AMI Talks in FLV for­mat

Flattr this!

I made the mis­take of post­ing the talks from the AMI con­fer­ence in SWF rather than Flash Video for­mat; I’ll amend that post shortly, but in the mean­time here are the talk by myself and Michael Hud­son, and the panel dis­cus­sion.

Keen Talk: Why Credit Money Crashes

Steve Keen’s Debt­watch Pod­cast 

| Open Player in New Win­dow

Hudson Talk

Steve Keen’s Debt­watch Pod­cast 

| Open Player in New Win­dow

Hudson Discussion

Steve Keen’s Debt­watch Pod­cast 

| Open Player in New Win­dow

AMI Panel Discussion

Steve Keen’s Debt­watch Pod­cast 

| Open Player in New Win­dow

About Steve Keen

I am Professor of Economics and Head of Economics, History and Politics at Kingston University London, and a long time critic of conventional economic thought. As well as attacking mainstream thought in Debunking Economics, I am also developing an alternative dynamic approach to economic modelling. The key issue I am tackling here is the prospect for a debt-deflation on the back of the enormous private debts accumulated globally, and our very low rate of inflation.
Bookmark the permalink.
  • Frank

    Yes I see. The mul­ti­a­gent model would need to imple­ment agent behav­iour that had been made to fit the macro-data any­way. Per­haps with that aim the banks them­selves could help: they don’t have all infor­ma­tion but a more accu­rate sim­u­lacrum could be con­structed with anonymised trans­ac­tion and account data from mul­ti­ple banks over a long his­tory.

  • mahaish

    One last point. Many of the rich and pow­er­ful here in the States are “pri­vately” say­ing that the States will default on their debt within the next two years”

    impos­si­ble for the US gov­ern­ment to default soho,

    the rich and pow­er­full, well thats a dif­fer­ent mat­ter, they can default, unless the gov­ern­ment bails them out

  • @soho44 75

    Doing some latenight research and came across some 2012 pre­dic­tions. Not the Celente/Dellinger/Kaiser “the world’s going to end tomor­row” stuff. But what are your thoughts on this?”

    Haven’t heard of Dellinger.

    Infla­tion is still going up State­side. Some say the govt. has been bla­tantly lying about the rate for years.”

    It is a many tier econ­omy. You have the FIRE sec­tor and other sec­tors. Each sec­tor is expe­ri­enc­ing defla­tion or infla­tion and each sec­tor has a dif­fer­ent flow of veloc­ity of money.

    The CPI (Con­sumer Price Index) for Aus­tralia has risen around 3% annu­ally. Wel­fare has increased each 6 months to reflect the rise in the CPI. Those on wel­fare are plainly aware that infla­tion for neces­si­ties, rent, food, etc rises about 5% to 10% or more annu­ally. The Aus­tralian Gov­ern­ment is bit by bit, mak­ing the stan­dard of liv­ing worst for those who are poor. Such things are nor­mal for a Cor­po­ra­toc­racy dressed up as democ­racy.

    Has gold reached it’s peak yet? There’s still a lot of posi­tion­ing going on to main­tain that bub­ble.”

    No, gold will rise in respect to USD. Pos­si­bly US $2,000 by the mid­dle of next year. In AUD, the price of gold may just be the same.
    Using gold as a hedge against infla­tion may not help. Who was seen in the Amer­i­can MSM often from 2007 to now? Peter Schiff. One point of is argu­ment may come true. That is the USD may become worth­less but this may only apply inter­na­tion­ally. For those in Amer­ica, it may be a case of the con­tin­u­ous debate of if there is defla­tion or infla­tion. If the USD become worth­less than imports from China would be expen­sive for Amer­i­cans. Remem­ber, for Amer­ica to become a great pro­duc­ing nation again, a big change in work ethic must hap­pen. That means less time watch­ing foot­ball, base­ball, Amer­i­can dad and Amer­i­can idol.

    More cur­rency fights will hap­pen. Every­one will nat­u­rally say, what, OUR cur­rency is too high? Devalue it? We don’t think so.”

    For 2009, the GDP prod­uct of var­i­ous coun­tries or regions was (mil­lions of USD):

    EU 16,414,697

    US 14,119,050
    Japan 5,068,894
    China 4,984,731

    Now if the Chi­nese Yuan appre­ci­ated by 20% to the USD the GDP of China would be 5,981,677. If the Yuan appre­ci­ated by 40% to the USD the GDP of China would be 6,978,623. So Chi­nese GDP is not 35% of the size of US GDP but rather 42% or 49% of it’s size. Does this make sense to you?

    Jim Rogers: The sec­ond (and much worse) eco­nomic melt­down is roughly 2 years away. What does he base this on? First, the above. Sec­ond, the lock that China has on the State­side econ­omy.”

    I know of his name. Con­cern­ing China, see below.

    If you really think another coun­try is an out-of-con­trol empire builder, what bet­ter way to bring them down a few lev­els than thru their econ­omy?”

    China has a 2 Tril­lion dol­lar war chest. Half of which I believe is tied up in secu­ri­ties (etc) denom­i­nated in USD. Any­way China is fac­ing the New Great Game by build­ing Oil and Gas pipelines and not dream­ing up some visions of grandeur sit­ting in ivory tow­ers trum­pet­ing the virtues of truth and free­dom in some 21st cen­tury world order.

    Do you agree that another one will come that soon? If not, what do you base that on? Another aspect: the Novem­ber elec­tions. If the neo­cons win, Obama’s essen­tially a 2nd half lame­duck leader.”

    The US Titanic by math­e­mat­i­cal prob­a­bil­ity (if not cer­tainty) is going to sink if it does not change course now.

    I base this on falling amounts in US income tax and pay­roll tax, uneven growth, thus uneven debt growth by the var­i­ous sec­tors (see D.1) and the dis­tri­b­u­tion of wealth in Amer­ica.

  • soho44

    @Alan,

    I agree w/some of your points. But as for oth­ers:

    To me, Peter Schiff has no cred­i­bil­ity. First, he keeps play­ing off the “social­ism is evil” mantra that so many neo­cons fol­low. Sec­ond, in an old SBS inter­view with Negus and Steve, he basi­cally said there’s no such thing as home­less­ness in the States. We have plenty of empty houses. If that’s true, then how come so many hom­less peo­ple aren’t allowed to live in them as shel­ters? I’ve been home­less twice. So to me, that’s very offen­sive.

    Re; com­modi­ties. Yes, gold will always be a haven to many. As for other things (sil­ver, water, oil and oth­ers), there’s either a shrink­ing sup­ply in some. Or, rich and pow­er­ful play­ers in the mar­ket are try­ing to manip­u­late them and posi­tion them­selves to make a killing. Exam­ple: T. Boone Pick­ens and nat­ural gas. Part of his approach is to again exploit the “Obama and Democ­rats are a bunch of social­ists” idea. He’s the only one with the guts to actu­ally do the “right thing” to fix this. Which is why the busi­ness MSM here eat this stuff up.

    Does one per­son lit­er­ally have the power to destroy the mar­kets? No. Not even George Soros (despite all the busi­ness MSM peo­ple in the U.K. who love to have a go at him). 

    One key that I’m see­ing? Lots of coun­tries pub­li­cally say nice sound­bites about work­ing together, bi-lat­eral agree­ments and more. But the real­ity is that’s all rub­bish (no sur­prise, right).

    Obama crit­i­cizes China for “cur­rency manip­u­la­tion”. Yet, he’s manip­u­lat­ing the dol­lar into the ground. What’s the jus­ti­fi­ca­tion? “To main­tain our way of life”(to main­tain our supe­ri­or­ity in the world).

    How many EU coun­tries stick to the treaties that all mem­bers have signed? Very few. It’s no big shock then that many peo­ple are short­ing the Euro to cash in on the EU pos­si­bly falling apart? 

    Nobody will honor their agree­ments. Nobody will pay atten­tion to intl. law on var­i­ous issues (unless it clearly ben­e­fits them). Nobody will devalue their cur­rency. What’s the jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for all of this? Many of the rich and pow­er­ful say that’s how the “real world” works. So it’s ok. But, if I have a busi­ness and I go bank­rupt, I’m expected to just take it and declare bank­ruptcy because, well, that’s how busi­ness is done.

  • sir­ius

    Off topic” — but do you see the pat­terns and con­nec­tions ?


    In July, hedge fund Arma­jor pur­chased in a sin­gle trade a quan­tity of cocoa beans equiv­a­lent to 7% of global pro­duc­tion, help­ing push cocoa prices to their high­est level in over three decades. Arma­jor had effec­tively cor­nered the world mar­ket in ware­housed cocoa beans.


    The report pro­vides a clear analy­sis of how finan­cial mar­ket dereg­u­la­tion has cre­ated a world in which the price of vir­tual food, traded through exotic finan­cial instru­ments, can drive move­ments in the price of real food — and with it drive up the num­ber of hun­gry, which in 2008 sur­passed one bil­lion peo­ple.

    http://cms.iuf.org/?q=node/552

  • Jason Mur­phy

    Folks I have enough ideas to keep me going for weeks! Thanks for the lit­tle direc­tional nudges.

    The time has come to build! [Though I expect the first attempt will be very much the stick man of mod­els!]

  • TruthIs­ThereIs­NoTruth

    there is no such thing as con­tin­u­ous time, either in trad­ing or eco­nomic events, but also there is not such this as con­tin­u­ous time in com­puter sim­u­la­tion. Even Vis­sim must dis­cre­tise the sim­u­la­tion some­how.

    The key to dis­creti­sa­tion is get­ting it right, sim­ply trans­form­ing the equa­tion into it’s dis­crete coun­ter­parts may seem like the right thing to do but in fact it is not. The cor­rect way to do it is with a Tay­lor expan­sion, I’m not pre­sum­ing this is not known but the descrip­tion of the symp­toms sounds like the dis­creti­sa­tion may not be done prop­erly. But we may also be talk­ing about dif­fer­ent things alto­gether.

    In terms of the agent sim­u­la­tion, in my opin­ion there must be an ele­ment of ran­dom­ness in the agent behav­iour. You may argue that agents actions are not ran­dom, but when aggre­gated they are effec­tively ran­dom, I would be look­ing at repli­cat­ing a dis­tri­b­u­tion of out­comes rather than an out­come from a spe­cific macro model.

  • Pingback: American Monetary Institute presentation | Economics for People()

  • Mike Stasse

    Well that’ll learn ya! I gave up on win­doze more than ten years ago. THIS lap­top came with win­doze 7, but I [almost] never use it.… a CONSTANT source of aggro and frus­tra­tion.

    As soon as I bought this com­puter, I loaded it with Ubuntu, my favourite dis­tro of Linux, and have never looked back.…. never crashes, never catches ITD’s (Inter­net Trans­mit­ted Dis­eases) and is eas­ier to use. And it’s FREE! As is every other piece of soft­ware that works in it, and I use scientific/graphic/communications spe­cial­ist stuff.

    Ubuntu comes with a “soft­ware cen­tre” which allows you to down­load HUNDREDS of dif­fer­ent kinds of soft­ware, all free. Just yes­ter­day my wife needed new busi­ness cards.… down­load a small pro­gram that did a great job. FREE.

  • Pingback: Why credit money doesn’t have to crash. And why it always does. « Pengar? Nej tack!()

  • Elstead

    Why Credit Money Crashes — This is fas­ci­nat­ing.

    My ten­u­ous under­stand­ing is that, under cer­tain con­di­tions which are not oner­ous, sta­ble growth is pos­si­ble in a credit money only sys­tem. How­ever, spec­u­la­tion will intro­duce insta­bil­ity.

    Hypo­thet­i­cally, if con­di­tions could be imposed to penalise spec­u­la­tion, then a con­tin­u­ous pri­vate sec­tor zero bal­ance (or maybe sur­plus) is pos­si­ble. Is that cor­rect?

    If so, is gov­ern­ment deficit spend­ing sub­si­dis­ing spec­u­la­tion?