Chris Marter­son Inter­view

Flattr this!

Check out Steve’s lat­est inter­view with Chris Marten­son.

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.
  • RJ

    JS

    Isn’t the customer’s debt, i.e. the bank’s asset, just a bit more than the deposit, in the amount of the total inter­est owed? How do these two amounts net to zero? Aren’t they BOTH finan­cial assets to be traded around the finan­cial sys­tem at increas­ingly dis­parate val­ues?”

    ????

    Inter­est is another issue. As are bank fees etc. But all War­ren was refer­ring to here in this com­ment was the ini­tial jour­nal entry to set up the loan and bank deposit.

    The com­ment it nets to zero is unnec­es­sary really as of course it does. But so many peo­ple are con­fused about very basic dou­ble entry book keep­ing.

  • Glenn Stehle

    Lyon­wiss said:

    These com­ments apply to nearly every­thing you have quoted, even to those of Alan Holmes whose remarks are inac­cu­rate, exag­ger­ated to make a point, and have now been mis­in­tepreted, by those who have no first-hand expe­ri­ence to under­stand his remarks.

    So I sup­pose Steve Keen would have to be included amongst those “who have no first-hand expe­ri­ence to under­stand his remarks.”

    Your argu­ment is of course the same old hack­neyed argu­ment the bankers and their mouth­pieces have trot­ted out for years to defend their intel­le­cual and moral morass. The mes­sage is quite clear: “We are the experts. We are the only ones who under­stand. We are the only ones who know. Any­one who doesn’t march in lock­step with us is igno­rant and unin­formed. Tech­nocrats rule.”

    We cur­rently see this spu­ri­ous­ness being invoked against the Occupy Wall Street move­ment. We saw it invoked against those attempt­ing to rein in preda­tory sub-prime lend­ing in Geor­gia back in 2002. The rather sor­did tale begins here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/money-power-wall-street/ in Episode One at minute 26:30. The actual argu­ment is made at minute 31:30:

    Finan­cial Indus­try Lob­by­ist: None of these peo­ple have a clue of what’s going on. Nobody here under­stands the busi­ness….

    Gov. Roy Barnes: You would have though that I had rec­om­mended that we repeal the plan of sal­va­tion. And why were they so opposed to it? Money. Money.

    Finan­cial Indus­try Lob­by­ist: This bill will crip­ple the mort­gage busi­ness. It’s going to crip­ple real estate sales. It’s going to absolutely dev­as­tate the whole mar­ket in Geor­gia. I can guar­an­tee you.

    Lyon­wiss said:

    If you don’t like the rules of the game you have change them some­how. Expos­ing cour­rup­tion is a start.

    Well I’m expos­ing cor­rup­tion too. I’m try­ing to expose the kind of cor­rup­tion you engage in.

    In Wealth and Democ­racy, Kevin Phillips notes that there are two types of cor­rup­tion, “the hard and the soft.” Hard cor­rup­tion includes things like bribery, embez­zle­ment, fraud, swin­dling, and other “hard”—-criminal—-forms. But as Phillips goes on to explain:

    Less obtru­sive but at least as impor­tant has been the corol­lary cor­rup­tion of think­ing and writing—-the dis­tor­tions of ideas and value sys­tems to favor wealth and the biases of “eco­nomic man.”

    It is this later type of cor­rup­tion that you engage in, and I’m doing the best I can to point this out.

    Lyon­wiss said:

    You are not some­one I want to have a con­ver­sa­tion with. Please ter­mi­nate.

    Well if you can’t take the heat, then maybe you ought to think about get­ting out of the kitchen.

  • alain­ton

    RJ

    Why reply vio­lently to a sim­ple state­ment that a finan­cial asset has to be liq­uid before it can be spent as money — try and go into a sweet shop with a CDS and see what response you get?

  • TruthIs­ThereIs­NoTruth

    mahaish,

    Whether banks are funded in advance or not does not imply whether credit growth is sup­ply or demand dri­ven…

    More the­ory first think­ing, let’s not worry about the facts, let’s have a con­clu­sion first and inter­pret the facts to fit.

    In the real world, quan­tity and price are in lock step, to say banks are price con­strained is the same as say­ing they are quan­tity con­strained. Credit demand is very much affected by price, which a lot of the time depends on sup­ply. The pre­cur­sor to the GFC was a flood of cheap credit flow­ing into the US

    It is just as hard for me to get my head around why you would think lend­ing first makes sense on any level, as it is for you that this is not the case. The only dif­fer­ence is that I’m bas­ing what I say not on the­ory, belief, media or google searches but on pure expier­ence.

  • Lyon­wiss

    @ Glenn Stehle June 14, 2012 at 11:00 pm

    I crit­i­cize aca­d­e­mic mon­e­tary the­o­ries as being unre­al­is­tic (money cre­ation at will) with no con­sid­er­a­tions of default, loss or fraud, which are the real-world expe­ri­ence of risk man­age­ment and reg­u­la­tion. Fraud is the fail­ure of gov­ern­ment reg­u­la­tion. You then accuse me some­how of being apol­o­gist or defender of fraud. Your accu­sa­tion is absurd and your think­ing cor­rupt. Say no more.

  • TruthIs­ThereIs­NoTruth

    facts are not being refuted here by other facts but on the basis that they under­mine strongly held beliefs.