Manchester University Post Crash Economics Society

flattr this!

Last week I vis­ited the stu­dents who have started the Post Crash Eco­nom­ics Soci­ety at Man­ches­ter Uni­ver­sity, and took part in a debate on the topic of “Should (and could) eco­nom­ics have pre­dicted the eco­nomic cri­sis?” with Peter Backus. The soci­ety will release a video of the talk at some point, but in the mean­time here is my presentation.

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.

8 Responses to Manchester University Post Crash Economics Society

  1. Steve Hummel says:

    I’m in com­plete agree­ment with endoge­nous money, basic eco­nomic dis­e­qui­lib­rium and aus­ter­ity being an irra­tional con­fla­tion of INDIVIDUAL VIRTUES with SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS. How­ever, Key­ne­sian, new Key­ne­sian, MMT, veloc­ity the­ory rid­dled by numer­ous fac­tors over­whelm­ing its alleged effects et are all at best merely pal­lia­tive non-solutions to the prob­lem which is that the sys­tem can­not pos­si­bly gen­er­ate enough in indi­vid­ual incomes to approx­i­mate sys­temic equilibrium…including all man­ner of commercial/financial stimulus.…without the con­tin­ual acceleration/build up of debt.…which you, Dr. Keen, have also cor­rectly iden­ti­fied as the sign of impend­ing recession/depression. The ONLY ACTUAL solu­tion is a DIRECT sup­ple­ment to indi­vid­u­als and the adult, respon­si­ble and actual con­trol of the money system/economy with the macro-economic mathematical/virtual equat­ing of the costs of con­sump­tion and pro­duc­tion for a pre­scribed period of time. Fur­ther­more, this is the ONLY ACTUAL solu­tion that places the indi­vid­ual in con­trol of the econ­omy with his/her ade­quate pur­chas­ing power money-vote, instead of a self inter­ested finan­cial, polit­i­cal or cor­po­rate elite.

    So are econ­o­mists as the deci­pher­ers of what ought to be pol­icy going to have the guts and the good sense to con­front this truth, or are they going to hide behind their overly cau­tious, men­tally frag­mented, sci­en­tific and dubi­ous claims of objec­tiv­ity and allow the elites to enforce stag­na­tion at best AND THEIR CONTINUED DOMINATION ANDCONTROLOF THE SYSTEM on us all for 20 or 30 years.….while tech­no­log­i­cal inno­va­tion accel­er­ates a pace so that at best stag­na­tion is permanent?

    It’s a free­dom ver­sus enslavement/domination issue. Make no mis­take about it. It’s time to stop shrink­ing from that fact.

  2. Steve Hummel says:

    What if we crafted a sys­tem whose poli­cies accu­rately reflected both our com­pet­i­tive and our more spir­i­tual natures? What if we gra­ciously embraced the abun­dance that tech­no­log­i­cal inno­va­tion has enabled instead of hoarded, squan­dered or denied it to each other? What if we enabled every­one to have the assur­ances of a life which does not require that their pri­mary pur­pose and com­pelled focus is eco­nomic secu­rity? Most of the indi­vid­u­als who con­tributed the most artis­ti­cally, sci­en­tif­i­cally and even eco­nom­i­cally had just that kind of assur­ance. What if we granted eco­nomic secu­rity? Would the peo­ple in gen­eral feel an oblig­a­tion to return that gen­eros­ity by being more pro­duc­tive, con­struc­tive and more cre­ative indi­vid­u­als? What if the real rea­son why only 90% of indi­vid­u­als are pro­duc­tive, con­struc­tive and cre­ative is because the sys­tem enforces an oner­ous, rigged and dom­i­nat­ing sys­tem on them? What if 95+% of us are actu­ally basi­cally good and just held back by a sys­tem we secretly resent, despise and know isn’t fair? What if we make the sys­tem and its poli­cies come up to our already evolved capa­bil­i­ties instead of endur­ing one that thwarts those very nat­ural ten­den­cies? What if?

  3. Steve Hummel says:

    A Dis­trib­u­tive mon­e­tary par­a­digm makes money more eas­ily avail­able and makes every­one more secure, and a gen­eral retail dis­count elim­i­nates any infla­tion that might, empha­sis might result. Don’t let any­one bam­boo­zle you…the actual solu­tions to our sit­u­a­tion are really quite sim­ple. GIVE INDIVIDUALS a DIRECT sup­ple­men­tary income whether they work or not, and have retail­ers dis­count their prices to the indi­vid­ual while hav­ing their dis­counts rebated back to them so they remain whole on their mar­gins and over­head, and have a coun­ter­vail­ing credit cre­at­ing agency dis­trib­ute those monies based on monthly immi­nently deci­pher­able sta­tis­tics. Those two poli­cies enacted solve the real sys­temic prob­lem and empower the indi­vid­ual . Time to evolve the sys­tem up to the whole of our natures instead of only half of it. Time to have the best of both a profit mak­ing and a humane sys­tem. Time cre­ate a soci­ety and cul­ture that we can all be proud of, and all be more con­struc­tive, pro­duc­tive and cre­ative in cre­at­ing, experiencing…and par­tak­ing of.

  4. Steve Hummel says:

    Also posted to Ellen Brown’s web of debt google group:

    The FED needs a coun­ter­vail­ing credit cre­at­ing agency that not only will pro­vide pri­vate bank­ing with a com­pet­i­tive com­mer­cial coun­ter­part, but also one that pro­vides a sym­met­ri­cal and indi­vid­ual empow­er­ing new form of con­sumer credit issuance, namely the mon­e­tary Gift. Since its formulation/concoction veloc­ity the­ory has been flawed/incorrect and has not enabled a sta­ble eco­nomic sys­tem. There is a “laun­dry list” of fac­tors which have fur­ther con­tributed to even that flawed/incorrectness, and the per­fectly accept­able fac­tors of a profit mak­ing eco­nomic sys­tem wed to an increas­ing accel­er­a­tion of tech­no­log­i­cal inno­va­tion have already made veloc­ity com­pletely inadequate.…and will never enable it to “work” again. Never. You will not, and should not put profit and inno­va­tion “back in the bot­tle.” The only, that’s the ONLY way and the eas­i­est and most effec­tive way to resolve this impasse is to uti­lize the per­fect tool for doing so.…money, in such a way that it guar­an­tees enough indi­vid­ual pur­chas­ing power to both set indi­vid­u­als eco­nom­i­cally free and make the econ­omy func­tion at the wealth level its advanced tech­no­log­i­cal level is capa­ble of. Man­dat­ing a div­i­dend and a gen­eral retail dis­count as poli­cies are the most effec­tive two means of eco­nomic democ­racy. It enables not only our mod­ern eco­nomic and mon­e­tary sys­tem to func­tion prop­erly, it enables the best of both cap­i­tal­ism and social­ism that is profit, free enter­prise, pri­vate prop­erty AND a humane and for­ward look­ing future. It encour­ages increased inno­va­tion while sev­er­ing the too long and obso­lete trade off of employ­ment ver­sus tech­no­log­i­cal advance. It will in fact enable and encour­age the re-industrialization of the advanced economies by cut­ting that “Gor­dian knot.” It is a true syn­the­sis and truly a new paradigm.

  5. TruthIsThereIsNoTruth says:

    Q: What if we crafted a sys­tem whose poli­cies accu­rately reflected both our com­pet­i­tive and our more spir­i­tual natures?

    A: You could do that by start­ing your own blog.

    Q: What if we gra­ciously embraced the abun­dance that tech­no­log­i­cal inno­va­tion has enabled instead of hoarded, squan­dered or denied it to each other?

    A: As per­fectly exam­plied by you by tak­ing a free ride to flog your own ideas unre­lated to the blog top­ics. That’s embrac­ing tech­no­log­i­cal inno­va­tion Steve Hum­mel style.

  6. Steve Hummel says:

    The rela­tion­ship between total indi­vid­ual incomes (labor costs) and total prices (total costs) is a macro­eco­nomic one. See­ings how the afore­men­tioned rela­tion­ship is the basic def­i­n­i­tion of con­sumer finance and con­sumer macro­eco­nom­ics, is the very nexus of micro and macro­eco­nom­ics itself, is where the dis­tri­b­u­tion prob­lem of mod­ern tech­no­log­i­cally advanced and abun­dantly pro­duc­tively capa­ble economies actu­ally lies and last but not least is also the nexus between not just the econ­omy and busi­nesses, but the econ­omy and the individual.…and the blog is about macro­eco­nom­ics and macro­eco­nomic theory.…I’d say it was always and com­pletely relevant.

    Con­sid­er­ing that the above rela­tion­ship is mostly ignored and non-comprehended due largely to igno­rance (no account­ing edu­ca­tion in eco­nomic cur­ric­ula which is a point made by Dr. Keen him­self) , intel­lec­tual frag­men­ta­tion (the oppo­site of the inte­gra­tion which is the process of Wis­dom itself) and the all too mod­ern psy­cho­log­i­cal ten­dency to forget/neglect and even negate indi­vid­ual self awareness.…I’d say it was edu­ca­tion­ally, men­tally and spir­i­tu­ally (as opposed to reli­giously) rel­e­vant as well.

    Just another freely offered tid­bit from the intel­lec­tu­ally curi­ous for­mer owner/operator of a res­i­den­tial win­dow clean­ing busi­ness. Ta ta.

  7. Steve Hummel says:

    From Ellen Brown’s blog: Regard­ing sci­ence and the sci­en­tific method: Indeed deduc­tion IS what the sci­en­tific method is. What we need, how­ever, is the inte­gra­tion of BOTH deduc­tion AND induction.…which is the hall­mark of sci­en­tific break­through. See­ing that there is a sym­me­try (reflec­tion) and philo­soph­i­cal align­ment between tra­di­tion­ally internal/religious/psychological expe­ri­ences and the tem­po­ral poli­cies and pol­icy solu­tions to our eco­nomic, finan­cial and mon­e­tary prob­lems (the nat­ural expe­ri­ence of Grace and mon­e­tary grace,.…grace being the expe­ri­ence and aware­ness of abun­dance and the free­dom thereof) …is pre­cisely that kind of inte­gra­tive insight. After all, the Sci­en­tific method and the sci­ences in gen­eral have their own prob­lems with ortho­doxy as well as bias from numer­ous directions.

  8. Steve Hummel says:

    Also posted to Ellen Brown’s and Real World Eco­nomic Review blog:

    Dave,

    Actu­ally I agree with you that the Pope is closer to the truth and the solu­tion than most economists.

    It’s actu­ally quite sim­ple. Give the indi­vid­ual money. GIVE, as in mon­e­tary Grace. Not a coun­ter­feit grace as in re-distribution, but actual giv­ing. This brings eco­nom­ics and the money sys­tem full cir­cle back to human­ity and humane­ness and com­mon and good sense.

    Veloc­ity the­ory which is the basic assump­tion that pur­chas­ing power can be increased sim­ply by re-circulating within the econ­omy has always far over­es­ti­mated the actual amount of money that actu­ally re-circulated, how much of what might actu­ally do so is able to once again become indi­vid­ual income and how the advance of tech­nol­ogy and tech­no­log­i­cal inno­va­tion has and increas­ingly will reduce the ratio­nal need for jobs, the num­ber of actual jobs rel­a­tive to the pop­u­la­tion and to the wealth and pro­duc­tive capa­bil­ity of the soci­ety, and to the wage rate due to wage arbi­trage. So veloc­ity has always been poorly/incompletely defined, has never been an effec­tive mon­e­tary solu­tion any­way, and is actu­ally cur­rently com­pletely unable to effect eco­nomic and mon­e­tary sta­bil­ity. And, because profit mak­ing eco­nomic sys­tems are not going to dis­ap­pear (short of some com­pletely vul­gar and/or reac­tionary episode of his­tory that is even more oppres­sive than the cur­rent suave and hyp­notic “free” mar­ket sys­tem) and because it is com­pletely irra­tional to stop or thwart innovation.….ACTUAL indi­vid­ual mon­e­tary Grace is necessary.

    Fur­ther­more, it is nec­es­sary to de-centralize and democ­ra­tize the eco­nomic and mon­e­tary sys­tems, and this is best and most com­pletely accom­plished by imple­ment­ing policy…that accu­rately and actu­ally reflects Grace…the free gift. That would be a uni­ver­sal div­i­dend DIRECTLY DISTRIBUTED, NOT RE-distributed. Then, because Life is an adven­ture that can­not be com­pletely or pri­orly per­ceived, because the economic/productive sys­tem is so com­pletely inter­twined with the money sys­tem, because the cur­rent con­ven­tions of cost account­ing are flawed (they cor­rectly credit busi­nesses with cap­i­tal appre­ci­a­tion, but fail to do the same for the individual…while all of the above flawed and increas­ingly irrel­e­vant the­ory goes unexamined/uncomprehended) and thus the entire sys­tem cries out for actual ADULT con­trol with effec­tive poli­cies like the above and the proceeding.…a gen­eral retail dis­count to con­sumers (an already widely used and unob­tru­sive mech­a­nism that in no way inter­feres with price dis­cov­ery but DOES increase com­pe­ti­tion) that is rebated back to par­tic­i­pat­ing mer­chants and is based on immi­nently acces­si­ble peri­odic sta­tis­tics and a sim­ple math­e­mat­i­cally equal­iz­ing formula.…is the intel­li­gent and wise eco­nomic thing to also do.

    Yes, the above is a com­plex para­graph, but…if you are an econ­o­mist, if you keep re-reading and con­tem­plat­ing it with the inten­tion of under­stand­ing and don’t lose your focus or resort to mere eco­nomic “Wis­dom” .…you may awaken to its actu­ally basic, sim­ple and ele­gant nature…despite your eco­nomic “education”.

Leave a Reply