Tonight with Vincent Browne 18.04.12

flattr this!

Steve took part in a dis­cus­sion on the state of the Eurpean Union econ­omy on Tonight with Vin­cent Browne on the 18 April while in Ire­land. The con­ver­sa­tion explores the flaw of the Maas­tricht Treaty and poten­tial eco­nomic solu­tions for the Euro­pean Union. A short 10 minute fea­ture of Steve is avail­able from the below YouTube clip or you may click here from to view the full length show.

About David Lawson

-Worked as a real estate agent in 2009, have since left the industry because I now see that it is all fuelled by euphoric expections and debt -Started to become concerned about the global debt bubble after reading 'The Credit Crunch' by Graham Turner about a year ago and have since followed Steve Keens debtwatch blog -Competed a Bachelor of economics in 2004 specalising in iternational trade and finance -Lived in the USA for 5 years of my life, have witnessed first hand there frivolous spending patterns and watched our country become the same over the course of last 10 years
Bookmark the permalink.

80 Responses to Tonight with Vincent Browne 18.04.12

  1. Uno Cualquiera says:

    There are more peo­ple in Spain writ­ing about electronic-only par­al­lel “closed” cur­rency.
    It would have the same value as euro, but it would only be valid in Spain and could not be swapped for euros. Only elec­tronic: all trans­ac­tions with notes and coins would be in euros, as well as exter­nal trans­ac­tions.
    Pub­lic staff and pen­sion­ers would receive part of their salary in new europe­se­tas, reduc­ing pres­sure on pub­lic debt. Spain could buy toxic assets in banks with new europe­se­tas, which banks would use to pay part of their expen­di­tures like salaries and lend cred­its to the enor­mous amount of ail­ing bussi­nesses in europe­se­tas (they’re dying right now with­out credit). Taxes would be par­tially paid in europe­se­tas. Pro­posal in Span­ish:

    That’s why I don’t under­stand those com­ments show­ing fears about fixed or float­ing exchange rates. The new cur­rency can­not be exchanged.

    Ran­dall Wray gives a hint of the same idea applied to a Job Guar­an­tee scheme for Ire­land in the penul­ti­mate page of this paper:

    The first would be to develop a new currency—let’s call it the punt—to be used for gov­ern­ment pay­ments of wages in the JG. All lev­els of gov­ern­ment would agree to accept the punt in pay­ment of taxes, fees, and fines. Assume that at gov­ern­ment pay offices the punt is accepted at par for euro tax debts. Let us fur­ther pre­sume that punts would be sup­plied only through gov­ern­ment pay­ment of wages to JG work­ers. Since JG work­ers as well as any­one with a tax due could use the punts to pay taxes, they would soon cir­cu­late widely. The gov­ern­ment would not make the punt con­vert­ible to euros—it would not sup­ply euros when punts are presented—but in pri­vate trans­ac­tions they would trade at close to par because in pay­ment of taxes they are equivalent.”

  2. daniel clarke says:

    the maas­tricht treaty and eu is only part about eco­nom­ics, hold­ing one part up and advo­cat­ing break­ing the treaty is throw­ing the baby out with the bathwater.

    it’s maybe not obvi­ous to non euro­peans, but there have been mas­sive social gains and sol­i­dar­ity brought about through euro­pean inte­gra­tion and solu­tions that put that at risk should not be triv­ially advo­cated. eco­nom­ics doesnt exist in a vac­uum, what­ever we do to solve this medium term cri­sis should not dam­age long term social coher­ence. break­ing up the euro would be a loss socially, the euro is not sim­ply an eco­nomic proposition.

    regards the spe­cific idea to me it appears that Steve has maybe not con­sid­ered if all his assump­tions are real­is­tic. apart from any­thing else (and there are many things jump­ing out such as how can the pri­vate sec­tor finance imports payed in euro when it sells to cus­tomers for unex­change­able punts), human nature alone means it cant work

    so at least one of the unre­al­is­tic assump­tions is that every­body would act in the best inter­est of the greater good even when it doesnt align with their own inter­est. in prac­tice every­body would be in favour of every­body else exchang­ing their euro for punt while keep­ing their own euro for the flex­i­bil­ity, enhanced guar­an­tee of value

    We clearly need help to find some solu­tion to employ­ment, endebt­ment and any­one who’s taken the time to under­stand Steve’s side of the argu­ment will want his ideas to be part of an even­tual solu­tion. How­ever, advo­cat­ing rip­ping up maas­tricht as if that’s some­thing pre­dictable, man­age­able and desir­able is sim­ply throw­ing away credibility

  3. NeilW says:

    it’s maybe not obvi­ous to non euro­peans, but there have been mas­sive social gains and sol­i­dar­ity brought about through euro­pean inte­gra­tion and solu­tions that put that at risk should not be triv­ially advocated”

    There may very well have been, but there are very few Euro­peans who want a United States of Europe.

    There­fore the sin­gle cur­rency and the strait­jacket sur­round­ing that can­not work.

    The com­mon mar­ket is a decent enough idea, but it doesn’t need ever greater cen­tral­i­sa­tion and removal of local democ­racy to func­tion. We can sell stuff to each other cleanly with­out all that.

    Sug­gest­ing that it will all dis­ap­pear if we change direc­tion is a Slip­pery Slope log­i­cal fal­lacy.

  4. Great stuff, Pro­fes­sor Keens. What is amaz­ing is that this analy­sis and these charts fit closely to the nar­ra­tive his­tor­i­cal evi­dence on the cur­rent cri­sis pre­sented in a vari­ety of recent works rang­ing from Dean Baker’s recent works to a num­ber of works by eco­nomic jour­nal­ists like Gretchen Mor­gen­son, Michael W. Hud­son, Kevin Phillips, Nomi Prins, and oth­ers. I am busy plow­ing through the lat­est edi­tion of Debunk­ing Eco­nom­ics, an excel­lent review of where most of the flawed or fal­la­cious eco­nomic notions came from and how they were devel­oped over the years, decades and cen­turies. One addi­tional thing that I believe needs to be built into our eco­nomic think­ing in order for us to achieve a coop­er­a­tive and pos­i­tive sum world order is an account of glob­al­iza­tion, trade, and zero sum forms of glob­al­iza­tion that have led to the mas­sive trans­fer of pro­duc­tive capac­ity and jobs in some advanced coun­tries to rapidly devel­op­ing giants of man­u­fac­tur­ing like China. I believe there now needs to be a for­mula for accel­er­ated devel­op­ment of coun­tries like China and India that is based on much higher wages and ori­en­ta­tion towards inter­nal mar­kets plus poli­cies to dis­cour­age the trans­fer of pro­duc­tive capac­ity by multi­na­tional cor­po­ra­tions. Also the nature of cor­po­rate orga­ni­za­tion or gov­er­nance needs to be addressed at the micro level. I can’t go into all of these issues here, but I think that they need to be worked into our the­o­ret­i­cal mod­els as well as poli­cies and insti­tu­tions. I think that the de-industrialization prob­lem is more acute in the United States than in some other smaller coun­tries that rely more on min­ing and agri­cul­tural exports than the US. I believe that glob­al­iza­tion in one major fac­tor which in addi­tion to regres­sive fis­cal and mon­e­tary pol­icy that has con­tributed to long run imbal­ances in the US econ­omy and increas­ing dis­par­ity in income dis­tri­b­u­tion. The con­cen­tra­tion of income and wealth that results from trade poli­cies of the US and China feeds the pool of spec­u­la­tive cap­i­tal and to imbal­ances between sup­ply and effec­tive pur­chas­ing power. I believe there is sub­stan­tial sta­tis­ti­cal end empir­i­cal evi­dence that a com­bi­na­tion of “mer­can­til­ism” and free trade fal­lacy has con­tributed to the cur­rent cri­sis. Here is a link to a select bib­li­og­ra­phy, I have com­piled on United States and global eco­nomic dis­or­ders.
    Any com­ments on how to work glob­al­iza­tion, automa­tion, tech­nol­ogy insti­tu­tions and orga­ni­za­tiona forms into a mul­ti­di­men­sional eco­nomic analy­sis that includes geo­graphic dis­tri­b­u­tion would be most wel­come.
    Thanks for your great blog and your valu­able book.

  5. Steve Keen says:

    Thanks Alan,

    I’ve tweeted your bib­li­og­ra­phy. Hope­fully that will help it’s exposure.

    Cheers, Steve

Leave a Reply