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:



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