What am I saying? The difference is when somebody else uses those laws, nobody writes about it. When I use it, they say, oh, Trump, Trump, Trump. The country's going bankrupt. Like we, if we don't take action, the entire government budget will be paying interest. If you want me money for anything, that's where we're headed. That's what bankruptcy means for God's sake. Trump, any long, you, I think you're making the economy better, you're gonna cause it to crash. A America will be fine if you add it all up by 2035, you have over 70. 4 trillion in debt. Numbers that conventional economists say should have no impact on the economy at all. In fact, that's what drives the booms and busts of the economy. The influential contrarian economist, Steve Keen, brilliant economist that criticizes much of modern economics, the research fellow at the Institute for Strategy, resilience and Security at University College in London. He's someone that each and every one of us has to listen to, whether we agree or disagree. You're Steve King. Well, you'd need to be living under a rock not to know that one major objective of the Trump Musk American government is to reduce the government deficit, preferably to zero, and it current is currently running at about $2 trillion a year. They hope to cut about $1 trillion of spending a. This year and ultimately cut up government spending so much that there's, it be no, uh, further deficit, there'll be a balanced budget or preferably even a surplus. And this is Musk explaining why sees is necessary on Joe Rogan. Recently he's going bankrupt. Like we, if we don't take action, we're we're, that is gonna be worth nothing. And the, the interest payments, which are already 23% of, of to, of 23% of all governed income, income, taxes, tariffs, and everything is just going to pay interest right now. And that number is con continually a rising. So if we don't do something, the entire government budget will be paying interest. There won't be money for anything. No, there won't be money for social security. We won't have money for Medicare, nothing. That's where we're headed. That's what bankruptcy mean. And the same attitude is, is held by politicians. Of course, this is a Republican senator on the floor of the Congress says, I need to explain. Why? Why is there such angst? So I'm the idiot with all the economists on number four in ways and means. I'm not good at many things in life. I'm okay at math. What's going on that is stressing us. Last night I could barely sleep because I had read report after report after report. Here's our reality and forgive us, we just, we've been going as fast as we can in our office to find some way to explain what the hell's going on into this budget year United States debt. My congressional budget office is projected me. $37.2 trillion. They're projecting over the next 10 years. We add another $20 trillion. If you add it all up by 2035, you have over 74 trillion in debt. You're somewhere in the 155 or so percent of the entire economy is borrowed. Today we're a little less than a hundred US Sovereign debt that was held by the public was around 28 trillion. These numbers right now say that number that took what? 240 years? A publicly held debt we intend to double in nine years. This is my four minute spiel. When you see some of us stressing out, when you see some of us, he's being disharmonious. Maybe it's 'cause I own a damn calculator. Now the same case is made by a prominent economist. This is, uh, Jeffrey Sachs. We also have a range of financial issues, which are pretty complicated. The United States has, uh, taken on so much public debt, uh, in uh, the last 30 years. Because both our political parties like to give tax cuts and like to make spending increases, uh, even though maybe on somewhat different things, uh, that, uh, both parties have been agents of deficits and debt accumulation. So our debt held by the public is about a hundred percent of GDP, but it's gonna soar in the coming years. And the textbooks equally teach the same idea. So this is Gro Green Man's macroeconomic text, probably the most popular macro textbook. On the planet these days. And he argues here that the most erect way in which government affects national saving is through public saving. And the diff this is the difference between what the government, uh, receives in tax revenue and what it spends when its spending exceeds its revenue. On the other hand, the government runs a budget deficit, which is negative public saving. And the budget deficit raises interest rates and crowds out private sector investment. The resulting reduction in the capital stock is part of the burden of national debt on future generations. Now, uh, if on the other hand, if it spends less than it raises in revenue, then it runs a surplus and it can use that surplus to retire government debt and also to stimulate private sector investment. Now that's the argument about the government's role in terms of how the banks are supposed to function or the monetary system works. Uh, textbooks teach what they call the model of loanable funds. And saving by households is a supply of, of Loanable funds. So households put some of their money, uh, into an account, which is loan out by banks, or they lend directly to, to firms. Uh, firms on the other hand, uh, they do, they do the borrowing. Either they borrow directly from households or they borrow through the banking sector. And the increase in government spending, if the government spends more than it takes back in taxation and that causes interest rates to rise and investment falls. Uh, so government pur purchases are said to crowd out investment by the private sector. I. Now this is how it's represented in textbooks. I use supply and demand diagrams to show what they think is going on and without a government deficit. Man Q shows, uh, this particular supply and demand diagram. So he has a fixed supply of, uh, savings. Now, that's how textbooks explain it. Of course, banks don't use supply and demand. Diagrams, they use double entry bookkeeping. To understand that you have to understand assets, liabilities, and equity. So I'll give a simple example to start with. Uh, I mentioned that Donald Trump, you know, needs a bit of a break from the White House, so he strolls out to the local McDonald's and buys a hamburger. Okay? You can show the transactions through the banking system in terms of double entry bookkeeping, just using a spreadsheet for that hypothetical transaction. So Donald Trump's, uh, bank account will fall by $5 and McDonald's bank account will rise by $5. Now, I've, I've developed a software package that it enables the double entry bookkeeping to be done at the inter, at the national level. It's called Revelation or Revel. Pardon? It's, it's called Revelation On the website there, its name is Rael. And this is a, uh, what we call a godly table, showing exactly the same operation as I've shown there by a spreadsheet. So, you know, you can do with a spreadsheet what you can do with RA at that level. But if you wanna show the full system, you actually need not one table, but five tables. You first of all need a table for the, uh, fed the, uh, the Fed because the Fed has to transfer reserves from the bank that Trump banks, banks, with which ISO bank to the bank that McDonald's banks with, which is TD Bank. So it has to transfer reserves from one bank to the other. And you need another two tables for the two banks involved. So Axo Bank, where Trump Banks and, uh, td, where McDonald's banks. And then what happens in, in this transaction is the assets and the liabilities of Axo Bank fall, the assets and the liabilities of TD Bank rise. And then for the individual level, you need two tables. One for Trump and one for McDonald's. And uh, in the case of when, for Trump's point of view, his financial net worth falls by $5, but he gets the hamburger. The financial worth of McDonald's rises by $5, which is why they sold the hamburger. So this is the five tables that you need to do to see that complete, uh, transaction and that you can't do in a spreadsheet or you'd be working bloody hard to do it. It's quite straightforward to do that unravel because it maintains that link between different tables because. What's an asset for one, uh, sector or entity in the model is a liability for the other. And it uses that to make a, uh, a complete VO vision of what's actually going on, uh, financially. And it can get Ravel for free from this particular link here on the, on the Patreon site to which we distribute ra. That'll give you a free copy of, of the, uh, program itself. And you can also, you also get the files that I'm putting together in this presentation here. Now to show that what I wanna do is model that model of, of Loanable funds in Ravel. And to do that, I've got the five tables that are necessary already set up in this version of Ravel for loanable funds. So I have the banks table, households, firms, treasury, and the Fed. So let's start, uh, modeling it by going to the banking sector table. And I'll just make it full screen here and make it a bit larger. So one asset that banks have is reserves. That's their accounts at the, uh, that the central, at the, uh, central bank, the Fed for Americans, of course. And we then have to have, uh, firms having deposit accounts at the bank, at the private banks households, and they're the ones who do the saving and the lending in the model of Loanable funds. And then the government. As well. And we, the, uh, the secret that Ravel uses to make the model the financial system is that assets minus liabilities are equal to your equity. Now, the bank's not doing anything in their system so far because according to the model of Loanable funds just taught by economic textbooks, banks are intermediaries. So they don't actually do the lending. They enable somebody else to lend the borrower, and they, of course, the only way intermediary can make money outta that is they charge a fee. Now, of course. Uh, debt was not in the bank's table. If you take a look again at that table, you'll see if there was debt is not there because the debt, uh, is an asset of the lender, not of the intermediary. So I've gotta create an extra column here and say we have debt of firms. There's debt f to save time here. And that of course is the, is the money flows out of the household accounts to the, to the firms, the household's keeping track of the fact that, uh, the firms now owe them that money. So that increases, uh, the, the amount of the, the value of the asset of debt by firms owed to households and everything else happens here. Sorry, I've got the government as well, so I've gotta create another column for the government here. So, debt of the government sector, and of course borrowing by the government reduces the bank balance of the households. It increases the debt, the house of the government owes the household. So that row is now correct. Everything else, uh, consuming by households, just like the hamburger example I used for Trump earlier, paying a fee to banks in, uh, interest from firms, interest from government, taxation and wages, they all affect the net worth. The equity of the household sector, and I've got a little, little command unravel. If I right click inside the equity column, I can choose balance equity, and it brings all those operations across in one go. Now, so we've got the households done. Let's now do the other, uh, elements of the system. So we have firms here, okay? And then the same story, if I zoom down on assets, there's just two left firms and government. So they're the operation for the firm sector. Now they owe money to the households. So the debt of the firms is a liability of the, uh, the firm sector that brings across the of the borrowing operation. However, here I've got the firm's net worth. I'll call this firm's equity. And everything else here affects their equity. So consumption by, uh, by households increases the net worth of firms as like McDonald's getting $5 from Trump for the hamburger. So the government trying to get into positive equity drives the remainder of the economy into negative equity, and then people speculate on asset prices. You get a boom and you get a bust, as we saw in the 1920s, as we saw in the 1990s. So Trump's and Musk's cuts could have the same impact. They're not intelligent. They're being done by people who have not properly modeled the system in which we're in. Get a copy of Ravel, for God's sake, Trump, uh, Elon, and work out what the hell's going on. You'll think good making the economy better, you're gonna cause it to crash. Now it's fine. I'm, I'm, I'm a great fan of what you are doing with SpaceX. Ire, I'm fully even more than you. I wanna see a human outpost on Mars. Okay? Desperately wanna see that happen. What you are doing in Rust Rocket Design, you make one rocket, it crashes. You build another, you've got a production line churning them out. You can make mistakes with each individual rocket because there's another one coming out of the factory. You only have one economy if you crash that your ambitions for Mars are gonna crash with it. Stop trying to cut the deficit. If you're like many other truth seekers and wanna learn 50 years of real economics from me in only seven weeks, you'll love my new seven Week Rebel Economist Challenge as well. To apply, go to apply dot Steve can free.com. If you qualify, you can attend my lectures, ask me questions personally every week, and make friends with a great group of like-minded people. So again, like many others, go to apply it@stevecanfree.com to apply as well for the seven week Revel Economist Challenge. Good luck.