Critiquing Secular Stagnation–without the irony

Flattr this!

In the introduction to last week’s post on my blog I appended the statement “Health warning: contains substantial portions of irony. May exceed your daily allowance”. Judging from the comments onBusiness Spectator, that was indeed the case for some readers. So I’ve eschewed irony in this week’s post.

Much of the irony last week was in this sentence – and the links gave the clue that my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek:

“Now, as any well trained economist knows, it’s a matter of simple logic that what happens to private debt is irrelevant to macroeconomics most of the time, because “debt is one person’s liability, but another person’s asset.”

The last two links led to earlier Krugman posts: no irony there. But the first two led respectively to the Wikipedia entry on irony and the wonderful scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where a logician proves that if a woman weighs the same as a duck, she’s made of wood and is therefore a witch:

“Bedevere: Exactly. So, logically…
Villager #1: If… she… weighs… the same as a duck,… she’s made of wood.
Bedevere: And therefore?
Villager #2: A witch!”

Click here to read the rest of this post:

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/12/3/economy/neverending-debt-trap

 

 

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.

One Response to Critiquing Secular Stagnation–without the irony

  1. Steve Hummel says:

    I loved Monty Python even more than Saturday Night Live, and their absurd logic was always perfectly expressed.

    However,if it quacks,and waddles and looks like a duck it probably is, and a private for profit banking license has no true countervailing credit creating agency, no purposes for credit creation other than profit and production and most importantly allows no form of credit issuance except a loan….then it’s an actively restrictive monopoly and has no theoretical right to exist in free market theory, and its monopolistic asymmetry is the source of our deepest and most stubbornly resistant economic problems.

Leave a Reply