Comments on: Time to read some Minsky

By: Kozak

Kozak — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 12:14:18 +0000

This is a very simple explanation of the Minskian moment that you can forward to your non economist friends

http://www.oftwominds.com/blogjuly12/neofeudal-middle-class7-12.html

By: Whitewashing the Economic Establishment « azizonomics

Whitewashing the Economic Establishment « azizonomics — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 23:16:04 +0000

[…] who did not see the crisis coming, and inaccurately trying to associate them with Hyman Minsky whose theory of debt deflation anticipated many dimensions of the crisis. Adding insult to injury, DeLong seems unwilling to […]

By: Steve Keen

Steve Keen — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:59:13 +0000

Thanks Ron, I’ve fixed it.

By: Ron Bowd

Ron Bowd — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:49:42 +0000

This is a trivial note, however, the URL link above to the lecture on Minsky’s theory has 4 wwww’s rather than 3. One ‘w’ needs to be removed.

http://wwww.debtdeflation.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/KeenManagerialEconomicslecture09EconomyAlternative.ppt

By: The Debtwatch Manifesto | Steve Keen's Debtwatch

The Debtwatch Manifesto | Steve Keen's Debtwatch — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 00:07:59 +0000

[…] Cavaliers of Credit Read Some Minsky Monetary Profits Paradox Are We “It” Yet? Monetary Multisectoral […]

By: George Monbiot Seminar « Real-World Economics Review Blog

George Monbiot Seminar « Real-World Economics Review Blog — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:06:04 +0000

[…] PhD students to Professors of some note–I went into more depth on the modelling I have done of Minsky’s Financial Instability Hypothesis than I normally do in public talks. The discussion I had afterwards is also recorded, which is why […]

By: George Monbiot Seminar | Steve Keen's Debtwatch

George Monbiot Seminar | Steve Keen's Debtwatch — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 21:23:51 +0000

[…] Cavaliers of Credit Read Some Minsky Monetary Profits Paradox Are We “It” Yet? Monetary Multisectoral […]

By: Steve Roth

Steve Roth — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 13:20:22 +0000

Yeah there's a reason national accounts only count structures, hardware, and software. The other stuff is really unmeasurable. That's why it all get tossed into the residual ("good will"), even by steely-eyed investors. Just to say, unmeasurable is far from unimportant. Another example: I did a back-of-the-envelope calc suggesting that non-remunerated (and unmeasured/uncounted) but decidedly productive "home work" in the U.S. is equivalent to a third of measured GDP. Not that I'm suggesting you should be correcting your work based on that. Just sayin'.

By: Steve Keen

Steve Keen — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 02:38:16 +0000

I think his papers in "Can "It" Happen Again? are sufficient Steve. JMK was his first (and last) attempt to be systematic about it on a grand scale. Take the point re real vs physical, but in economic modeling I mainly focus on the latter rather than the former. The creative accounting buried in much of what is called "goodwill" also sends my cynical gene apoplectic; but I acknowledge the importance of intellectual capital in genuine companies. And if you pull off the Soros connection, I'll fly to wherever you are for a celebratory drink. Second edition should be out by the end of September.

By: Steve Roth

Steve Roth — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 00:40:19 +0000

Thanks for the reply, Steve. I haven't read JMK (The Book) yet, will do so. Though I wonder if it's necessary in order to fully grasp his one big idea...? Just to say, I think it's clearer to talk about real vs financial (a la Bezemer) than physical versus financial. Real assets include (in addition to structures, hardware, and software) infinite varieties of human, cultural, and organizational capital: ideas, knowledge, methods, techniques, business processes, skills, etc., that can be created and developed through investment spending (flowing out of the stock of financial "assets"). Those largely intangible and unmeasurable (non-physical) assets may constitute by far the largest proportion of real assets. Looking around at all the businesses I've run, I've always been amazed at how little "stuff" we had. The businesses' value was all about being a going concern, and that was all a result of intangibles/unmeasurables. Hence the widespread valuation terminology: "good will" and "stockholder equity." BTW, I've read and re-read Debunking Economics, sent it to a few friends. Tried to track down a way to write to George Soros, to suggest that he give it away for free to every economics undergrad who asks. Could make for some very amusing class time... Looking forward to the next edition.