On the whole something of a curate’s Egg, well worth watching though. Some Observations.
EvanWells1
2 weeks ago (edited)
51:05 Ann – but the state does not rely on tax revenues of the populace. It does, to the extent that the state is allowing the civil society (or order) to fail as each atom of the collective of citizen security dwindles, but outside of this, it does not care, any more than it cares about climate change. Rather, the endurance of those who are already atomized is already compromised, the state instead relies on its reserve currency status to manufacture new money, per what we already know about MMT. It is not about taxation. It is about the longevity of organizations to withstand their own rapaciousness, and about that longevity occupying a less enduring cycle than its actual consequences (as in: each executives interest lasts for their lifespan, which lifespan is shorter than societies, insofar as society has a mandate for continuing its own subsequent generations)
.
4
macelharen
macelharen
2 weeks ago (edited)
she’s very combative, i couldn’t get past the half hour mark as her Ego took over and what i hoped for a flowing conversation got stalled. And THAT is saying alot since the master of long winded tangents was sitting right there in the bottom of the screen. lol
Yanis was mansplaining alot without giving her the intellectual space to continue in the ‘i’m next’ category for speaking, but honestly she was pure cliche and meaningless talking points (bretton woods, name dropping yadda yadda)
THE PRINCIPLES OF TAX POLICY BY DR. ADRIAN WRIGLEY
Exploring Economics Lectures 05: Making economics consistent with thermodynamics I don’t ever want to be accused of Blowing Smoke up Steves Arse so here’s a critique of the good Profs Atmospheric Physics. Prof Keen is a fine Monetary Theorist and not so strong on the ol´ Atmospheric Physics. Readers and watchers might find the Rocket Science Journal of assistance in Explaining what is singularly garbled in this presentation at 53 mins. http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/ On the Limits for Growth please also take account of the criticisms of the assumed boundary conditions, again a source of confusion in Prof Keens explanations in this video. Robert Solow from MIT argued that prediction in The Limits to Growth was based on a weak foundation of data (Newsweek, March 13, 1972, p. 103). Allen Kneese and Ronald Riker of Resources for the Future (RFF) stated: The authors load their case by letting some things grow exponentially and others not. Population, capital and pollution grow exponentially in all models, but technologies for expanding resources and controlling pollution are permitted to grow, if at all, only in discrete increments.[27]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth
In all I enjoyed watching this discussion,
The Climate Catastrophism, I disagree with.
COOL It!.
COOL IT BJORN LOMBERG GLOBAL WARMING REALIST PRAGMATISM FILM COOL IT: THE SKEPTICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST
The Pandemic? or Plandemic.
#Covidstroika.
The Binary blue or red, Technocrats or Commisar ( Rural idiocy?) Left Elitism v Right Elitism is palpable in Anne and Janis (IMO?)
There really is no need to throw the baby out with the Bath Water.
https://www.prosper.org.au/2020/09/the-miracle-of-the-rentenmark/
3 thoughts on “Visionary realism: A green future beyond capitalism – Yanis Varoufakis, Ann Pettifor & Noam Chomsky. Some Observations.”