shockingly or unshockingly I went through an entire undergraduate degree in economics without ever hearing the idea that money is backed by the coercive power of the state. This I think is part of why MMT has caught on for a lot of people (despite having some weird/bad stuff), they are pretty frank about it and openly derisive (justifiably) of the explanation that fiat money works because everyone just believes in it.
"They discuss the history of money, the relationship between war and currency" - heh, I am just finishing up David Graeber's "Debt: The First 5,000 Year", and the history of money, and its relationship to the state and war is featured prominently. Looking forward to this listen!
Money is an invented device to control and direct labor and surplus.
Great episode!
As an Australian I had to laugh when you said that Labor may have to go into coalition with the Greens. This has been the constant attack talking point from the Liberal party.
Labor goes out of its way to distance from the Greens and there is animosity between them as Labor sees the Greens "stealing their voters".
This election was a historic one, the Liberal party had their worst result since their formation, Labor also did not do well, as voters used Australia's preferential voting system well and we now have 12 Independents and 4 Greens in the lower house.
Sorry. How is Ukraine "none of my business" when absent US funding Ukranian, the war would have been over within a month? As far as I can tell, the US is bankrolling 90% of the effort, providing training and intelligence and amazing political cover. Americans have full right to opine on this war. Bad take Derrick.
But good show.
Sorry, I just don't agree. Americans have every right to opine on the assistance their government is supplying to Ukraine or whether it should be supplying any assistance at all. But as far as when the Ukrainians ought to stop fighting or what kind of deal they should accept, that's their decision. This attitude that US arms grant Washington the right to dictate policy to its client states is an element of empire that I reject. That logic isn't right when it comes to, e.g., South Korea, and it's not right here either.
You have a moral point. But the reality is that without our funding the Ukrainian resistance would be over in thirty seconds. Therefore, the decision to keep fighting is not really theirs alone. What would Ukraine use to fight, rocks?
But since I agree with most of your takes and always enjoy your analysis, I'll stand down.
Shockingly or unshockingly I went through an entire undergraduate degree in economics without ever hearing the idea that money is backed by the coercive power of the state. This I think is part of why MMT has caught on for a lot of people (despite having some weird/bad stuff), they are pretty frank about it and openly derisive (justifiably) of the explanation that fiat money works because everyone just believes in it.