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.

17 Responses to Will you attend the CfESI AGM?

  1. sj says:

    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.

  2. Steve Keen says:

    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.

  3. sj says:

    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.

  4. koonyeow says:

    Title: I Love Your Com­ments Very Much, 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


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

  5. bryan willis says:

    Hi ‚not sure if you are aware of this just pub­lished paper


  6. Steve Keen says:

    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.

  7. AntiMoralHazard says:

    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!

  8. sj says:

    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.

  9. AntiMoralHazard says:


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

  10. aus_ed says:

    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! :-)

  11. AntiMoralHazard says:

    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

  12. AntiMoralHazard says:

    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?

  13. alainton says:

    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

  14. alainton says:

    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.

  15. aus_ed says:

    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…

  16. AntiMoralHazard says:

    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:

    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.

  17. AntiMoralHazard says:

    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?

Leave a Reply