Google–lower bandwidth version

Flattr this!

A number of readers have complained that the video of my talk at Google took up too much bandwidth, resulting in “jerky” vision. Here are the same two files in a somewhat lower quality compression–half the size of the original files.

Steve Keen's Debtwatch Podcast 

| Open Player in New Window

Steve Keen's Debtwatch Podcast 

| Open Player in New Window

As one viewer noted, it is also feasible to download the files to your PC and view there without bandwidth problems during playback.

Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Google–lower bandwidth version

  1. Up And Away says:

    Oh Ohhh

    Last week Westpac cut its loan-to-value ratio (LVR) for new customers to just 87 per cent of the property’s value – a new low for a big bank.

  2. Gav says:

    OK, Lyonwiss, how do YOU decide how much a piece of land is “really” worth?

  3. Eternal Student says:

    That was an enjoyable talk, btw.

    I don’t know if people have seen this updated version of the Credit Suisse Reset wave, but I found this pertinent and interesting:

    I don’t know how accurate these folks are. But if it is, it’s tempting to issue a doom-and-gloom warning for 12/12/2012. Or perhaps 12/21/2012 if you believe the Mayans. 🙂 I’m being somewhat whimsical about those dates, but not the year.

  4. simonp says:

    Many thanks for the videos Steve, I’ve been a sometime lurker.
    I tried both versions of the video on a fast connection and was plagued with the buffering problem too, I got round it by pressing pause now and again. I use VLC player it is a great streamer might be worth just posting a link to the stream.

    With regards to your video content, I see a big fight developing between different factions in the US, you see many blog sites with videos stating why they hate Obama , blaming him for everything, so I tend to think that something bad will happen there are there are too many people seeking the power and they have guns and Blackwater too.

  5. Lyonwiss says:


    I have no idea how much a piece of land is “really” worth. It depends on many variables: location, economic environment, personal circumstances etc., which fluctuate over time. My decisions to buy properties have never been based on rational economic valuation of land, which is virtually impossible to do for most people. Nor were the decisions based on speculation on capital gains. The first reason was having somewhere stable to live and the second reason was effective saving.

    My main assumption was that properties are real assets and therefore they should maintain their real values over the long-term. For this reason, it is an effective long-term savings vehicle. When I bought my last property in the mid-80s, inflation was just under 10%, cash rate and mortgage rate were more than 15% and my marginal personal income tax rate was nearly 50%. Investment returns on personal savings would have to be 30% p.a. to beat saving through my own residential property, without assuming capital gains (above inflation).

    The popularity of residential properties as saving vehicles is substantially driven by personal tax considerations within a volatility economic environment. This may have caused the observed capital gains, which in turn have attracted investment property speculators, for whom capital gains are essential (with negative gearing etc.), but not for owner-occupier like me. Property speculators will come and go as bubbles inflate and deflate, with land prices doing similar gyrations. How much a piece of land is “really” worth? Thank goodness I didn’t have to answer the question, before I made my decisions.

  6. hayden says:

    On the first video @ 47min:40sec a guy asks the question about interest rates being 18% and that the Mortgage to GDP debt would have been greater etc. He does not understand, yes rates were 18%, but the homes/land people were buying were a 1/4 of the price they are now and 18% mortgage was only 25% of the average wage on repayments.

  7. Brian Macker says:

    Professor Keen,

    I’ve read your Roving Cavaliers of Credit and listened to some of your videos here. I think you misunderstand Austrian economics.

    You state: ”
    We are therefore not in a “fractional reserve banking system”, but in a credit-money one, where the dynamics of money and debt are vastly different to those assumed by Bernanke and neoclassical economics in general.[10]

    [10]And, for that matter, by Austrian economics, whose analysis of money is surprisingly simplistic. Though Austrians advocate a private money system in which banks would issue their own currency, they assume that under the current money system, all money is generated by fractional reserve lending on top of fiat money creation. This is strange, since if they advocate a private money system, they need a model of how banks could create money without fractional reserve lending. But they don’t have one.”

    First off there is nothing incompatible between the Austrian monetary model and a system where the banks expand credit first and the government back fills with fiat credit. In fact Mises said as much when he complained the central banks allow the private banking system to increase lending beyond what is possible without it. In fact I don’t see the Austrian model being what you’ve claimed. Of course, banks create the increase in the money supply and then in a fiat system the central bank fills in behind. That’s still a fractional reserve monetary system, and is quite compatible with the temporal order of money expansion, banks first, fiat later.

    At this point I don’t see your point about overall debt levels or why that would be incompatible with the Austrian model. Seems perfectly compatible with their model to me. Nor do I understand why you think the Austrian analysis of money is so simplistic. Your short article certainly didn’t capture it, yet you make it sound even simpler than what you described.

    It’s almost as if you haven’t read and understood the Austrian economics. Either that or I’m missing something myself.

    Why in the video have you claimed that only one economist has predicted this mess when in fact the Austrians have been howling about the stupidity of past and current actions for a long time, and it fact their model predicts what’s happened?

  8. Steve Keen says:

    Hi Brian (RE #32 on Google bandwidth),

    Rather apropos of the discussion that’s been raging here recently between Chartalists and Circuitists, I freely admit that I am better informed of the weaknesses of neoclassical than Austrian economics–I have certainly not read Austrian economics as deeply as I have read neoclassical.

    I also agree that many Austrians predicted this crisis, and I didn’t claim to be the only economist who predicted it–just “one of”. The paper from which that list is compiled–which was not put together by me but by Professor Dirk Bezemer in the Netherlands who was unknown to me prior to his paper being published–notes Peter Schiff as well as myself and another 10 economists.

    There are fundamental aspects of Austrian economics–its theory of value, and its theory of capital–which I reject, for the same reasons that I reject the related if somewhat different theories within neoclassical economics. But at the same time I see strengths, versus only weaknesses in neoclassical theory.

    I don’t have time to dwell on those now–in the same sense as my recent comments on Chartalism vs Circuit theory, the main game for me is always the neoclassical case. But I can’t help being asked questions about Austrian economics in public, and I have to give some answer–and that creeps into my online papers as you note.

  9. Brian Macker says:

    Professor Keen,

    Thank you for your response.

    I heard in one of your videos that you have written criticisms of Austrian economics, so I will read those from your book, and will look for the online stuff you suggested.

    I misremembered the claim I was objecting to regarding predictions (and you are correct you mentioned Austrians). It’s at the 9:00 mark in the first video, where you claim “Economists don’t consider credit at all in the way they model the economy…” This however is not true since Austrians do.

    Also to counter your footnote [10] above where you write, “And, for that matter, by Austrian economics, whose analysis of money is surprisingly simplistic.” take a look at the chapter on “The Elasticity of the Reciprocal Cancellation” from Mises’ the Theory of Money and Credit written in 1912.

    As you can see he covers the issue of your simple cavalier of credit model when he writes: “If, instead of payment in money, claims on third persons are transferred which are canceled by the transferee and the debtor by means of claims held by the latter against the former, the sphere of the offsetting process can be extended.” The entire chapter covers the topic.

    I’m talking about the simple model as in this picture:

    Did you ever wonder when looking at that picture what establishes the price level? If we take the picture literally there is nothing to establish price levels. I mean how many of bank note X’s is a pig worth for the very first such transaction? Since the money created by this method (assuming no commodity money and no possible chartalism the question arises as to what establishes price levels. If it is existing price levels then the system is prone to random walks shifting price levels all over the place.
    My uneducated opinion (based on a quick read) at this point is that your models are a in fact modeling a subset of Austrian theory. Any differences (and extra complexities of Austrian theory) are ignored by your models.

    You can’t solve the issue by saying “one pig unit” because then you are truly dealing in a commodity money.

    Austrian theory leads to credit crunches even without fiat money and central banks. Those only aggravate the problem by allowing the fractional reserve monetary inflations to go on for longer periods (credit expansions in your lingo). There are other aggravating factors like FDIC insurance, GSEs, etc. The third party money creation issue is inherent in fractional reserve banking based on a commodity money.

    Note that calling a commodity money system a barter system is wrong.

    I wish Austrians would create math/computer simulations of their economic models like you do. Can’t blame Mises writing in 1912 but modern Austrians are behind the curve.
    I think what you are doing is very valuable.

    I am puzzled by your claim that debt dwarfing money supply being some kind of falsification of fractional reserve models. Fractional reserve models can support an infinite amount of debt, it’s just a matter of keeping low actual reserves. With the GSEs acting like banks and having leverage amounts of 50x or more the debt can easily reach 50x. I will read more of your writings to see if I can get a better take on what you are claiming. So don’t bother responding.

Leave a Reply