49 thoughts on “Central Banks Can Print Prosperity

  • Please, do not forget that quantitative easing robs the rest of humanity! The US say to the world: I can plunder you just because I possess the military muscle to back my dishonesty up!
    "Central Banks Can Print Prosperity" for the cheats, at the expense bonded labour!

  • This is a debate between super left wing views vs center/left views on monetary policy. It'd be nice to have an actually balanced debate. Letting the banks fail is a legitimate position to take but they just laughed and said all serious economists believe the banks should always be bailed out. REALLY?! Kind of lame debate actually for that reason.

  • You know the people suggesting that central banks can print prosperity are wrong even before the debate starts. It's insane that this is a serious debate. In essence it's the same question as "can a family be prosperous with infinite credit cards?" Well maybe for a short time but ultimately it means complete disaster and destruction of their quality of life.

  • How about this…f**c credit! Credit creates slaves. Prosperity creates wealth and independence.

    In a prosperous society, you don't need credit (for the most part). A credit-based society needs credit. In a prosperous society you don't just get by, you actually get a head. In a prosperous society you have extra money at the end of the month.

    The team in support of the claim that central banks can print prosperity failed miserably. Their notion of "prosperity" is basically credit availability. Credit availability is NOT prosperity. Prosperity is prosperity. End of argument.

    I agree that credit has the potential, and can lead to prosperity (for those who use credit wisely). I agree that the lack of credit can limit or eliminate (for some) the path to prosperity, but the notion that "credit availability = prosperity" is simply wrong. Prosperity is something you have, credit is something you borrow.

    A relevant, but false analogy, would be to say, "medicine = health". Medicine has the potential to improve one's health, but medicine is not health. Likewise, credit is not prosperity.

    I also disagree that central banks should bail out banks. Central banks should bail out the people using Steve Keen's QE proposal to erase private debt fairly. Let the people then decide which banks they want to bail-out and do business with.

  • What it seems they will not let be said is that printing money only benefited the banks that cause the crisis to begin with.

  • This is a very poor discussion indeed. One side defending the necessity of QE as instrument for financial crise as in 2008 and other side arguing that subsequent QEs didn't brought prosperity. I think that both side are correct but the main point should be the purpose of allocation of QE funds. QE1 was clearly to save banks but subsequent QEs were to keep apparent economic health by sustaining stock bubble, real state demand and financial speculation for the benefit of banks and funds. Why is that. Because US had already transferred the real economy production to other countries and there wasn't any good allocation for real GDP creation in the country on production and only for consumer market which had created a huge inflation that needed to be avoid. The MMT thinking is that for additional money should create additional GDP in real production. USA is no more a production country of goods that requires QE.

  • crashes only occur when inflation gets too high due to too much money printing and the govt slows money printing. Its like lowering the coke supply from a coke addict.

  • You can prevent a crash from happening to infinity. As long as the sun still gives off its energy, and plants grow from photosynthesis which leads to grain production and animal feed and so on and so on. The economy wont collapse. You print paper money to create the illusion of financial gain. To encourage people to produce and spend what is naturally in front of them.

  • It does work though when its executed properly. If everyone in the country was given 1000 dollars to spend. There would be inflation. But there would also be increased spending. Which leads to higher production rates. Which is why the economy bounces during the christmas shopping season and during tax returns.

  • really lousy debate…….epic failure, yes prosperity only for the rich. Criminal counterfeiting enterprise, the greatest robbery in history of mankind. BS

  • Very frustrated that the pro side is not getting called for equating staving economic disaster with promoting prosperity. Yes, the con side concedes that in times of crisis quantitative easing (QE1) plays a role. But that is not prosperity. Emergency room triage does not necessarily result in fully functional and healthy patients. And the moderator doesn't get it either, exacerbating the logical dissonance until finally he goes, oh, yeah, let's talk about prosperity.

  • We need to end the debt based money system. Fractional reserve lending is fraud supported by government. 97% of the money supply in the UK is was created as debt with interest owed on it. Watch "The money masters" by Bill still or 97% owned. The money supply is the one thing in society that must be nationalised.

  • not really the greed for the money is want creates prosperity, have to check for the greed and the readiness of those who work for the money and they want to keep it focused

  • What's the value of currency when you have to pay somebody to take it with negative interest rates? How long until people figure out they've been scammed by their (((elites))) and the currency collapses ?

  • 42:15 Oh Dear, guys for the motion behave just like the man in charge of CDO Ratings at S&P in August 2007 – shouting to keep rating backlog of CDOs in express order – is FED also feeling that their time is running out? I guess that Central Bankers could bring in more likeable characters for this debate. This manner of shouting may be woking on your employees if you want to bring them to heel and admit that 2+2 = 5, if thats your company policy. Interestingly – UK debate evolves around curbing powers of Commercial Banks and passing money creation function entirely onto the BoE.

  • Talk about a bailout, I bailed out myself at 53 minutes. All this debate really was was a shouting match of "You're wrong!" "No YOU'RE wrong!".

  • They chose the wrong people to represent the "against" side, and wasted a great debate topic. What a shame.

  • Central banks can't prevent an economic collapse. They can only push it off to a later date so that it doesn't blow up in their face. But by doing so they only ensure the crash will be even larger.

  • the reason why politicians think printing money creates jobs is the same reason tribes believed dancing created rain

  • This debate is seriously silly. The pro-side, the side that 'won', actually lost in my opinion. They were so narrowly focused on 'winning' because of , so much so they looked as if they'd brought there small-minds to this debate. The other side seems to be more focused on discussing the issue at hand, and thats why they won in my opinion.
    The distinction between qe1 and after qe1 shouldve been established beforehand if this were truly a discussion on strategy.
    If it were a discussion on morality, the pro-side definitively lost. they were only slightly perturbed to concede that "yes there are tons of problems with the tactics, but growth that flows into the hands of the already rich is still growth."
    The anti-side, despite there best efforts to shift the focus of the debate to highlight this moral dilemma, seemed to get stonewalled by the pro-side and some of the audience.

    Personally, I don't give a fuck if it's amazing what qe1 did, and it was the best of a bad situation even if it only helped a few. Well I'm not one of those few, in fact I'm negatively impacted over the long run. So it was a loss, period.
    It's concerning, because the pro-sides 'standards' for success are so low, that they would describe anything less than complete and absolute self-implosion a 'win.' Well its not often that I worry about self-implosion, I'm less than impressed with there results, and not at all convinced of there concerns. It sounds like some people are overvaluing there place in this system we all share. These two are amateurs, and I am embarrassed of there short-mindedness and general attitude towards the effective functionality of these devices. Its very telling that were they come from is a problematic culture with false ideas of egalitarianism and burden.

  • This debate is flawed beyond recognition. Central Banks inherently imply debt and not prosperity. The assumed prosperity in the world is built upon the assumption and LAW that the Federal Reserve Notes are worth something. They are not worth the paper they are printed on, they are not backed by any gold. The U.S. dollar is pure fiat money. The only reason the world holds it in high value, is that it is the only form of currency the FED will accept in payment of debt. Which is supported by law. The U.S. dollar's value is based upon laws that forbid someone for not accepting it as currency.

  • Do one on a cashless society! the most important debate i believe that should be made and negative interest rates

  • these are lap dogs all, propagation of the rich to keep them wealthy, their circular logic moving from side to side just to keep you baffled at their intelligence, fool's playing w our lives.

  • maybe out of my league guys ,w long winded inflation/ deflation arguments but seems to me the crux of of our situation is the Fed, is not a bank it's a corporation, printing money for the U.S., with which all of our income tax only goes to pay the interest which they charge us, our gov. .The Fed never legally ratified, is fucking us and getting beyond rich. Look at Aron Russo's film Freedom to Fascism, enlightening.

  • Terrible debate, they covered a very limited perspective on QE, so much was left out. Nothing about the role that QE or lowering rates has on creating bubbles in the first place. More importantly you cannot make the statement that printing money or lowering rates leads to prosperity until monetary conditions are normalized, e.g., you return to market rates and no QE. The ridiculous concession made on QE1 was that it created prosperity? It didn't, it merely solved a credit crunch. Those are two very different things.

  • Not a very good debate. Talking points were all over the place, partial concessions causing moderator headache, insults and emotions flying left and right… Took over an hour just to get people on the same page. But still a really enjoyable video 😀

  • First lie….central banks are not an arm of our government…they are privately owned by an alien race of greed oriented, power hungry psychopaths, and other privately owned large banks, all under the umbrella of a corporate structure.

  • All banks not just central banks can create money, its called fractional reserve banking, central banks may print and mint, but all private banks lend out more than they have in depoists.
    The public have been duped into baling out these private banking institutions, their shareholders and insurance companies should have been forced by legal prosecution to have cough up, but instead the government baled out the private banking sector at tax payers expense, to avoid a depression brought on by private banks withholding money to compensate for their losses.

  • 18:58 Sorry, but monetary policy is an awesome subject. It's not boring at all. It's one of the most interesting things you can learn in macroeconomics.

  • wow, we were robbed of a really good debate which there were glimpses of. the individual arguing against the motion who discussed the effects of QE of demand and other areas was very enlightening and would have been a better direction for the debate to go than simply an argument over what was being argued.

  • Oh yeah, and IT DIDN'T WORK if they had to keep trying to fix it. How does everyone keep agreeing it worked. Not to mention the Fed isn't an arm of the government, it runs tax payers lives while simultaneously extorting them and their businesses. Poor choice of debaters unfortunately, could've used a proper opposition

  • Fed doesn't print anything, and prosperity is purchasing power, not supply of currency. Increasing supply reduces purchasing power (inflation).. . So this motion is intrinsically flawed

  • I just realized that there's a bias at play against the favored viewpoint from the first vote. If 90% agree off the top, a huge jump in change would occur for the opposition with only a few votes. Why not just take the final vote and let that decide?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *