Will you attend the CfESI AGM?

Flattr this!

As noted in Announc­ing the Cen­ter for Eco­nomic Sta­bil­ity AGM, the first Annual Gen­eral Meet­ing of the Cen­tre for Eco­nomic Sta­bil­ity Incor­po­rated will be held on Wednes­day Sep­tem­ber 7th at 6-9pm at the Syd­ney Mechan­ics School of Arts, 280 Pitt Street Syd­ney, Aus­tralia, from 6-9pm.

I need to have some idea of num­bers for cater­ing and room book­ing pur­poses. I know that most of the 12,000 sub­scribers to and 60,000+ monthly read­ers of this blog don’t live in Syd­ney or sur­rounds, but I would appre­ci­ate it if as many as are able to attend do so, and help get CfESI rolling.

If you can attend, please click on the link below to reg­is­ter:

Reg­is­tra­tion for CfESI AGM

Please also con­sider sign­ing up to CfESI: as you should be aware from read­ing this blog, I have run it “on the smell of an oily rag” for the last 4 years, with no fees or adver­tis­ing (though that is about to change). Dona­tions have helped, but have only been at a level that enables occa­sional soft­ware pur­chases, rather than truly sup­port­ing a research effort.

This was not a major prob­lem while the research was largely some­thing that only I could do. How­ever, now that I have received fund­ing from INET for the ini­tial devel­op­ment of a dynamic mon­e­tary macro­eco­nomic sim­u­la­tion pro­gram, there is a research project that I can’t do alone, and for which pub­lic fund­ing is required. I have hired one pro­gram­mer for the next year, which will enable the devel­op­ment of a min­i­mal pro­gram, when so much more can be done.

If a suf­fi­cient level of fund­ing is raised via the mem­ber­ship fees for CfESI, it will be able to both fund this research, and appear as a pub­lic part­ner in grant appli­ca­tions to schemes such as the Aus­tralian Research Council’s Link­age pro­gram. The min­i­mum indus­try part­ner fund­ing con­tri­bu­tion that the ARC will take seri­ously is $10,000 p.a., and so far CfESI is only about one third of the way there: about 50 peo­ple have signed up as pay­ing mem­bers, yield­ing about $3,500 p.a.

So if you’ve enjoyed this blog, and ben­e­fited from the analy­sis and dis­cus­sion here, please sign up. There are 3 lev­els of pay­ing mem­ber­ship, with the low­est fee being a mod­est US$13 p.a. (we are set­ting fees in US$ since both the audi­ence of this blog and the focus of CfESI are inter­na­tional, even though they are both based in Aus­tralia).

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.
  • sj

    Mr Keen
    All your research and mod­els are point­ing at unsta­ble eco­nom­ics?
    So the name for the AGM Cen­tre For Eco­nomic Sta­bil­ity Incor­po­rated sounds like a neo clas­si­cal con­vec­tion.

    Eco­nom­ics has no cen­tre.
    Only real cen­tre is frac­tal this can­not be mea­sure in a sta­ble way.
    Eco­nom­ics is chaos and unpre­dictable has crit­i­cal tip­ping points.

    Again we are back to mother nature and eco sys­tems far from a cen­tre of sta­bil­ity.

    Maybe the name needs to be changed to be more open to Mr Pop­per and Mr Taleb ideas?
    Shoe Walk­ing Eco­nom­ics or Snowy Cen­tre For Unsta­ble eco­nom­ics.
    Frac­tals are every­where in mother nature even snow flakes, so the unsta­ble crit­i­cal points would fit with the name and the story of your lost bet.
    I know these names will never be picked by the Uni­ver­sity elite, you must have a big fancy title that sounds intel­li­gent and seri­ous, but makes no sense in the real world of eco­nom­ics.

  • You should watch the lec­ture I’ll post on Youtube this week sj–on the Frac­tal Mar­kets Hypoth­e­sis.

    Note that the name of the Cen­tre includes “For … Sta­bil­ity”, not “Of … Sta­bil­ity”. the inher­ent propo­si­tion is that the sys­tem is unsta­ble, and if any poli­cies are needed, they are ones to sta­bilise it–not to make it more “effi­cient”, espe­cially as neo­clas­si­cals define the word.

  • sj

    Mr Keen
    For­give me for my tongue and cheek but no poli­cies can sta­bilise a frac­tal sys­tem when you reach a crit­i­cal tip­ping point.
    Eco sys­tems have their own timetable and no bril­l­liant new poli­cies will pre­vent a nat­ural cycle from hap­pen­ing.
    Your own mod­els must show this?
    Japan and Amer­ica try zero inter­est rates the sys­tem is more unsta­ble, bet­ter to clean out the sys­tem by doing noth­ing than try sta­ble poli­cies that don’t work.

    Who are ones to sta­bilise the sys­tem Mr Keen?
    Free mar­ket no pain no gain?
    Or union thugs, greedy spec­u­la­tors and high debt indi­vid­u­als scream­ing lower inter­est rates?
    I will bet on the lat­ter too much polit­i­cal pres­sure not to clean out the unsta­ble sys­tem.

  • koonyeow

    Title: I Love Your Com­ments Very Much, Sj

    Sj,

    How I wish if I could meet you per­son­ally. I am quite sure you have the sec­ond edi­tion of The Black Swan where Taleb talked about robus­ti­fy­ing a soci­ety through redun­dan­cies (like hav­ing two lungs and two kid­neys).

    Unfor­tu­nately, Taleb’s web­site

    http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/

    has turned ultra-styl­ish (or should I say ultra-min­i­mal­ist?).

  • bryan willis

    Hi ‚not sure if you are aware of this just pub­lished paper
    http://www.bis.org/publ/othp16.htm

    regards

  • Thanks Bryan,

    From the abstract their trig­ger lev­els of debt are absurdly high. Know­ing of Cec­chetti, I expect this is a very neo­clas­si­cal, equi­lib­rium-ori­ented analy­sis.

  • Anti­Moral­Haz­ard

    Hey guys,

    Just like to draw your atten­tion at this (http://www.differenthere.com/2011/08/on-internet-nobody-knows-youre-dog-or.html):

    Who are you really chat­ting with, when you post on that prop­erty forum or blog? A reg­u­lar per­son like your­self, or a paid spruiker, funded by the real estate indus­try?

    That’s the ques­tion that arose this week, when it was revealed on sev­eral major Aus­tralian prop­erty forums that groups of ‘shills’ or ‘spruik­ers’ may be bankrolled by big busi­ness and prop­erty groups to paint a false rosy pic­ture of the local real estate mar­ket.”

    Peo­ple like Aus_ed comes to my mind.

    Beware of the wolves, folks!

  • sj

    Anti­Moral­Haz­ard
    Never live in fear of another point of view.
    Infact good to get a insight from another per­son you don’t fall into the trap of all doom and gloom.
    Many blog­gers with dif­fer­ent points of view bb,elliotwave,Aus-ed Pj.
    That is how the mar­ket works many dif­fer­ent per­spec­tives thus wild swings in the mar­ket and you get a frac­tal.
    Real eco­nom­ics and mar­kets do not work on per­fect sta­ble poli­cies.

  • Anti­Moral­Haz­ard

    sj,

    It’s not the other point of view that is the prob­lem. It is the dis­hon­est liars that are the ones to beware.

  • aus_ed

    I am glad to hear that you still remem­ber me AMH, there must have been some­thing I said that still rever­ber­ates in your head to this day. 🙂

    For the record, no I’m not paid spruiker. Just prag­matic observer and stu­dent of real life. 

    Let’s be hon­est about it. What will I gain by con­vinc­ing you that not every­thing is doom and gloom? I am not pro­mot­ing any sites, I am not sell­ing you any­thing, I am not mak­ing a name for myself… Just express­ing my opin­ion on things that most peo­ple “just know are bad” with­out really try­ing to under­stand. Stand aside and look who has the most to gain and the motives behind that gloom become crys­tal clear. 

    Noth­ing that I said is untrue. You can­not lump alter­na­tive views with “dis­hon­est liars”. Con­trary to “informed opin­ions” of those who “know bet­ter”, mine is still prov­ing a more accu­rate reflec­tion of real­ity – no wide­spread falls in prop­erty prices (just a “mar­gin of error” mag­ni­tude in a few places) and no inter­est raises. I have a feel­ing you will remem­ber me for a long time, pon­der­ing what “should have been” but isn’t and will never be… 

    Get a life mate! 🙂

  • Anti­Moral­Haz­ard

    Oh, aus_ed, I’m sur­prised that you are still here.

    Weren’t you the one who ranted that Steve Keen is uneth­i­cal? http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2011/07/10/on-the-edge-with-max-keiser/comment-page-5/#comment-31388

    Yet you are still hang­ing out in a blog of a pro­fes­sor whom you think in uneth­i­cal. Very inter­est­ing… why? Oh I for­got, you are here because you want to stand up for the prin­ci­ple of pro­mot­ing the views of the ‘other side’.

    So, you are a very prin­ci­pled per­son right? Inter­est­ing, that’s what Bernard Salt is try­ing to advo­cate… that vested inter­est groups should seek out and counter ‘extreme’ views. Check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76-weCISRFQ&feature=player_embedded.

    So, let’s see how prin­ci­pled you are… Oops, some­one caught you out lying. http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2011/07/10/on-the-edge-with-max-keiser/comment-page-5/#comment-31401

  • Anti­Moral­Haz­ard

    What will I gain by con­vinc­ing you that not every­thing is doom and gloom?”

    You are paid to do so.

    Since you had been caught lying, why should we all believe you when you said you are not a paid spruiker?

  • alain­ton

    Two requests

    Can we have the lat­est com­ments wid­get back

    Can com­ment­ing on indi­vid­ual posts — as in hier­ar­chi­cal — be enabled in word­press

    Both would make things eas­ier to fol­low

  • alain­ton

    On the Cachettti paper notice­able how sev­eral of the Jack­son Hole papers were on

    1. Debt

    2. China likely to run out of steam by 2013 because of over-invest­ment and indebt­ed­ness

    The neo­clas­si­cal par­a­digm seems already bro­ken. The bond vig­i­lantes and a good many of the global macro funds seem to have split with it — los­ing a few tril­lion is a good test of a the­o­ret­i­cal struc­ture.

    Also peo­ple are beg­ging to twig on that aus­ter­ity nations tank and coun­tries like Ice­land that pur­sue a dif­fer­ent path recover. 

    Its just that, in Lakatos terms, a par­a­digm capa­ble of full replace­ment isn’t their yet.

    I have to say with­out fear of embar­rass­ing Steve that his clas­si­cally inspired dynamic mod­els of money, debt and growth is the best hope for doing this — com­bined with other work of course.

    But not there yet in show­ing a com­plete eco­nomic par­a­digm cov­er­ing cap­i­tal the­ory, inte­gra­tion of finance and macro, inter­est, trade, fis­cal mea­sures etc. So I can see eco­nom­ics enter­ing a decade of uncer­tainty with neo-clas­si­cal and other mod­els run­ning in an uneasy par­al­lel.

    A les­son from his­tory is that ulti­mately a par­a­digm gets replaced because of one school retir­ing and dying out as much as any­thing else.

  • aus_ed

    Thanks for ref­er­enc­ing those posts AMH. Now intel­li­gent read­ers of this blog can really see what you are on about. 

    And no, I am not paid to com­ment but I am of a view that vis­i­tors to this site should be warned that not all propo­si­tions put for­ward on this blog are a gospel. I stand by my com­ments that it is uneth­i­cal to spruik with­out appro­pri­ate caveats. The doom and gloom sce­nario is not excep­tion. There are plenty of peo­ple who can­not think for them­selves and are easy prey for extrem­ist views… If prof Keen is so car­ing about their wel­fare, why not plac­ing appro­pri­ate dis­claimer on the front page that this is all “just a the­ory” and the prac­ti­cal appli­ca­tion is not yet proven?

    Why I bother to visit this blog? Occas­sion­ally for the main com­men­tary but pri­mar­ily for quite inter­est­ing dis­cus­sions on ECONOMIC THEORY by mostly anony­mous par­tic­i­pants. It helps to broaden my per­spec­tive. I strongly rec­om­mend you try broad­en­ing yours by vis­it­ing sites that con­tain wider range of opin­ions on the prop­erty mar­ket.

    Funny that you insist I was “caught lying”. As far as I am con­cerned, prop­erty prices are not drop­ping in a hurry (in some places actu­ally going up). And I have no doubt that those who edu­cate them­selves about how var­i­ous classes of invest­ment work will find that prop­erty is an excep­tion­ally attrac­tive propo­si­tion. So, where is the lie? But hang on, how about that “40% drop in prop­erty prices” that was def­i­nite to hap­pen by now? Oops, the damn thing just refuses to go down. Now the call is that it “may hap­pen some time in the next 10 years”… Not to men­tion totally wrong calls on unem­ploy­ment and inter­est rates. 

    As you pointed your­self, “beware of wolves in sheep skin”… By the way, what’s your inter­est in pro­mot­ing doom and gloom story? Are you hop­ing that it will sway the mar­ket so you can pick up some prop­erty for your port­fo­lio at bar­gain prices? Who’s pay­roll are you on? Con­spir­acy the­ory can be applied to may sce­nar­ios…

  • Anti­Moral­Haz­ard

    Occas­sion­ally for the main com­men­tary but pri­mar­ily for quite inter­est­ing dis­cus­sions on ECONOMIC THEORY

    Really? Funny, I find you spruik­ing prop­erty more than you talk the­ory.

    Funny that you insist I was “caught lying”.”

    Sure, take a look at this again:
    http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2011/07/10/on-the-edge-with-max-keiser/comment-page-5/#comment-31401

    what’s your inter­est in pro­mot­ing doom and gloom story?”

    Can you find an instance of me pro­mot­ing doom and gloom?

    I can find many instances of you spruik­ing.

  • Anti­Moral­Haz­ard

    why not plac­ing appro­pri­ate dis­claimer”

    What about you? I’ve never seen you place any dis­claimer for your spruik­ing.

    But hang on, how about that “40% drop in prop­erty prices” that was def­i­nite to hap­pen by now?”

    And by the way, when did Steve Keen said that the 40% has hap­pen by now?

    Ah, you’ve clev­erly mis­rep­re­sented him. Oh, maybe that’s a delib­er­ate mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tion on your part?