Research
This page lists and links to my academic papers. If you would like to support my research, please click on this link: Research Funding.
Research Financial Instability and Endogenous Money.
A monetary Minsky model of the Great Moderation & the Great Recession. This paper is forthcoming in the Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. The simulations there are slightly misleading since the initial conditions contained an inconsistency; these have since been corrected to yield the same long term outcome but far less volatile initial fluctuations. I’ll publish the paper with these revised conditions shortly
A model of endogenous credit creation and a credit crunch. This paper is very technical and outlines my analysis of a credit crunch, which showpols that if that was the only problem we faced, a government rescue could work, and contrary to standard monetary theory (a.k.a. the “money multiplier” model) it would be much better to give the government money to debtors than to the banks. It also outlines my preliminary multisectoral monetary model of production. This paper was produced with the financial assistance of thePaul Woolley Centre for Capital Market Dysfunctionality at the University of Technology, Sydney.
Household Debt—the final stage in an artificially extended Ponzi Bubble, Australian Economic Review, Vol. 42 No. 3 September 2009, pp. 347–57. This paper shows that the growth in household debt was not an equilibrium response to falling interest rates, but a Ponzi speculative bubble whose bursting is causing a serious recession. I present a model of Minsky’s “Financial Instability Hypothesis” that includes Ponzi finance as well as productive investment; the model generates a Depression when debt accumulated for speculative purposes overwhelms the productive capacity of the economy.
The Dynamics of the Monetary Circuit, in The Political Economy Of Monetary Circuits: Tradition And Change In Post-Keynesian Economics, edited by Jean-François Ponsot and Sergio Rossi (Palgrave, 2009, pp. 161-187). This is a reasonably accessible explanation of the technique I use to derive dynamic models of finance, and advocacy of continuous time methods over the discrete time approach that dominates Post Keynesian economics today.
Bailing out the Titanic with a Thimble, Economic Analysis and Policy, Vol 39 Issue 1, pp. 3-24. Unlike most refereed academic journals, this one is freely accessible online. In this paper I explain why I don’t expect the bailouts to work, I present a model of a credit crunch in a pure credit economy where the credit crunch alone causes a Great Depression.
My PhD thesis Economic Growth and Financial Instability (UNSW, 1997).
Using Mathcad in Economic Analysis
This article, on Hearne Scientific Software’s website, explains my use of Mathcad for both data analysis and modelling.
The Nonlinear Dynamics of Debt Deflation. This technical paper gives a mathematical model of Minsky’s Financial Instability Hypothesis. It includes an extended model with a government sector that can contain the process of private debt accumulation, and a preliminary attempt to model price dynamics
The Nonlinear Economics of Debt Deflation. This technical paper also has a government sector extension to the basic non-monetary Minsky model from my 1995 paper, and shows that under some circumstances there is a bifurcation in government debt when stabilizing an unstable economy: in some circumstances, both private debt and government debt stabilize as a percentage of GDP, but in others runaway government debt is needed to stabilize private debt.
The process of endogenous money creation
The “Financial Instability Hypothesis”
Other Topics
I’ll gradually link all my academic papers here, since journals now seem comfortable about academics linking their papers on their own websites.
Econophysics
Worrying trends in econophysics. Mauro Gallegati, Steve Keen, Thomas Lux, Paul Ormerod, (2006). “Worrying trends in econophysics”, Physica A 370, pp. 1–6.
Marx
A Marx for Post Keynesians; unpublished
The Misinterpretation of Marx’s Theory of Value; Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 15 (2), Fall, 282-300
Use-value, exchange-value, and the demise of Marx’s Labour Theory of Value; Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 15 (1), Spring, 107-121
Use, Value and Exchange: The Misinterpretation of Marx; my Masters thesis on Marx, UNSW 1990; unpublished
Theory of the Firm
The conventional theory of competition is nonsense. I explain why in Chapter 4 of Debunking Economics, “Size Does Matter”. A more technical explanation is given in this paper:
Steve Keen (2004). “Deregulator: Judgment Day for Microeconomics”, Utilities Policy, 12: 109 –125
This only covers the Marshallian theory however. More detailed critiques that are relevant to the Cournot model as well are published here:
Steve Keen and Russell Standish, (2006). “Profit Maximization, Industry Structure, and Competition: A critique of neoclassical theory”, Physica A 370: 81-85
Steve Keen and Russell Standish, (2010). “Debunking the theory of the firm—a chronology”, real-world economics review, issue no. 53, 26 June 2010, pp. 56-94, http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue53/KeenStandish53.pdf
This paper gives a complete chronologically laid out coverage of our critique, from its beginnings when writing Debunking Economics to a demonstration that the Cournot-Nash equilibrium is meta-unstable.
Say’s Law
“Nudge Nudge, Wink Wink Say No More!” in Steve Kates (ed.), Two Hundred Years of Say’s Law, Edward Elgar, Aldershot, pp. 199-209.

Professor Keen,
I am wondering if the existence of endogenous money argues for the viability of more localized credit creation i.e. decentralizing finance from money center banks, and even multiple complementary currencies, than has been thought possible by traditional economics?
I have read your Keynes’s Revolving Fund of Finance paper and perused other papers and presentations at your site.
I am an applied economist living on the West Coast of the USA (Ashland, OR). I’ve been involved in regional economic development enterprises including developing innovative approaches to financing new enterprise. While I have a BA in economics (UCSD, ’79), I did not know about endogenous money, monetary theory of production nor of the ‘power’ of trade credit. Your papers and those of Sheila Dow, among others, have enlightened me.
I am attaching a proposed legislation that I’m developing with a group in the eldercare industry (who are facing huge fiscal problems). It involves a mixture of trade finance with “interest free” national money. Our design here is only very conceptual, but I am wondering if you think it has merit.
Sincerely,
Torrey Byles
tbyles@msn.com
http://torreybyles.wordpress.com/
Hi Torrey,
It certainly argues for localised money systems when there’s been a debt-induced breakdown like the one we’re currently in–ideas like Gisell’s had a positive impact when they were tried in the Great Depression.
Over the longer term though, competing currencies gets us back to the Free Banking system of the 19th century, and that largely ended in tears.
I didn’t get the attachment BTW. Send it to me at debunking at gmail dot com.
On the Free Banking period ending in tears, how much of that was because of the gold reserve requirements? What should back the money was a huge political issue for a long time, and many people thought that a lot of the pain was caused by the specie requirements limiting the money supply.
Only part of it Aranfan,
Most of the academic literature targets “wildcat” banking as the cause for most of the failures, though the New York system may have had the problems you identify here.
Hello mr Keen,
some days ago(23june), I saw your interview at Max Keiser (great interview). In this interview you mentioned as side comment about england 1920, where introducing gold standard creating devaluation and so the wages had to be reduced.
My question is, what kind of books / papers do you know (recommend) , where these kind of historic events are explained in a proper way? So not with a neo-liberal/classical doctrine explanation, but realistic.
A related question to this: in your old blog, I recall you had a section about books, and I think there I read about the Minsky book. (I also found book of kindleberger about manias, pancis and crashes.)
I also see you have a lecture about the evolution of economical thoughts.
So did you ever consider about explaining historical events with proper ecomical theory in a lecture? (like the 1920 recession, the great depression, the end of the gold backed dollar (Nixon) ,etc)
Thanks,
Best Regards
Ignace
Prof Keen,
I would be interested to hear whether your saw Gold as a destructive deflationary force, and Gold as the best natural regulator to prevent a disproportionate growth of debt to GDP. Given that the 19th century saw very mild inflation compared to the 20th.
Regards
Arvind
http://teconomist.blogspot.com
Prof Keen,
I would be interested to hear whether your saw Gold as a destructive deflationary force, and Gold as the best natural regulator to prevent a disproportionate growth of debt to GDP. Given that the 19th century saw very mild price inflation compared to the 20th.
Regards
Arvind
http://teconomist.blogspot.com
The 19th century trade cycle was quite violent Arvind. Saying it had mild price inflation is a bit like saying that a country with 1 millionaire and 9 paupers has an average income of $100,000 p.a. The swings from inflation to deflation and the crises that went with them were a major factor in the rise of socialism. Also, as I argued in the last lecture I posted, money is fundamentally a non-commodity, whereas trying to use gold as money is an attempt to turn it into a commodity. There are numerous reasons why I see that as a retrograde step, and focusing on the wrong problem. Stopping the finance sector from financing Ponzi Schemes is to me the main game, and swapping to gold rather than credit money is orthogonal to that issue.
Hi Steve,
I came across your work because I was thinking about using differential equations to analyse economic systems much as they are used in chemistry to look at reaction rates in complex reactions with multiple intermediary products. thanks to google “economics differential equation equilibrium” quickly directed me to the existing work in this area including your own.
I’ve been reading through your paper, The Dynamics of the Monetary Circuit, linked above. I understand the overall method and am interested in working with the QED software but I cannot derive the symbolic solution you give on p169 to the differential equations on p168. I think I have solved them with a quite different answer:
(please read w as omega, and b as beta in your paper)
only the interest on the firm loan is serviced so Fl=L
if wages are defined as (1-s).S.Fd
then profit = s.S.Fd
this can be substituted for the terms b.Bd+w.Wd-(1-s).S.Fd in the fourth differential equation giving:
d/dtFd=rd.Fd-rl.L+s.S.Fd
at equilibrium
Fd=L.rl/(rd+s.S)
substituting into the third and second differential equations:
Wd=L.rl.S.(1-s)/(w-rd).(rd+s.S)
Bd=L.rl.S.(sw-rd)/b.(w-rd).(rd+s.S)
for positive account balances s.w>rd
wages can then be written as:
L.rl.S.(1-s)/(rd+s.S)
profit as:
L.rl.S.s/(rd+s.S)
including interest workers income = w.Wd
and bankers income = b.Bd
capitalist income is zero i.e. profit + rd.Fd=rl.Fl. as there is no term for capitalists expenditure in this simplified model their net earnings must be zero for Fd to have an equilibrium value.
If I am correct this neither negates the method nor invalidates the more complex dynamic models (for which symbolic solutions don’t seem possible anyway) but the conclusion that capitalists earn a positive income would have to derived from a more complex model.
Phil Pope
Hi Phil, sorry for the slow reply–meant to reply and let it slip a bit.
Download this paper and check the algebra:
http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/journalarticles/2010-31
The symbolic calculations there were done in 2 symbolic mathematics programs (Mathcad and Mathematica) and checked by hand as well. They’re accurate, and you can therefore derive positive profits from this simple model.
where are updated blog posts posted? Thanks
thanks for taking the time to reply steve. tried again and if Fd+Bd+Wd=L is used rather than substituting s.S.Fd for the profit terms then the expressions you give come out. sorry to be picky but I like to understand the fundamentals of models. just finishing Debunking Economics 2 and very impressed. is there any user guide or faq for the QED programme?
No problem–glad you sorted it out.
There isn’t a guide to QED unfortunately, but I’m recording a talk tonight (in Argentina) where I’ll use the program live. I will probably upload that in a couple of days (when I have a decent connection) so that will give you a guide as to how to use it.
The first (0.1) version of Minsky is almost ready; just a couple of display bugs to be fixed. It is definitely a prototype, and doesn’t have the same visual feel that QED has right now, but it will offer a superior integration of tabular and flowchart modelling.
Steve – I am an admirer of your work. I am currently looking through all your book & papers as I feel you have something very important to say. One question that bothered me for a while was how to estimate how much of consumption over time was financed by the ever increasing amount of debt. I saw that in your paper “Household Debt—the final stage in an artificially extended Ponzi Bubble” you have this information in Figure 5.
Could you please tell me what exactly this is (consumer debt, total debt, etc..) and how you derived it?
Thanks,
Richard.
Hi Richard,
It’s simply the change in aggregate private debt (household plus business–from RBA Sheet D02) over a year, divided by the sum of GDP plus the change in private debt over the year:
(change in debt)/(GDP plus change in debt)
Hope that helps!
Thanks Steve.
Shouldn’t the ‘impact’ on GDP (or AD) of expanding debt be to some extent also a function of the velocity of money? I wonder, am I asking a different question than the one you are answering in your paper…?
I was considering a thought experiment using 2 scenarios:
1) No change in debt results in a GDP level L1
2) Increase in debt by X results in GDP level L2.
How much larger is L2 than L1 given X?
While I recognize that there are lots of cross dependencies, I would think that, due to the velocity of money, an increase in debt would increase GDP by something like velocity x chng in debt.
If MoneyStock x velocity = GDP, if I increase the money stock through the creation of debt by 1bn, wouldn’t GDP increase by an according multiple?
A calculation along these lines would allow us to determine what level of aggregate demand we’d be faced with if there had been no growth in debt, and I believe the result would be higher than what you call “debt contribution”.
I hope this makes sense and I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
Hi Richard,
The difference between a change in velocity and acceleration is that the former doesn’t change the amount of money in circulation, while the latter does. The former can therefore cause a small increase in investment (or consumption), but nothing on the scale of the latter. I’ve simulated this in my simple credit models, and I think the Roving Cavaliers post gives an example of this. It’s certainly in some of my Honours Political Economy lectures, which are going up on the web shortly.
Steve, I read the Roving Cavalier post and agree with your comment, but I believe the point I was trying to make was a different one:
You call (change in debt)/(GDP + change in debt) the “debt contribution”.
What I call “debt contribution” (and I wonder if my terminology is inaccurate) is how much GDP expands if debt expands by X. I was wondering if the “debt contribution” to AD is higher because its effect is multiplied by the velocity of money. Hence I would have expected something like (velocity x change in debt) in the numerator.
I hope I am not arguing about terminology and I am quite inclined to believe that you are right, but I am genuinely confused why a formula that measures the impact of additional debt on growth has no velocity in it.
Thanks again for taking the time to discuss that with me.
Yes that’s a reasonable idea. I am thinking more on the “where does demand come from?” side however. That is more of a “how does productivity grow?” perspective.
I think according to your definition that this would be the “velocity” of money as Richard is thinking of it.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.pdf?&chart_type=line&graph_id=&category_id=&recession_bars=On&width=630&height=378&bgcolor=%23b3cde7&graph_bgcolor=%23ffffff&txtcolor=%23000000&ts=8&preserve_ratio=true&fo=ve&id=GDP_BASE_TCMDO&transformation=lin_lin_lin&scale=Left&range=Max&cosd=1947-01-01&coed=2012-08-22&line_color=%230000ff&link_values=&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&line_style=Solid&lw=1&vintage_date=2012-08-29_2012-08-29_2012-08-29&revision_date=2012-08-29_2012-08-29_2012-08-29&mma=0&nd=__&ost=&oet=&fml=a%2F%28b%2Bc%29&fq=Quarterly&fam=avg&fgst=lin
or it’s possible he may be thinking more along the lines of the Marginal Product of Debt which has been made famous in many “debt saturation” presentations (change in gdp / change in debt)
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.pdf?&chart_type=line&graph_id=&category_id=&recession_bars=On&width=630&height=378&bgcolor=%23b3cde7&graph_bgcolor=%23ffffff&txtcolor=%23000000&ts=8&preserve_ratio=true&fo=ve&id=GDP_TCMDO&transformation=ch1_ch1&scale=Left&range=Max&cosd=1947-01-01&coed=2012-04-01&line_color=%230000ff&link_values=&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&line_style=Solid&lw=1&vintage_date=2012-08-29_2012-08-29&revision_date=2012-08-29_2012-08-29&mma=0&nd=_&ost=&oet=&fml=a%2Fb&fq=Quarterly&fam=avg&fgst=lin
Either way, they are hardly constant so it would be hard to plug it into a formula