Finance News Network Interview & Upcoming Events

flattr this!

The Finance News Network's Lelde Smits interviewed me just before I left Australia last week: Link to the Interview.

I'll also be giving a number of talks in Europe in the next few weeks. Follow the links below for more details:

Thursday December 5th, 5pm the Oxford PPE Society

Friday December 6th, 5pm, the Post Crash Economics society in Manchester University (Roscoe Building - Lecture Theatre A). See this Facebook page for more details.

Tuesday December 10th, 8pm: "Why the Cri­sis is not over“, the Uni­ver­sity of Groningen

Fri­day Decem­ber 13th, 3.15pm: “Why the Cri­sis is not over”, Duisen­berg school of finance in Amsterdam

About Steve Keen

I am a professional economist 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 debts accumulated in Australia, and our very low rate of inflation.
Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Finance News Network Interview & Upcoming Events

  1. Steve Hummel says:

    I’m often crit­i­cized, unjustly, for being unsci­en­tific, indulging in “pon­der­ous philo­soph­i­cal gen­er­al­iza­tions” and/or con­fus­ing reli­gion with eco­nom­ics. Actu­ally what I’m doing is inte­grat­ing ALL of those per­spec­tives. :) And just to prove it, and enlighten any­one here about their con­fu­sions about what I’m actu­ally say­ing I re-post a reply made on Real World Eco­nomic Review blog to a poster who has on occa­sion also posted here. I think it will dis­pel the notion that I’m just a crank unwor­thy of reply other than with scorn. Well, maybe, maybe not.

    Lyon­wiss: “Unfor­tu­nately, the­o­riz­ing about eco­nomic knowl­edge doesn’t help any­one to gain any actual eco­nomic knowl­edge, par­tic­u­larly when sim­ple ideas about dif­fer­ences in meth­ods are elab­o­rated into more pon­der­ous philo­soph­i­cal gen­er­al­iza­tions, obscur­ing what must be done.”

    Me: I com­pletely agree with that. That’s why it’s impor­tant to look at the BASIC mon­e­tary empir­i­cal data and think eco­nom­i­cally about what it actu­ally means. And if that data con­flicts with a flimsy THEORY that con­fuses total money with effec­tive indi­vid­ual demand by abstract­ing out a basic com­mer­cial real­ity like cost then the­ory is best re-thought and a pol­icy means of rec­ti­fy­ing insuf­fi­cient indi­vid­ual effec­tive demand with­out incur­ring addi­tional cost…ought be considered….no mat­ter whose “ox is gored.” Think uni­ver­sal div­i­dend and ongo­ing gen­eral retail dis­count in an age of rapidly accel­er­at­ing tech­no­log­i­cal inno­va­tion, which only adds to the deficit of effec­tive demand.
    And that is how a “pon­der­ous philo­soph­i­cal gen­er­al­iza­tion” like indi­vid­ual mon­e­tary grace, if inte­grated with the sci­en­tific method, can con­clude, way before the lumi­nar­ies of the eco­nomic and finan­cial world, that “sec­u­lar stag­na­tion” is what we are fac­ing, as well as deci­pher an effec­tive solu­tion for same.

    Lyon­wiss: “Rub­bish eco­nomic data, such as the fab­ri­cated US job­less data in 2012, will remain uncor­rected prob­a­bly for­ever, mis­lead­ing gen­er­a­tions of econ­o­mists who are typ­i­cally not trained to ques­tion their “sacred data”.

    Yes. Actu­ally “Sacred data” is rife in both sci­ence and reli­gion. Yet tak­ing the NATURAL ideas, val­ues, pur­poses and expe­ri­ences of reli­gion and intu­itively inte­grat­ing them with the sci­en­tific method (which inte­gra­tion is not only the hall­mark of what occurs with par­a­digm change, but also both good sci­ence AND sci­en­tific break­throughs as well).….is what is required. And that process is what is referred to as Wis­dom, and beyond that inte­grat­ing the con­den­sa­tions of that wis­dom so as to wisely craft policy.

    We shall not cease from explo­ration
    And the end of all our explor­ing
    Will be to arrive where we started
    And know the place for the first time.”
    T.S Eliot

  2. Steve Hummel says:

    Some­times par­a­digms change. And when they do most of the struc­tures of the old par­a­digm remain, but those struc­tures are alto­gether changed…qualitatively. Yes, there is often an addi­tional form or aspect that is added which makes the new par­a­digm what it actu­ally is…a trans­for­ma­tional change. This is usu­ally the result of a new and/or re-balancing sym­me­try in the area in which the change has taken place. Usu­ally lots of other prob­lems and/or vices asso­ci­ated with the old par­a­digm either go away, dis­si­pate or com­pletely dis­ap­pear. Par­a­digm changes don’t solve every prob­lem in the area of Life they are asso­ci­ated with, just the deep­est and most sig­nif­i­cant problem(s)…is all.

    Yes, some­times the stars are aligned right, and some­times the stars, the sci­ence, the phi­los­o­phy, the data, the cor­rect sys­temic pol­icy solu­tions, the WHOLE nature of Man instead of just the cul­tural car­i­ca­ture of it and the con­den­sa­tions of Human Wis­dom all line up almost like they were meant to or just because things changed so they finally could.…or maybe BOTH.

  3. koonyeow says:

    Agree, Steve. In a Japanized world, pre­serv­ing cap­i­tal is much bet­ter than los­ing cap­i­tal (or else we won’t have enough money for that ticket to Mars, laugh out loud…).

Leave a Reply