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.
  • ak

    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…

  • @ 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”.

  • Lyon­wiss

    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.

  • @ 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:

  • Lyon­wiss

    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”.

  • Lyon­wiss

    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.

  • ferb

    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..

  • 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.

  • alain­ton
  • Pingback: Will US Housing Market trigger a double dip? « Decisions, Decisions, Decisions()

  • alain­ton

    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.

  • Pingback: Obama And The TARP «

  • UNSW_kid

    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.

  • 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.

  • Pingback: Links 5/29/11 | Jackpot Investor()

  • Pingback: Re: ?ysenkizm w ekonomii | Gospodarcze Informacje()