Prof Steve Keen YouTube Channel in business again

flattr this!

Some time back a YouTube Channel "Prof­Steve­Keen” was estab­lished to col­late my video inter­views. It’s been inac­tive since then, but recently Syd­ney writer/director and mul­ti­me­dia reporter Benny Sutton–who has more than a decade’s expe­ri­ence in film­mak­ing and Aus­tralian broad­cast journalism–volunteered to pro­duce pro­fes­sion­ally recorded, reg­u­lar “Vid­casts” on a range of topics.

The first two, on whether the US econ­omy will expe­ri­ence a “Dou­ble Dip”, have now been posted to YouTube; you can watch them below, or via sub­scrib­ing to the YouTube Channel.

Will there be a US “Dou­ble Dip”? Part One

Will there be a US “Dou­ble Dip”? Part Two

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.

66 Responses to Prof Steve Keen YouTube Channel in business again

  1. ak says:

    So who is fund­ing these great Aus­trian sites?

    If Koch Bro are so effi­cient and get so much atten­tion for so lit­tle money spent maybe I should throw away my “sta­tist” views and con­vert to Aus­tri­an­ism on the spot as this is a proof that the mar­ginal effi­ciency of pri­vate Aus­trian fund­ing appears to be far greater than the state competitors.

    Never mind who is right or wrong…

  2. peterjbolton says:

    @ Mish — Who is to blame?

    The mar­kets failed. All this would not have occurred if banks in Ger­many and France had not lent so much,” says econ­o­mist Desmond Lach­man of the Amer­i­can Enter­prise Insti­tute. “It was like the U.S. hous­ing mar­ket.” Both Amer­i­can and Euro­pean banks went over­board in relax­ing credit standards.

    Mar­kets Failed” Says Desmond Lachman

    Com­ment by Mish:

    Few eco­nomic state­ment make my hair stand straight up more than that bit of com­plete non­sense from Lach­man. The mar­kets did not fail. Bureau­crats who dreamed up the Euro failed.”

    My com­ment: Clearly it is “lead­er­ship” that has failed and as a result the cur­rent mod­els of sta­tism — within the brew and slews and stews of Fas­cism. Marx­ism, Social­ism etc., tighten their grip of social con­trols as des­per­ate mea­sures to have the full bur­den of pay­ments (for their incom­pe­tences met by the unwashed pub­lic through the won­der­ful pain of Austerity-for-all (except the usual cho­sen ones).

    These failed “Lead­ers” who are hav­ing their gross incom­pe­tences and irresponsibility’s dis­played pub­li­cally and glob­ally to lev­els that leave no doubts, what­so­ever, are now prepar­ing for a con­fronta­tion between “Us & Them” — which is no obvi­ously build­ing like a wild fire before the wind.

    Greece is no des­per­ate at the run on the banks con­tinue and fiat is being exchanged for Gold which leaves Greece less Gold and can­not bor­row at 25% inter­est rates while the IMF can­not do its stuff because Greece has tech­ni­cally defaulted. Greece was bailed out 3 years ago and here we are again — to be fol­lowed by the other PIIGS + more.

    Any doubts as to the trend?

    There is no phe­nom­ena more pro­lific that “bureaucracy”.

  3. Lyonwiss says:

    Ak May 31, 2011 at 7:50 am

    It is an inter­est­ing link on research fund­ing. Note that Art Car­den did not deny the exis­tence of con­flict of inter­est, say­ing: “…we worry way too much about intel­lec­tual cor­rup­tion from pri­vate money and way too lit­tle about intel­lec­tual cor­rup­tion from gov­ern­ment money, but I could very well be wrong.” He is absolutely right in that there is intel­lec­tual cor­rup­tion nearly everywhere.

    Gov­ern­ment research gen­er­ally means find­ing evi­dence to sup­port a pub­lic pol­icy or polit­i­cal bias, nowa­days often pay­ing “inde­pen­dent” con­sul­tants to come out with the required results. Eco­nomic research grants are given to sup­port and elab­o­rate on dif­fer­ent reli­gions: the main­stream, Aus­trian, post-Keynesian etc, depend­ing on the source. Lobby groups for banks, invest­ment man­agers, estate agents are con­stantly com­ing out with research to sup­port their own indus­tries. Tobacco research is to cast doubt on the link between smok­ing and health etc. The say­ing “He who pays the piper calls the tune” is self-evidently true, but is ulti­mately counter-productive.

    Con­sid­er­ing the large amount of money, the large num­bers of researchers and advanced tech­nol­ogy deployed, the achieve­ment in recent decades is rather dis­ap­point­ing, to say the least. I note that some of the great­est advances in the arts and sci­ences occurred in the 17th and 18th cen­tury, when there was hardly any insti­tu­tional fund­ing for research. Rel­a­tively few peo­ple of inde­pen­dent means, often sup­ported by rich patrons, pur­su­ing knowl­edge mostly as hob­bies, with­out finan­cial motives, made enor­mous advances, lay­ing the foun­da­tion for Euro­pean dom­i­na­tion in the sub­se­quent indus­trial revolution.

  4. peterjbolton says:

    @ Lyon­wiss May 31, 2011 at 6:57 pm | #

    In my opin­ion, paid for “art” is not art but fash­ion — look at Roubine and Krug­man for example.

    Intel­lect”: — in the main it doesn’t exist –espe­cially in the paid domain.

    We need to under­stand the char­ac­ter­is­tics and attrib­utes ie nature of the “col­lec­tive” while attempt­ing to break free to achieve the nature and being of the “indi­vid­ual”. I speak of nat­ural physics.

    Until we do this, we remain doomed by the neg­a­tive ener­gies of our lower energies.

    The defence:

  5. Lyonwiss says:

    Peter­jbolton May 31, 2011 at 8:52 pm

    Yes, enough of Roubini and Krug­man: “It’s hard to think clearly when your pay depends on it”.

  6. Lyonwiss says:

    Some of the “main­stream” is finally com­ing around to an under­stand­ing of the real­ity, as opposed to many of the aca­d­e­mic econ­o­mists of fixed reli­gious per­sua­sions, who don’t even look at any data, before they sprout their fan­tasies. Not mean­ing to endorse every­thing they say, my brows­ing of Borio and Disyatat’s BIS paper indi­cates a depar­ture from aca­d­e­mic main­stream deserv­ing of some con­sid­er­a­tion. The con­clu­sion of their abstract reads:

    We con­jec­ture that the main con­tribut­ing fac­tor to the finan­cial cri­sis was not “excess sav­ing” but the “excess elas­tic­ity” of the inter­na­tional mon­e­tary and finan­cial sys­tem: the mon­e­tary and finan­cial regimes in place failed to restrain the build-up of unsus­tain­able credit and asset price booms (“finan­cial imbal­ances”). Credit cre­ation, a defin­ing fea­ture of a mon­e­tary econ­omy, plays a key role in this story.

    I would inter­pret ‘the “excess elas­tic­ity” of the inter­na­tional mon­e­tary and finan­cial sys­tem’ as due to the work­ings of the fiat money sys­tem. This full paper is here:

    I wait to see whether the BIS bureau­cracy will per­mit their researchers to pur­sue this line of inquiry, which would or should log­i­cally lead to some rad­i­cal reforms.

  7. ferb says:

    Seri­ously, you could not have made this shit up.….any more per­fectly than what is comig out of the media this week.

    The banks aren’t bad.…oh

    Aussie econ­omy is unique.….oh–20110601-1ffjw.html

    Hous­ing is affordable…oh

    Home sales goin gangbusters.…oh

    This is hilar­i­ous. Just hilar­i­ous to watch every­one run for the books to fig­ure out why it all went wrong.…and then still get the blame/cause wrong.

    Aus­tralia, you are about to enter a world of hurt…brace yourselves..

  8. peterjbolton says:

    The decom­mis­sion­ing of the Fukushima 1 nuclear plant is delayed by a sin­gle prob­lem: Where to dis­pose of the ura­nium fuel rods? Many of those rods are extremely radioac­tive and par­tially melted, and some con­tain highly lethal plutonium.”

    Under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), signed by Japan in 1970, Washington’s nego­tia­tors stip­u­lated that used nuclear fuel from Japan­ese reac­tors must by law be shipped to the United States for stor­age or repro­cess­ing to pre­vent the devel­op­ment of an atomic bomb. Wash­ing­ton has been unable to ful­fill its treaty oblig­a­tions to Tokyo due to the pub­lic out­cry against the pro­posed Yucca Moun­tain stor­age facil­ity near Las Vegas.”

    And our bent is to trust the Americans?

    This is some­thing to watch, very closely indeed and ensure that it doesn’t come to Australia.

  9. Pingback: Will US Housing Market trigger a double dip? « Decisions, Decisions, Decisions

  10. alainton says:

    One thing that would force a dou­ble dip is if finan­cial reg­u­la­tors forced banks to de-leverage on behind mort­gages — arn’t they aware of the para­dox of de-leveraging?

    The numb­skulled Finan­cial Ser­vices Author­ity in the uk is urg­ing strongly banks not to show forbearance,

    I have a go at them on my blog — man­aged for­bear­ance is the solu­tion not the problem.

  11. Pingback: Obama And The TARP «

  12. UNSW_kid says:

    I like this analy­sis Steve but i’m not so cer­tain that the US is headed toward a dou­ble dip.
    You note that the pri­vate sec­tor is expe­ri­enc­ing the same type of reces­sion as Japan (where asset prices col­lapsed and lia­bil­i­ties remain), and that govt. deficit spend­ing is alle­vi­at­ing the sit­u­a­tion, but so long as deficit spend­ing remains large enough I don’t see the imme­di­ate prob­lem with the US econ­omy being sup­ported by the govt.
    Since the pri­vate sec­tor clearly needs more money, and can only run a sur­plus (able to save and pay down debt) when the net of the govt. and cap­i­tal account is in deficit, it is clearly a case where govt. deficit spend­ing has been just large enough to pro­duce mea­ger growth.

    No sov­er­eign cur­rency nation has to rely on the clas­si­cal eco­nomic ideal of an always self sus­tain­ing pri­vate sec­tor, after all the role of govt. is to fur­ther the pros­per­ity of the pri­vate sec­tor, not to ben­e­fit at its expense.
    How­ever the banks should have failed, how­ever they sur­vived stronger then before. They feed off every­one, and every­thing, instead of pro­vid­ing their actual role of aid­ing cap­i­tal dis­tru­bu­tion and greas­ing the cap­i­tal­ism sys­tem they canna­balise every per­son who uses it to no ben­e­fit to the econ­omy other then to them­selves.
    This was bad pol­icy and set a shock­ing prece­dent.
    Free mar­kets, no more.

    I see the major risk to a major con­trac­tion would be con­gress push­ing through some ridicu­lous ‘fis­cally respon­si­ble’ plan reduc­ing the deficit to a degree such that it instantly crip­ples the econ­omy.
    You have wit­nessed it in Japan over the last two decades, every time the Japan­ese govt. has tapped the breaks on deficit spend­ing it has lead to an instant recession.

  13. Steve Keen says:

    I agree that Con­gress push­ing through a deficit reduc­tion pro­gram will be a night­mare right now UNSW_kid–I think a dou­ble dip will appear with­out that given the dynam­ics of pri­vate debt, but that move would amplify the prob­lem. I dis­agree with other aspect of the Char­tal­ist argu­ment however–which I think is well known here–and I’ll artic­u­late why in com­ing months.

  14. Pingback: Links 5/29/11 | Jackpot Investor

  15. Pingback: Re: ?ysenkizm w ekonomii | Gospodarcze Informacje

Leave a Reply