I used to get so frustrated in economics classes because of the assumptions.

@user-dr9gs6wh1k

3 жыл бұрын

Literally switched my major because of it. It frustrated me how fake it was a built on voodoo essentially

@dannykoman1413

3 жыл бұрын

@@user-dr9gs6wh1k me to

@NormBa

3 жыл бұрын

So did I

@ExposingTheOldWorldOrder

2 жыл бұрын

We are all members of the economy cult kzread.info/dash/bejne/m6l3k8eRmr3Qp84.html

@dariuschong4574

2 жыл бұрын

@Celtic Orthodox Prayer I wanted to switch to physics but it's too late for that now :(

Professor Steve Keen is professor, he can deliver 14 minutes main points without "a blink", for sure he can go on for hours more and more detail would be presented. My respects professor, keep doing an advocates job...

@ExposingTheOldWorldOrder

2 жыл бұрын

We are all members of the economy cult kzread.info/dash/bejne/m6l3k8eRmr3Qp84.html

> tries to reform economics -9k/month patreon >dresses up in overwatch cosplay - 130k/month patreon

@YashKansalx

4 жыл бұрын

thawdani 😂

@alconcerto

4 жыл бұрын

Why you care about the dress? Irrelevant.

@roryhg1495

3 жыл бұрын

free market in action.

@szymonbaranowski8184

9 ай бұрын

leather jacket adds +10 to credibility out of bat talking about economy

@thawdani

9 ай бұрын

@@szymonbaranowski8184 yes and if he had a fedora i would have become his follower instantly

Let me get this straight: 1/ Economics is an intellectual competition largely based on ego 2/ They all have their dogma 3/ Most of them are wrong.

@aspincelaframboise5300

5 жыл бұрын

An economist is only a meteorologist for money eh… Ü

@MA4TU2

5 жыл бұрын

@@aspincelaframboise5300 Thanks.

@ArthurWuYeah211

2 жыл бұрын

Steve Keen is bunk, no one cares what he has to say. I do not see why you trust him, his most famous moment is shrieking over Nordhaus' climate models.

@abcrane

2 жыл бұрын

everything asinine about the economy can be summed up with a Barbie Doll. She is made of petroleum (bad for the ecosystem), manufactured in sweat shops and sold in a Walmarts (bad for the psyche and body of the toiling worker), played with by a child (bad for the education and esteem of the child), tossed back into a landfill (bad for the ecosystem, once again.) Now, multiply that useless toxic product's effect on all of the above (workers, consumers, nature) by the billions (units)...base a nation's "GNP" and "standard of living" on those useless toxic items, mass produced, and to hell with the well being of labor, ecosystem, spirit, and children. just so long as we achieve equilibrium. A whole study "economics" is based on making sure that nobody goes without a barbie doll, a job producing them, and a wage high enough so they can afford them but low enough so they are dependent on producing them. ALL ECONOMIC VARIABLES ARE FLUCTUATING EXCEPT THE 9-5 WORK DAY STANDARD FOR ALL. This is the Core of the Crisis, a dogmatically fixed variable in a sea of unfixed variables (aggregate supply/demand, trade relations, external factors such as droughts and pandemics, population, etc. the solution, a franchise of sustainable (useful, non toxic products) worker owned cooperatives, authentic products, work, leisure, community. welcome to Project Integrity International

@imminenthope3939

Жыл бұрын

of conventional (Americana and British) economists.

One theory to rule them all One theory to bind them...

@marcrow9114

5 жыл бұрын

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. - Marx, 1845

@zozmachine

5 жыл бұрын

*blind

@marcrow9114

5 жыл бұрын

+Mar Crow in The German Ideology btw

@summondadrummin2868

5 жыл бұрын

One Ring to Rule them All One Ring to Find Them and One Ring in the Darkness of their ignorance to Bind Them

@summondadrummin2868

5 жыл бұрын

@@marcrow9114 Don't you think that that pattern would just be expected? Money buys influence of all kinds... poverty does not buy any influence at all. Money can even buy textbook companies by which to train the gullible young.Textbooks that just coincidently leave out critical parts of how the economy actually works.

Mythematics is a word I will have to start using. Thanks!

@sch4891

3 жыл бұрын

mathiness is another good word for this

Genius Idea!!!! "Steve Keen" About building a module that preview the outcome of an economic decision. THE WORLD NEEDS THIS ASAP

In 1973 I sat in a conference room with Jay Forrester and a whole group of other world class intellects. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was there to record one of their number, Stafford Beer deliver their very prestigious annual Massey lectures. The topic of the conference was the application of simulation models to economics. Stafford Beer had just returned from Chile, where he had set up an economic management system for the country using a model of this type for Salvadore Allende. Unfortunately the decision room he built to run the system was machine gunned at the same time as Allende. There was a lot of brilliant work on that approach done at the time and earlier. Beer himself had written Brain of the Firm, which applied the design of the human brain and nervous system to the problem of creating an effective enterprise. Ross Ashby, Beer's mentor, had written some amazing, highly mathematical, works on cybernetics and control theory. After a brief efflorescence this effort died, killed by the econometricians, chassical economists on mathematical steroids. I would suggest that Dr. Keen might well profit from an investigation of this material.

@greenspringvalley

5 жыл бұрын

David Ford The Forrester type models, like any argument, seem to make sense until opened to scrutiny. For example, I was in a class where a presenter showed a model of salmon population as they were being raised and caught, supposedly to show that the population number was remaining equal while supplying many fish to eat. Someone in the audience pointed out that even though the number was the same, the fish were not the same fish (like saying 2 cats minus 2 cats plus 2 different cats balances out). Tiny models are like showing how calories intake minus calories burned make your weight, but larger models are like trying to predict your weight a year from now by including variables for incentives and predicting what foods you will eat. Big models can show a lot of dynamics, but it's opening a can of worms because there is no way to keep people from making false arguments to sell their ideas.

@davidford694

5 жыл бұрын

@@greenspringvalley Forrester himself was very sceptical about the results from his model. What is intriguing is the approach, certainly in comparison to econometric models, useful only for propaganda for Davos people.

@greenspringvalley

5 жыл бұрын

David Ford It's amazing how many liberals start with Senge's books, which mention David Bohm and center around dialogue about things like delays, escalation, and "no blame, look how the system causes this"..almost peace resolution..., then they get into models that DO show elements of economics that tend to get oversimplified and thereby excluded from conservative discussions (like money that goes TO somewhere has to come FROM somewhere, products require resources, tgere are weird dynamics that people blame on each other, it takes time for something to get from here to there), but then these liberals think that models provide insights almost to the point of thinking that Artificial Intelligence is smarter than people, like it's the answer..not dialogue about systems but actual robots and computers ( I think Senge used those metaphors because MIT was overflowing with robot fanatics). LinkedIn is full of idealistic liberals that think cybernetics, artificisl intelligence, and transhumanism are liberal ideals. I read dialogue facilitators who get into talking about systems until they forget about dialogue. I see democratic discussions just slide into discussions about "data driven government". So it's all just a can of worms. Some peoples ideas about Artificial Intelligence are so fanatical..creating life, big data..people who think the world is a simulation. Better to just call it all a big waste of time, money, and attention. Theadore Roszak wrote about the stupidity of MIT's study of systems in his book The Cult of Information and he said "Don't try to cast out the devil with Beilzabub the king of devils"...He used those words in reference to MIT using models to scrutinize systems.

@davidford694

5 жыл бұрын

@@greenspringvalley Thank you for this. I have never heard of Senge. One point of difference. Money does come from nowhere, all but a tiny fraction made by private banks when they make a loan.

@aritakalo8011

5 жыл бұрын

@@greenspringvalley To begin with farmed salmons are hardly a realistic model due to completely artificial and externally controlled nature of the situation. That isn't a population model or rather what population model there is is artificial. New spawns get added to grow to the system, the system is constantly fed externally and the removal is external. Of course the population stays stable. There is a fish grower who goes to great daily lengths to make sure so happens. To model economics one must understand human behavior, since that is all economics is. Manifestation of human behavior. At which point one goes to sociologist, behavior scientist and neuroscientist, who will promptly tell one to add massive error bars due to humans being pesky unpredictable at unpredictable times and equally unpredictably transform to predictable masses. The core of economy is not money, it is humans. Money is just a tool as is the market. Frankly market is mostly a coarse measuring device of human behavior. Key word being COARSE. Predicting markets, based on markets for any long term is rather crazy. Since that market is result of thousands and thousands of human behavior cycles. National economies, business economies, personal economies all being decided on people predicting other peoples behavior. It's a mess. So one better put large error bars in. As one of my physics teachers used to say "If it doesn't have error bars, it isn't science".

I totally agree with Prof. Keen about the fallacies of mainstream (neoclassical/neoliberal) economics, but I don't believe, the solution should be more elaborate mathematics. Economy needs first of all multi-disciplinary holistic and philosophical view combining fields like evolutionary social and biological anthropology, ecology, history of civilizations, history of thought, sociology, psychology etc. and qualitative analysis. In that sense, Small is Beautiful (E.F. Schumacher) and some books of Vandana Shiva are best economy books I've ever read.

@ArthurWuYeah211

2 жыл бұрын

How do you even use fields like biological anthropology to predict economic trends in the time frame most economists work in?

@Maruwasa

2 жыл бұрын

Interesting

@RagingGeekazoid

2 жыл бұрын

Economics doesn't need more complicated models, it needs more accurate ones. Maybe they come from other fields, maybe they don't.

@tom4115

Жыл бұрын

Absolutely. The more complicated the models and the more mathematics used in them the more fragile and completely useless they are.

@davidbowles7281

Жыл бұрын

@@RagingGeekazoid To be accurate in a system with thousands and millions of inputs, it must necessarily be incredibly complicated. Probably complicated beyond reckoning.

confusing economic forecasting with economics is the most misunderstandings of the new thinking school. they had no or little knowledge of mainstream economics but frequently refer to it as the wrong model.

Steve Keen mentions the economist Hyman Minsky then later talks about the software he designed/commissioned called "Minsky," named in honour of the economist. Whether this was an editing or recording oversight, it'd be good to point out in the description as it'd be confusing for someone not familiar with his work.

@svetlanasannikova6073

5 жыл бұрын

I was thinking the same thing a few minutes into it.

@anabonet533

3 жыл бұрын

To know how works capitalism you need to know the current monetary weaknesses and problems. It is impossible to return to Gold Standard See this video: kzread.info/dash/bejne/m51_1I-iYJWYnbw.html

@gibbogle

2 жыл бұрын

What is the oversight? He admires Minsky, and named his software package after him.

"The genuine sciences"...You have to like Steve Keen. Economics...the dismal science.

@darbyheavey406

2 жыл бұрын

Dismal science is a reference to Malthusian economics or the idea that we are running out of resources. It is not a reference to the application of statistics to economics.

@szymonbaranowski8184

9 ай бұрын

mathematics - modeling ideal world not overlaying completely with the real one

there have actually been studies done on this topic that conclude that _homo economicus_ is completely wrong, with one exception - economists. so, they can't see how wrong they are. classical economics is consequently quite literally about the blind leading the blind.

@lowersaxon

3 ай бұрын

Haha. I offer you one and the same thing for two different prices. You choose the higher price?

Yes! I feel like is better saying what has been on the tip of my tongue for so many years. Money is like blood- economists should measure it's flow and viscosity in order to understand macroeconomics better, and I feel like this guy was something along these lines at a few different points. I am glad I stumbled upon this video and I hope to see more videos like this!!

@Ravie1

5 жыл бұрын

But if we did that then where would the paul ryan's of the world be able to conjure Austrian economics out of? M*V != P*T in the real world.

I've been drawing the comparison between economic ideologies and religion for quite some time.

No it is difficult to use because the GUI does not use gestalt principles of UID and UX. It wouldn't pass an undergraduate IT project course. I give it the benefit of the doubt that it'll become user friendly if ever finished.

Wow. I'm a Computer Science student and I had similar ideas for economic computations. What a great guy!

The prospect of having politicians test their ideas on a computer simulation of the macro-economy seems very interesting. It seems like this approach has the potential to push empiricism into politics.

@thibautnarme6402

5 жыл бұрын

It's not an idea it's a fact. Economic simulations have been done for 20 years now. And you can also see the effect in term of policy evaluation across the western world. 20 years ago, NGO weren't concern with the actual consequences of their action, now you have the Gates' foundation gibing a detail report on how the money is spent to what effect. The guy acts like economics has been frozen in the mid 70's... Through scientific method, knowledge improves, practicies improves and later down the road so do policies.

J .Forester. 4.66 causal matlab simulink minski soft

Wow as an actuary and avid reader of austrian economics I am glad to have found this professor. I also agree with good parts of marx and the use of rigorous math in economic models to build a better model, Always found ceteris paribus the lamest approach to still be taught in college and always knew it was a relative easy problem to solve with a good team and this guy did it. Fantastic sir.

@MrMarinus18

5 ай бұрын

But even Austrian economics has a role of government in ensuring stability and prosperity and doesn't say that capitalists should be allowed completely unchecked power and for the government to shield them from any and all accountability. However American capitalists created a dumbed down version of Austrian economics for propaganda reasons and pushed it as hard as they could in every media outlet they could find.

@MrMarinus18

5 ай бұрын

These problems should not be thought of in a scientific manner but in a political one. Modern market fundamentalism is a religion and should be treated as one and the ideas of market fundamentalism is that capitalists should be given as much power as possible no matter the consequences. It also has a religious way of acting and punishing people for the sin of speaking to those above them on the hierarchy.

@kilocesar

5 ай бұрын

The dumbed down version is called crony capitalism and it is one of the reasons healthcare system in america is so bad. I believe that the struggle of collectives being formed and individualists will always exists is the argument of social justice vs economic justice one is rational and can be argued in long term benefits at the cost of short term generations because of bad choices already been made. collectives will not conceive to pay such a high price and therefore elect more liberal, spending leaders, that is until shit hits the fan. @@MrMarinus18

"Yin and Yang" is part of Taoism, not Buddhism.

@randyjones4176

5 жыл бұрын

Charles Glaspole Taoism is spelt Daoism, not Taoism

@charlesglaspole2785

5 жыл бұрын

Thanks Randy forgive my romanisation. There’s a whole WP page on this en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daoism-Taoism_romanization_issue

@brominercom5026

5 жыл бұрын

it's part of everything so dont bother.

@summondadrummin2868

5 жыл бұрын

Yeah his theory got a little sloppy there

@JediNiyte

5 жыл бұрын

Does that mean we can throw everything he says out the window then?

English translation required.

Listening to this while doing stretches.

"I basically predicted the recession", songwriters and laymen in the street were predicting the recession, what Keen tried to predict was the Australian house price crash, which didn't happen at that time. All this is ignoring the fact that trying to legislate against market downturns is more likely to make them worse.

@EGH181

5 жыл бұрын

TheRealLaker recent history has definitively shown that unregulated markets lead to chaos and poverty.

@Atamanxxxvii

5 жыл бұрын

@@EGH181 I hard disagree, but I'd be interested in any recommended reading material you have for this hypothesis. If your reference to recent history being the crash, there is very little linking it to being due to a lack of regulation, more a causation between misplaced government interference and the creative destruction of the market. Here is a good read on it: voxeu.org/article/housing-bubbles-and-interest-rates

@meegz149

4 жыл бұрын

@@Atamanxxxvii well the problem is the cause of the recession wasn't the fault of home buyers. It is overdetermined. Also I could turn your attention to the repeal of glass steagell in 1998 or the lowering of the minimum required reserves in 2004. Economist will always find another "government regulation" that is the cause of economic woes. Even after years of successful deregulation and promises prosperity due to deregulation the problem is always one more regulation.

@szymonbaranowski8184

9 ай бұрын

he is like TA analysts 😂😂😂 i have the best indicator! 😂

I would like to know the effects of Endogenous money on the purchase of Treasury Securities, and ultimately the income tax.

I am too dumb to understand most of this, except that classical economic theory is flawed

@szymonbaranowski8184

9 ай бұрын

the key point there was banks creature money affecting economy he wants to model whole system to understand it, but it's always modeling a component of system as global system is too wide to even esteemate scale of processes happening there most of data is offshore and not shared with these modellers lol if I know who I am it gives little edge when I have no clue about my surroundings 😂

It's true that there is something quite radical in the idea that a certain mode of social organisation can transmute rational self-interest into effective altruism. Whether the current mode of society actually does that is debatable, however.

@szymonbaranowski8184

9 ай бұрын

this thought makes idea of socialism rational in comparison

what about externalities to get your model to work? nothing was said about state capitalism and " money as debt "

What could possibly go wrong with the markets? The same as last time. Free market beliefs were at a low ebb in the 1930s and there were just two bastions of free market thinking left. 1) The University of Chicago economics department 2) The LSE “Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.” Irving Fisher 1929. This 1920's neoclassical economist that believed in free markets knew this was a stable equilibrium. He became a laughing stock. The pressure was really on in the US as their free market thinkers had made fools of themselves. They needed to find out where they had gone wrong. They eventually worked out there were two factors at work, which had artificially inflated the market. 1) Share buybacks 2) The use of bank credit for margin lending. Henry Simons was a founder member of the Chicago School of Economics and he had worked out what was wrong with his beliefs in free markets in the 1930s. Banks can inflate asset prices with the money they create from bank loans. www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdf Henry Simons and Irving Fisher supported the Chicago Plan to take away the bankers ability to create money. “Simons envisioned banks that would have a choice of two types of holdings: long-term bonds and cash. Simultaneously, they would hold increased reserves, up to 100%. Simons saw this as beneficial in that its ultimate consequences would be the prevention of "bank-financed inflation of securities and real estate" through the leveraged creation of secondary forms of money.” www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Henry_Calvert_Simons They had worked out where they went wrong, but by this stage everyone else had moved on with the New Deal, and no one was particularly interested in their findings. They had missed the boat. Hayek was at the LSE, and seems to have been totally oblivious to the Wall Street Crash, and it never even occurred to him that there might be something to learn from it. He just ploughed on as if nothing had happened. In the 1940s, Hayek put together his theories of the markets being a mechanism for transmitting the collective wisdom of market participants around the world through pricing. It was never going to get into the mainstream until nearly everyone had forgotten what happened last time they believed in the markets, i.e. the 1980s. Unfortunately, Hayek won out and the lessons of 1929 were forgotten. What lifted US stocks to 1929 levels in 1929? Margin lending and share buybacks. What lifted US stocks to 1929 levels in 2019? Margin lending and share buybacks. A former US congressman has been looking at the data. kzread.info/dash/bejne/aa6plbWgiNuZoZc.html The Americans are going to re-learn those lessons the hard way. It’s a pity they didn’t stick with their own free market thinkers who worked this out after last time. They’ll be cursing Hayek soon.

@szymonbaranowski8184

9 ай бұрын

it was globalisation that killed this market not only buying on credit spiral when you abstract out companies out of their natural usage for people and clients they serve you start living in dreamland you don't buy shares of companies making something you don't understand and has no usage for you it's stepping to dreamland you probably shouldn't invest in any company you don't know owner personally and do not buy products of 😂 centralisation destroys organic foundations of business it murders local communities capital local banks local markets local bonds and sustainability of regions in time of crisis total fluidity means total fragility

Universal Basic Income, Public Banking, Cooperative Banking. Check out the work of Richard Werner

@imonlyamanandiwilldiesomed4406

5 жыл бұрын

Universal basic income: wealth redistribution, a violation of property rights and a great way to start a new tradition of democratic elections: WHO OFFERS ME MORE UBI GETS MY VOTE! Public Banking/Cooperative banking: the kind of retarded thinking that caused the housing crash in 2008. Handing out risky loans that the free market would never make.

@Kumar-zn3ll

4 жыл бұрын

@@imonlyamanandiwilldiesomed4406 LOL dude 2008 was caused by the repeal of glass-steagall and the under-regulation of the financial sector in the late 80s and 90s.

@imonlyamanandiwilldiesomed4406

4 жыл бұрын

@@Kumar-zn3ll No, the 2008 crash was caused by government-created financial institutions and regulations that gave out mortgages to people who would not have qualified for them under free market conditions. When the market corrected itself (the mortgages went bad), one third of the mortgages in the USA were these sub-prime mortgages, and the crash resulted. It's the same story told over all of human history: when the government attempts to control the economy, (in this case, legally-mandate handing out mortgages to people who do not qualify for them, under free market conditions) bad things happen. Sure. they're well-meaning rulers (politicians) who want to help people buy homes, but they're ignorant and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. kzread.info/dash/bejne/lplnlKZmc72upc4.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/Z2hlxMOjgpfRaMo.html

@thomasd2444

3 жыл бұрын

@@imonlyamanandiwilldiesomed4406 - No UBI Much Better to Offer a Federal Guaranteed Job to all Able & Willing

@imonlyamanandiwilldiesomed4406

3 жыл бұрын

@@thomasd2444 "Much Better to Offer a Federal Guaranteed Job to all Able & Willing" You want more government interference in the economy in order to solve a problem caused by government interference in the economy? Seriously!?

Most interesting comment @David Ford In 1973 I sat in a conference room with Jay Forrester and a whole group of other world class intellects. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was there to record one of their number Stafford Beer deliver their very prestigious annual Massey lectures The topic of the conference was the application of simulation models to economics Stafford Beer had just returned from Chile where he had set up an economic management system for the country using a model of this type for Salvadore Allende Unfortunately the decision room he built to run the system was machine gunned at the same time as Allende There was a lot of brilliant work on that approach done at the time and earlier Beer himself had written Brain of the Firm, which applied the design of the human brain and nervous system to the problem of creating an effective enterprise Ross Ashby, Beer's mentor, had written some amazing, highly mathematical, works on cybernetics and control theory. After a brief efflorescence this effort died, killed by the econometricians, classical economists on mathematical steroids. I would suggest that Dr. Keen might well profit from an investigation of this material

Steve Keen, Peter Joseph, Warren Mosler, Stephanie Kelton are the only people I watch and listen to when it comes to this system

@markcarey67

Жыл бұрын

It wasn't until I read Stephanie Kelton that I realised why Peter Joseph was off base with his critique of the central banks charging interest on money they invented - it's a way to DELETE MONEY (taxes are another) so that the money supply matches the current productive capacity of the population and so prevent inflation. In this framework inflation post covid was predictable because you increased the money supply while reducing production. One solution would have been to raise taxes on the companies that benefited most during covid to balance things out better.

@nevadataylor

4 ай бұрын

Thanks for passing out some names. I know of only Peter Joseph, but will look into the others. I agree. Economics is not based on anything empirical. Economics is belief based speculation using some math, but it never rises above the Hypothesis Stage of the Scientific Method. Therefore economics cannot make accurate predictions like what is demanded by Science, and therefore, it is not a Science.

I spend a good deal of time on the problem of pseudoscience in economics and other than modeling "Patterns of Sustainable Specialization and Trade" - meaning, modeling at a lower level than the mainstream - I am not sure what Steve is actually saying here. The mainstream is pretty good at measuring the investment cycle, a little less good at the tax cycle, but bad at the economic, political, demographic, and civilizational cycles.And the reason is rather obvious.

No money, no banks, no debts is a lie. I mean you can just google, right? Of course, assumptions are simplified to understand the theory. However, you can make it complex however you want. Complexity btw doesn't always mean better...I find that this is true in economics, machine learning and data science.

What came first the chicken or the egg? Professor Werner: “...... neo-classical economics, as dominant today, has used the deductive methodology: Untested axioms and unrealistic assumptions are the basis for the formulation of theoretical dream worlds that are used to present particular ‘results’. As discussed in Werner (2005), this methodology is particularly suited to deriving and justifying preconceived ideas and conclusions, through a process of working backwards from the desired ‘conclusions’, to establish the kind of model that can deliver them, and then formulating the kind of framework that could justify this model by choosing suitable assumptions and ‘axioms’. In other words, the deductive methodology is uniquely suited for manipulation by being based on axioms and assumptions that can be picked at will in order to obtain pre-determined desired outcomes and justify favoured policy recommendations. It can be said that the deductive methodology is useful for producing arguments that may give a scientific appearance, but are merely presenting a pre-determined opinion.” The desired outcome can come first and the economics second.

I assumed the video would respond to the question set by the headline.

He hit the nail on the head.

The fundamental problem with modern economics is that it assumes people are rational. I feel like that is a quote from someone.

@Bigbudd0045

3 жыл бұрын

no it doesnt. Some fields of it do. There are certainly areas that study irrational decision making. The problem is that getting a grant to do a study and to turn around and say....we dont know. No one likes that.

@mkzhero

Жыл бұрын

People ARE pretty rational, if they're allowed to act rationally that is. The problem with modern economics is that IT ITSELF is irrational. Why? Because it assumes you can know what you can't know, and get at least semi reliable outcomes from these few tidbits you don't know don't fully know to begin with regarding a whole ton of needed unknowns and variables. Modern economics is very political and central planning based, because it's now highly political, and politics, which strives toward central planning, is literally just about playing god... Which can only work if you're a living god. And hopefully I don't have to explain gods among us is an impossibility?

@foxstele

Жыл бұрын

@@mkzhero Yes and no. You are right in that the current economy, in particular, the stock market is full of a ton of intentional and unintentional complexities. So much so, that it is to the point that people can dedicate their lives to knowing how it works and not being able to predict anything. My point is that people are emotional and have a habit of making snap decisions with little information (even if proper information is easily available). This is what most economic theory cannot account for. For example: If a CEO gets caught in a dumb scandal (like getting caught cheating on his wife with a proustite) the value of the stock will drop. Is this scandal going to realistically effect the company in any real way? Of course not. But people will drop the stock anyway. And in a few months it will go back to normal. Or on a consumer level: remember when the iPhone came out? Microsoft had a phone on the market for years that could do everything the iPhone did plus a bunch of features the iPhone wasn't going to have for years to come like multitasking. That didn't stop the public for going nuts for the things. People don't rationally weigh the pros and cons of their purchases. They buy what makes them feel good.

@mkzhero

Жыл бұрын

@@foxstele well, except again, all those things are completely rational. Accounting for them is difficult, but still possible... But the main problem is that the economy is intertwined, and you get up to trillions of such factors to account for, at which point the actual irrational thing is to THINK that you CAN account for them. To begin with basic, normal economics aren't about that at all, but about WAY smaller, short scale things. Because that's the field where it's a hard science with very good and predictable outcomes. Plus there's also the thing that prediction of such things isn't even economics to begin with but way different fields like say psychology... For example the Microsoft phone. I don't know but I can EASILY take a guess what the factors behind it's failure to lure customers was - bad PR, tons of features, bad price, hard to use. Meanwhile the majority of people are literally half monkey, retarded, heard like, simple. You show them a neatly designed shiny, show the cool kids using it successful enough, and explain it's stupidly simple design and use range in a way even a child underands and it's taking off like a rocket. Microsoft meanwhile, just like windows, offered 'too many' choices which scares off the idiots pretty bad in it of itself. Which is for example why consoles are alive and well when you can have a PC for the same price that'll land you with thousands of more games AND the option for so much more. And why game quality is on the decline, also moving toward multiplayer, all together offering far worse options and play experience while extorting way more money from players than ever before. But yeah, that little tangent aside, the difference between modern economics and normal ones, is the same as the difference between the Soviet union and a free (which didn't yet ever happen sadly), or nearly free economy (like was the case in early US) and a central planning state... They both assume/require god level of knowledge, information availability, and perfect theorycraft, ah, also impossible amounts of factually useless labor. Which is impossible and thus gets just more vague, complex and useless the more it 'advances'. While a free economy doesn't assume or require anything, just letting people solve all their problems freely as a service for a fee, and basic economics is just basic accounting to help a company figure out if they're getting profits overall when it's big, and what departments can be optimized. Simple, clear, effective.

@szymonbaranowski8184

9 ай бұрын

it also assumes effectiveness maximisation is always desired what's a totally narrow-minded approach

"The most dangerous cult is the one that doesn't realize it is one."

Academia is necessarily driven by peer review. That works very well in science which has evidence and mathematical models based on evidence. But once papers are based on opinion, then your ability to published depends on alignment to reviewers opinions. Without publications in good journals you cant have an academic career.

@szymonbaranowski8184

9 ай бұрын

you have loads of peer reviewed nonsense claiming it works well is living a delusion

It's amazing how unrealistic the economic theory taught is. Always requires false/unrealistic assumptions. The economic system is based in debt creation (money out of thin air), which is just a devaluation of the currency. They then act as though more debt is growth, when in reality no value has been added. How can a deteriorating house increase in value? In real terms it decreases in real value. Like a lot of academia, the institutions are guilty of teaching dogma, in order to create/maintain a Vampirical/Empirical pyramid system, where there is only motivation to repeat dogma and serve a minority. The philosophy needed is to realise that the greed of the individual is best served by serving the interest of the whole community,, and rather than trying to dominate nature, looking for the path of least resistance in order to flow in harmony with it.

@peterh9649

5 жыл бұрын

Jeremy Godwin I think houses increase in value as population increases and there is a higher need for houses, without inflation house prices still exist as populations generally need more houses, if suddenly a million houses came out of thin air then I’m sure house prices would go down

@tonedowne

5 жыл бұрын

@@peterh9649 House prices are driven by the availability of debt. If loans went back to the 3x annual income rule, then house prices would crash.

@dwayneorubor5322

5 жыл бұрын

Kebo Boke there is some fundamental for an increase in value for homes just not at these’s ridiculous rates.

@iandawunamugerwabyenkya7526

5 жыл бұрын

Are there schools/institutions that actually teach economics without these dogmatic assumptions?

@Nerdiness1985

5 жыл бұрын

Don't dignify economics by calling it a theory It's complete speculation which is constantly wrong, about everything all the time. It barely even qualifies as pseudo-scientific quackery of the lowest order.

In Neo-liberal economic theory, the sole internal purpose of government is to ensure large concentrations of economic power, and in particular financial power, are altogether unregulated. Unfortunately, attempts at labour organisation have compelled government to remain in being to regulate labour into economic and political ineffectuality. Otherwise, they would, of course, have abolished themselves, making themselves redundant, and increasing the supply of competitive cheap labour, knowing that, that way, we are all better off.

@szymonbaranowski8184

9 ай бұрын

competitive cheap labour sounds oximoronically

Old school economics, the economics of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, has been abandoned because the people at the top don't like the predicitons it makes. Nowadays economists start with the conclusions first and try and justify them - this is the opposite of science, wherein you make predictions based on observations and see if later observations support or falsify the predictions. Real predicitive economics was abandoned when Karl Marx showed that the same model used by Smith and Ricardo would inevitably result in the collapse of capitalism, other economists (especially the rich ones) did not like this conclusion but couldn't disprove it, so they invented new economic models whole-cloth to try and ignore the inevitable truth: Marx was right.

@tom4115

Жыл бұрын

Marx was a moron who didn't even understand the point of economics.

@rafaellino7168

Жыл бұрын

Interesting

@heem6619

7 ай бұрын

Yes the book you want to read on this history is called the corruption of economics by Mason Gaffney

@lowersaxon

3 ай бұрын

Yes, the top people write letters to universities informing them what they want.

Exactly, economic theology

@szymonbaranowski8184

9 ай бұрын

by a new Jesus

The Tao talks about Yin and Yang probabilistic blending, Buddhism is about centering in a state of Levitation, and both systems are aspect-versions of logarithmic condensation-coordination, superimposed coherence-cohesion, resonant objectives vanishing-into-no-thing at universal Singularity-point positioning.

what hes saying is at least partially right, but hes vague and his motives seem suspicious, plus hes ignoring a few things and re wording definitions. Economics is a cult but he doesnt define how. He doesnt go into debt, or the lack of long term planning in current economic models. Hes just saying a lot without saying much of anything at all.

@bar1825

Жыл бұрын

Like an economist I must say.

@nickmagrick7702

Жыл бұрын

@@bar1825 touche

@szymonbaranowski8184

9 ай бұрын

my thoughts exactly I prefer Werner but he starts with some good starting points sadly good diagnosis never guarantees a better solution

Thanks for candor about economics. I have rrlative who spent life in it ith wuntum phyics. I never understood so the big lesp in myths witn math help me tht it's fsntasyland in ivory toer. Too bad our brightest aren't hlping olve wold critical problem. He slwys tslked 'publish or perish '& got trnure young

@gibbogle

2 жыл бұрын

Try again, in English.

Interesting. Economics can't handle money. Makes sense to me. I've always felt that most economic schools, most especially the Chicago school, exist only to rationalize whatever the rich people who endow the school want.

@szymonbaranowski8184

9 ай бұрын

countries as Japan Korea China Germany developed or develop thanks to not taking external western advises when they start it's usually end of their prosperity period

This is not at all what is taught in ALL major universities. many hold the view that the equilibrium is some sort of ideal; any given circumstances will tend to lean towards a certain equilibrium but not get there - because as is explained in the video, the world does not run on assumptions made by certain types of scholars.

The fundamental failure of economists today is thier belief Capitalism is suitable for all exchanges and their refusal to acknowledge when Socialism is the answer for the task. Capitalism is not capable of dealing with the social problems that cost under Capitalism but have no returns, or more to the point no tangible financial returns. This unwillingness to admit capitalism is not a system that handles these cases at all is the fundamentalism that economists an Capitalists suffer from.

@Testimony_Of_JTF

Жыл бұрын

Could you point out a specific service in our society that is useful, but unprofitable?

@szymonbaranowski8184

9 ай бұрын

you can't escape need of effectiveness but this system can't escape need of multivaluation of things not stuck in money value of things alone socialism was murdered by communists in Catalonia

@Saphira-Seraphina

8 ай бұрын

@@Testimony_Of_JTF Having a working public infrastructure especially public transportation, education (at least in a monetary sense), healthare (although it does make a society more profitable, it doesn't make the providers profit in the short run), every single public good that's out there

"The production of too many useful things results in too many useless people." Karl Marx

@Testimony_Of_JTF

Жыл бұрын

Yet another quote for my Marx cringe compilation

@szymonbaranowski8184

9 ай бұрын

even a gypsy grandma can say something general with more sense

Physics and economics changed in the 20th century. The atom had no structure in 1900, there were no galaxies and there was no GNP/GDP. Physicists did not buy cars in 1900 but shouldn't they recognize planned obsolescence and notice that economists are ignoring the depreciation of durable consumer goods by now? What is Net Domestic Product?

We didn't have a great depression between 1945 and 1982 but we did have a whole lot of crashes...

@thomasd2444

3 жыл бұрын

First recession : 1966 after which we were told we could not afford "it" Not afford space, not afford living wage employment, not afford colleges, not afford quality public housing , not afford quality public medical healing, not afford quality public pensions , not afford . . .

It's interesting how dismissive some of you are in the comments. If you haven't thought about how illogical some of the things that were taught in your economics undergrad... its safe to say, you probably don't really know what you're talking about. Gonna do some more research on this guy

@jimlyon7276

2 жыл бұрын

@ Colton Virtuoso - "t's interesting how dismissive some of you are in the comments" - Not @ all ! Just telling it like it is ! The difference between me & economists is having been a trained aircraft engineering technician if you choose to ignore reality then aircraft start falling out of the sky & people start getting VERY unhappy with you! Having developed a rigorous understanding of reality that's something that's NEVER left me! :)

@Testimony_Of_JTF

Жыл бұрын

@@jimlyon7276 They are repeating the same "It doesn't work because humans are dumb" fallacy. They always forget that ALL economic systems that we have at the moment would be ruled by humans. Be it socialism, communism, anarchism, capitalism, feudalism and so on.

You also misunderstand what mainstream economists mean by an equilibrium. It is not a static outcome. We call that a steady state. Macroeconomics is all about dynamic equilibrium.

0"03 -"accidental? failures" - I doubt that VERY much ! ! ! - I suspect Steve Keen is being FAR too generous ! Also being generous the best light I can show on their GROSS stupidity is that, according to Yanis Varoufakis they built their financial model on a fixed moment in time & thus TOTALLY ignored a VERY basic fact that the universe we live in is a non linear PROCESS ! ! ! To use financial terminology they consider process to be an "externality" that can be "safely" ignored ! According to Yanis Varoufakis the maths attached to their model is a complete load of bull sh*t which was designed to impress gullible people so that these con men could gain promotion & wealth in the academic world. Another way of looking @ this scam is it's a case of "The Emperor's Clothes" that do NOT exist in reality! But then they chose to ignore reality/ process in the first place !

What could outsider independent economics produce? I've been working on outsider economics theories over 10,000 hours and writing books, but haven't published yet. I want to go to market with my economics business pricing solution that will solve poverty. How is that possible to solve poverty? By creating a price tag and coupon technology upgrade that lets a seller charge more money to rich people and less to poor people for the same thing. The technology works by introducing a unit of "hours of your personal time" as a unit of exchange in a price tag. Instead of a coffee costing $5, a seller can write a price tag as "$2 +0.1hr". the "0.1hr" is for a price of zero point one hours of your personal time and is converted based on your personal $/hr rate for convenient payment in dollars only at the cash register. with a price tag of "$2+0.1hr" a poor person pays $2+0.1hrX$10/hr=$3 for the coffee. A middle income person pays price calculated at $2+0.1hrX$30/hr = $5, and a rich person pays $2+0.1hrX$90/hr=$11 for the coffee. If this alternative economics and business model interests, you, then you can find out more in a youtube video I created at kzread.info/dash/bejne/iYGOsMWHqam9dZM.html

@Guizambaldi

3 жыл бұрын

So you invented progressive taxation?

Love this. I'm studying mathematics right now and it makes me so excited to see new potential applications I could try out.

@suckmyartauds

Жыл бұрын

@@ThomasVWorm I'm so confused by this response. I'm well aware of the limitations of mathematical modelling as a tool to understand complex human behavior. That doesn't mean we should throw it out entirely. Nothing about math states that "humans will behave rationally in the market". That was an ideological invention. Nothing in my comment implied that I think the economy is always predictable so Idk where you are getting this from

@rajinfootonchuriquen

Жыл бұрын

You could try to get the dynamics of price-demand-supply without brownian motion. I'm trying to define a system of non-linear differential equations using "feeling" function like satisfaction and fatigue function.

Freakonomics 5:00

Not only do citizens not have perfect information, nor rational decision-making processes, but marketers deliberately distort information and encourage irrational behavior as strategies for maximizing the profits of individuals. It might be possible for markets to be maintained fairly close to equilibrium, and the public would be best served by it, but the profits of unscrupulous individuals would be curtailed. The laws won't be passed, and the economy will always suffer instabilities for that reason.

The difference between physics and economy is that in the first, the gifted rise to the maximum prestige; and in the second, is anchored to the lowest attention. Imagine if physicists had never wanted to believe Einstein because he postulate that gravety wasn't a force, but a deformation of the space-time manifold. Today it wouldn't exist many things, for be concise, everything space related techo.

beautiful

Keen is just one of the economist trying to use models of complex ,dynamic and disequilibrium system in order to analyze the economy. Mainstrean economists know and care about complex, nonlinear, disquilibrium models but they do not prefer to use it. The models have longstanding history starting at least from 1960s or even before. You can see Barro and Grossman's work on disequilibrium model in AER which is the one of the best "Mainstream" economics journal in 1975. There are tons of other works. Gintis who is also a famous mainstream scholar still publishes his works on complex disequilibrium model to the decent mainstream journal like Economics Journal. These lines of works are considered seriously to the mainstream economists but not used frequently just because there is no empirical evidence that these models are better in explaining/predicting the world than the equilibrium models. Economists are interested in understanding the observed facts. If disequilibrium models explains the world better then the economists will use that model. There is no doubt. Discipline is not dogmatic at all. There is probability that Keen's model is better than existing ones. However, i eel uncomfortable because he has no respect for the rest of other economists who really try hard to understand the economy in scientic way. You don't have the right to call all the others' works 'myth' just because you are using the different tool. Economics may or may not be science. It depends on your definition of science. If you are defining science in a narrow way, economics is not a science. It is obvious that there is no comparable equation in economics like those in exact sciences, physics, chemistry and etc. Unlike units of analysis in exact sciences, molecules, planets, energies.., those in economics are individuals and groups of individuals which have wills, expectations and feelings. So even if we conduct perfectly controlled experiment repeatedly, there should be some variations in result. However, it does not mean that we cannot find causal effects. We can find general, indisputable tendencies existing in human society. So if you define science in a very narrow sense then econimics is not a science. However, if you are considering any discpline that uses scientific methods but cannot bring us exact, universal laws as a science then economics is science also. I am sorry that my english poor. However, i strongly feel to post a comment against the man who claims that whole discipline is nothing but myth and people who argue economics is not a science without any logical argument.

@ashleigh3021

5 жыл бұрын

K HJ DSGE models will always be wrong because they cherrypick and don’t acknowledge endogenous money and how banks actually function.

@sinistril

5 жыл бұрын

Well put.

@alrisan71

5 жыл бұрын

+K HJ: Maybe the straightforward way is that you study a career with a strong scientific background like physics or engineering for six years and work in these areas for 15 years or more, and then return to study economics. I guarantee that you will see the differences between economics and science very clearly. Sorry for my english as well. Kind Regards from a structural engineer.

@dwayneorubor5322

5 жыл бұрын

Economics is a social science not a natural science.

@khj2605

5 жыл бұрын

@@ashleigh3021 I am not a big fan of DSGE neither. However, i admit that they are trying hard to explain what's happening in the world. Sure you can argue that missing money and bank in the model is not so good but it is different from simply saying that whole macro guys are bullshiting.

I love this.

Is every economic school a cult or just the schools of thought that you don’t subscribe to? More math for Econ students sounds like a good idea.

@thibautnarme6402

5 жыл бұрын

Yes and no (a real economist answer). Considering that most of econ research is empirical analysis with statistics, more math can be profitable, especially if they lead to new approaches, new models, new testing methods and so on. But math as summarizing tool can lead students to lose sight on what's at play (a nitty-gritty complicated world, not a 3-market model with diminishing returns).

The man begins by stating he's attempting to bring the techniques of the "genuine sciences" into neo-classical economics. Then he proceeds to immediately cite "non-mainstream" economists like Hymen Minsky, who belong to the Austrian School, a tradition of economics which rejects the concept of data collection and quantitative measurements in favor of thought experiments... Eric Weinstein's work applying Gauge theory to neo-classical economics proves its scientific value. Is he part of a different institute for new economic thinking? Has this man not read his colleague's work? Nice leather jacket though, very badass.

@Kumar-zn3ll

4 жыл бұрын

Minsky identified himself as post-keynesian, the fuck you mean hes part of the Austrian school?

@thomasd2444

3 жыл бұрын

@@Kumar-zn3ll - That was a comic relief joke, I thought . Maybe he was foolishly serious

@davidbowles7281

Жыл бұрын

Austrian school is a complete joke from a scientific standpoint. Scientific method doesn't magically stop working just because humans become involved.

Someone gotta translate for those who aren't PHD economists.

@Ravie1

5 жыл бұрын

Old models were garbage and didn't predict shit, new ones not based off equilibrium theories (which only make sense in the long term anyway) are much much better. Minsky wrote a book in the 1980's that more or less described the how of the 2008 recession without knowing anything about the insurance swap market overvaluation that was created by the real estate bubble because he wrote about asset bubbles in general. My Economics education wasn't at a neoclassical department so most of what he is talking about is covered on a facile level, mostly because they aren't trying to turn undergrads into serious researchers at most 4 year colleges. I've actually had teachers tell me that if I want to go to grad school I should learn to use the program this guy created, it's actually pretty good. I'm very glad that I took classes in monetary theory because if I hadn't I wouldn't understand most of what he is talking about, it's really under emphasized in core curriculum in even my department.

Post-Keynesians have predicted a recession constantly for a while now, getting it right once in 2008 was a lucky strike

@ArthurWuYeah211

2 жыл бұрын

@uptoolate28 Sad, yet they have never won a nobel prize and have to get their research money off patreon. Even austrians have a nobel prize and your tradition has been around for like 70 years, isn't it time to give up? Keen literally cries about an australian housing crisis every 2 years or so and got it right once. If that's predictability I don't know what is. As mankiw says, MMT wasn't like most heterodox traditions which came from respectable institutions and economists, it was an internet movement with fringe support from economists at low-tier universities.

@ArthurWuYeah211

2 жыл бұрын

​@uptoolate28 > Can you even study economics that stray from the mainstream in the US? Ya you can, at New School and Bard > these egomaniacs believe it to be some form of natural science. No one says that. It is similar to natural science because Econ and natural science shares some methods (one example is Vector Autoregression model) but it is a social science and is usually sorted as such. >Japan has been doing MMT for 20 years and their economy sure is great... LMAO. Also, not entirely accurate as their debt-to-gdp ratio is growing slowly and they are taking steps to make their monetary policy less expansionary. >QE is more trickle-down economics I don't have much to say about this one. QE's purpose is to make borrowing easier in the long term, therefore expanding economic activity during recessions and recovering quicker. How you came to that conclusion is beyond me. Modern economics cannot perfectly predict a recession, or address every single economic problem, but it provides very valuable insights which have allowed us to weaken recessions and construct better public policies. It is definitely better than Post-Keynesian thought whose models constantly predicts a recession and can tell little on how to address it or when it will form, or behavioral models which are not reliable and fail to make generalizable conclusions. I'm thankful that few people with real power have taken a liking to MMT though it is scary to see these dangerous ideas grow. I'll leave two papers you should read scholar.harvard.edu/files/mankiw/files/skeptics_guide_to_modern_monetary_theory.pdf www.boeckler.de/en/faust-detail.htm?sync_id=8371 One by an actual "neoliberal" as you left-wing populists call it and one by a german trade union-funded think tank.

@digitalcommunist6335

2 жыл бұрын

@uptoolate28 well , never forget that Harvard is institution where G W Shrub, yes the Texas village idiot , obtained MBA. Lmao. When that brain devoid simpleton , that has trouble speaking in coherent manner, managed to double graduate hallowed Ivy institutions ……..

@ArthurWuYeah211

2 жыл бұрын

​@uptoolate28 Every fringe thinks they are the ones who are not crazy and the 99% of the population are the people who are. Recessions cause around 1 year of missed GDP growth and at worse 3 years of lost wealth growth for middle-income families, saying that having a major recession once a century is a be-all-end-all is retarded. Lucas Jr. stated that in the long run recessions don't matter as much as growth is generally reflective of long-term productivity trends which Krugman agreed with. It's interesting how you can be so caught-up in criticizing economics without even understanding the research economists do, can you even list what's wrong with the theoretical New-Keynesian DSGE framework or what's wrong with the causal-inference methods Economics uses to mimic the scientific method. All you can do is parrot the talking point that economics is funded by koch which is just factually untrue, it's funded by businesses who want research done, the government, or academia. You can't even criticize the research that's being done itself. Both empirically and theoretically MMT fails to stand its ground as the type of government policy they recommend such as price guidance fails pretty much every time it is implemented. There are several empirical studies on the effects of rent control, price control, and the other price-guidance recommendations MMT advocates for. Theoretically a lot of their assumptions like the assumption that government-directed fiscal policy can exploit some sort of "excess capacity" are just weird and have little backing.

@RagingGeekazoid

2 жыл бұрын

@uptoolate28 Except Joe Biden's $2000 handouts in 2021 (maybe after your post), which went to ordinary Americans and brought unemployment down to reasonable levels for the first time in decades. Trickle-up economics. It actually works. 🙂

My premise is that real wealth is actually progeny.

@jgdooley2003

Жыл бұрын

In a modern society offspring are a liability. There is no guarantee of children looking after their aging parents that matches the legal obligation that is on parents to provide for and nurture their offspring when they are below age 18. In old farming based societies with very little vocational or locational mobility children were seen as an asset and the custom was to have as many as you could possibly have. This compensated for high infant mortality and provided the farmer with a valuable source of almost free labour. Now we face a situation where children do not earn their first wage until their mid 20's and in many cases have to pay back student debt before they can take on the task of caring and providing for their aged parents.

There is just so much to unpack here. The assertion that mainstream economics does not take money seriously is simply not true. Articles on the money demand deriving from exchange frictions and money being held to speculate on future consumption opportunities as long as it is widely accepted have been published in mainstream economic journals for a three decades now. Yes the notion of equilibrium is a joke and this is a major flaw in mainstream economics but I feel like Prof. Keen is very much picking selective evidence to support his claim that "all" economists are blind to reality. Intellectually lazy...

The solution to economics is Simulink?? improbable...

In the end I'm left with the most important question unanswered: what on earth is neoclassical economics in Keen's definition? I'm saying that because, from his speech, I have to conclude that the only way not to make his entire enterprise a monumental strawman is to equate neoclassical economics with real business cycle theory. But that would be ridiculous, since his critique clearly appears to be targeted to the whole of the mainstream/neoclassical economics. If not the whole, at least the majority of the profession apart from behavioral economics and one or another field that does not rely on general equilibrium for theory. My first reaction to that is ask where does he put empirics? And I don't mean structural estimation, but reduced form natural experiments. They are the vast majority of papers in the discipline. Do they count as neoclassical economics? If not, why does Keen seems mad about the profession when the majority of players are doing empirical research not directly depended on assumptions? And what about general equilibrium papers with market failures? There are papers with all sorts of space for intervention. It seems like he is implying that all equilibria is pareto efficient in a general equilibrium model, but that obviously depends on the assumptions of the model. Let me guess: he thinks the welfare theorem applies to all kinds of general equilibrium models... Now that we have covered 90% of the discipline of (mainstream/neoclassical) economics, which include fields like growth, development, industrial organization, international economics, urban economics, etc... all possibly dismissed as ptolemaic economics by our hero (we don't know if his target is really the 90%, since his terminology is sloppy), let's go to the field of macroeconomics, where it feels like it's really where Keen is mad. So stay with me folks, we are going to smooth his vitriol and accept that he is really mad at 10% of the discipline, despite making all of economics sound like garbage. We are going to stay with, basically, macroeconomics. So Keen says: (i) There is no money in the model (ii) There are no banks nor debt in the model (ii) There is no market fricction and the economy is populated by rational individuals with rational expectations, operating in perfect competition (iv) There is no room for government intervention (v) The model is one of equilibrium Okay, so these items decribe the real business cycle theory/new classical macro. In its heyday, in the 80s, it was probably 50% of macroeconomics. Today it is much smaller and New Keynesian models respond for the majority of research. Why does Keen appear to think that new classical RBC is all there is to mainstream macro? Well, either he is misinformed about it, or even worse, he thinks that because RBC and DSGE models share some properties then they are the same (by reading some things he wrote I can infer that). But that's nonsense. Keynesian DSGE: (i) Has money and it has impact in the short run. Monetary policy has real effect. (ii) There are no banks nor debt in the workhorse model. That does not mean macroeconomists don't care about it, it just means that for the most part we can do the analysis of business cycle ignoring it. There are other types of models dealing with the connection of the financial sector with the economy. When those factors become relevant, you take the model which deal with that issue from the hat, and leave the workhorse model behind. In economics we use different models for different situations, not necessarily a single model for everything. (iii) There is market friction: imperfect competition and sticky prices. (iv) Even though in the long run the economy could recover, there is room for monetary policy to push the economy to full employment faster. (v) The model has a long run equilibrium. You could study disequilibrium by giving it a shock and observing how variables converge to the long run equilibrium. So we just refuted the idea that Keynesian DSGE is the same or has the same implications of New Classical RBC models. Now, it does seem that he is fond of Post Keynesian stuff that would be different from New Keynesian stuff. So Keen's substance has just fall from "economics is all wrong and follows stupid assumptions" to "I want to give room to post-keynesian ideas inside macroeconomics", which is an understandable claim, but nowhere near the form of the attack. If you want to model an economy where there is no automatic tendency to full employment, fine. Do it. The fact that mainstream macro assumes we need the government to push the economy to full employment faster is compatible with such understanding, even if the theory behind is different. I assume monetary versus fiscal policy would be a major theme of contention, as it seems like Post Keynesians emphasize more fiscal policy. But again, in the zero lower bound we converge on the mechanics of the economy. At the zero lower bound there really is no tendency to full employment and we know that since Keynes. Of course New Keynesian workhorse DSGE cannot work in this situation, but other models will. Maybe the mainstream should be more open to talk to heterodox thinkers, even if they don't have a mathematical model, but it doesn't help if they view themselves as saviors and grossly misunderstands and/or misrepresents the mainstream.

@thomasd2444

3 жыл бұрын

After ALL THAT , I'm left with the most important question unanswered : Why not learn what a neoclassical economist is www.investopedia.com/terms/n/neoclassical.asp

@Guizambaldi

3 жыл бұрын

@@thomasd2444 Yeah... so a neoclassical economist is an 1880s economist? If he means it in that way, that's just moronic. I restate what I said. Keen equate macro = economics, and equate macro = RBC. That's the only way to understand his attacks.

Keen 4 Keen

there is no equilibrium

I am pretty happy in Finland. Here Goverment holds monopoly only on most strategical stuff (infra,alkohol, health, education..), I am entrpreneur and I dont feel opressed at all.

@Testimony_Of_JTF

Жыл бұрын

What is "infra"? Also, why nationalize alcohol? Money? I don't see how that could benefit society

@lowersaxon

3 ай бұрын

@@Testimony_Of_JTFDude!!! C‘mon, bc its baaaad.

@lowersaxon

3 ай бұрын

@@Testimony_Of_JTFInfra is a Swedish furniture house.

The first 70 seconds. ❤

You're framing the question wrong it's not marxist/marxian socialism with marxist/marxian communism in mind versus capitalism it's marxoid social democratic liberal/libertarian capitalism versus centrist liberal/libertarian capitalism and so-called radical centrist liberal/libertarian capitalism versus neo-liberal/neo-libertarian/neo-conservative white-market corporate capitalism since the mid-1980s to mid-1990s in both the so-called developed urbanised post-industrialised western world/western world/first-world and in the so-called under-developed/developing ruralised industrialising/industrialised eastern world/eastern world/third-world

Macro economics is not like physics at all. U cant test macroeconomic theories like u can say quantum mechanics. Complex economic models are useless as the assumptions which are turned into formulas are not repeatable and nonlinear. Hayek nailed this decades ago.

@aritakalo8011

5 жыл бұрын

Yes you can test. Take a known measure. Take current situation. Make a prediction on measure say 1 year down. Did the measure end up with value predicted within the margin of error established. YES/NO. model works, model doesn't. Non-linear? even some of the simplest physics models aren't linear. Claiming untestability is false. It is testable. The models are just BAD and aren't good at predicting. So it might be unpredictable at the moment, but not untestable. It is testable, the results just aren't very encouraging for current modeling. If it isn't testable, it isn't a science and shouldn't be used for decision making. Economics is measurable, so it is testable. Models just are bad at predicting. As are physics models for more complex systems. Weather forecasting is rather bad at long term and that is just complex physics.

Sounds like he is talking about brexiters rather than economists

i love this guy, i hear Werner in him

Macroeconomists use MATLAB all the time. This is the problem with heterodox economists. They are disconnected and misinformed about the actual mainstream profession.

True revolutionary. Leather jacket under which he hides his own books that totally debunk all misconceived world views.

I won't say Economics is a cult. Rather, there are some economists who have a cult following. That doesn't make the discipline of economics a cult.

@stevesmith4901

Жыл бұрын

@@ThomasVWorm Give me an example of what you say, just so I understand it better. How do they explain the existence of money?

@view1st

Жыл бұрын

@@ThomasVWorm It's a political ideology masquerading as a social science. A system of apologetics á la theology designed to justify the status quo and actually prevent people thinking in any way that challenges corporatist orthodoxy. In short it's quasi-religious fundamentalism created in the universities of Britain and the USA,

Who said money makes no difference?? I mean, all central bankers know money makes a differences in the short run. And that is why they make monetary policies. Duh.. I mean, if you studied money in utility monetary model in grad sch or read Gali's book...then you know money makes a difference... Not sure this guy has read enough literature...

His argument seems to be: neo-classical economics fails by not acknowledging the role of money, banks, and debt. This argument is just wrong. You can download a PDF of a textbook on the economics of money, banks, and financial markets (including bonds, i.e. debt) for free. spu.fem.uniag.sk/Marian.Toth/finance/20142015/MBFM.pdf

So basically an economist is a self proclaimed expert in money.

@RagingGeekazoid

2 жыл бұрын

Mainstream economists are priests of capitalism.

Economists do not know Matlab exists? Economists learn to use and program in matlab routinely in every mainstream graduate economics a program. Mr Keen talks about economics too confidently relative to his apparent level of knowledge about his economists think and work. Dissapointing, not on par with other presenters in the series...

Can we take the leather jackets from economists?

Economists win Nobel prizes using math first year university physics students use on a daily basis. Economics is a philosophy. The further you move away from the art and closer to math/science...the weaker it gets.

@seamusmcfitz913

Жыл бұрын

@@ThomasVWorm you're not too bright.

Sorry, but saying that economists aren’t aware of Matlab et al is absurd.

The sooner economic policy is made using Ai software, the better

@enzolumare5680

5 жыл бұрын

Fionán He sooner there isn’t economic policy,the better. Get the govt out of economics

@gabbar51ngh

3 жыл бұрын

That's just letting robots do central planning

@gibbogle

2 жыл бұрын

Off you go. We'll wait.

Disagree. Read _Economic Harmonies_ by Bastiat. He spends chapters covering the social interdependence aspects of economics, but still comes back to his version of the calculation problem. The problem is always, "who decides?" The reason that individualism must be primary is that only individuals can make choices and abstractions cannot. Keen reiterates this mistake by claiming that the individual and society are somehow at opposite poles. How could anything be more incorrect. Society is strictly, and only, composed of individuals. The answer to "who decides" must always be the individual no matter how much you want to twist it, Keen.

@GumbyTheGreen1

5 жыл бұрын

Except that not everything's about economics. We now know that a society run by competing individuals will eventually destroy the planet (and themselves) without a strong, adaptive regulatory system that keeps everyone playing within strict boundaries.

The historiography of libertarians (America's most devout neoclassicists) ignores so much. The very foundation of the notion of egalitarian and pluralistic economics was government driven land reforms. Governments forced markets into being, and must constantly do so. Capitalism is great- I am very much in favor of private enterprise. There is a truth in the statement that the solution to the ills of capitalism being more capitalism. The problem that must be reconciled is that more capitalism sometimes means more government interference.

@sherlocksmith6931

5 жыл бұрын

No one bothers arguing the basis of capitalism in both the so-called developed urbanised post-industrialised western world/western world/first-world and in the so-called under-developed/developing ruralised industrialising/industrialised eastern world/eastern world/third-world since the mid-1980s to mid-1990s however the variation/version of capitalism is questioned by many-and-most segments of society

@sherlocksmith6931

5 жыл бұрын

No one bothers arguing the basis of capitalism in both the so-called developed urbanised post-industrialised western world/western world/first-world and in the so-called under-developed/developing ruralised industrialising/industrialised eastern world/eastern world/third-world since the mid-1980s to mid-1990s however the variation/version of capitalism is questioned by many-and-most segments of society

@maxwellschmidt235

5 жыл бұрын

Ummer Farooq no, they still have too much state intervention in their economy. With that said, they do occasionally come out with innovations that it would be wise for the west to emulate, such as green gdp.

@celinak5062

5 жыл бұрын

@@maxwellschmidt235 there's an Accelerationist that absolutely loves China

@celinak5062

5 жыл бұрын

@@sherlocksmith6931 Hans Rosling talked a bit about that

" the bad parts of Marx"..... I am presuming by this Keen is referring to the Hegelian elements, the underlying logic of the texts by Marx, Das Capital and the Grundrisse, i.e. the central metaphysical thrust of Marx borrowed from Hegel which enabled him to phenomenologicaly deconstruct and critique Capitalism purely from observation of the commodity form, with NO presuppositions whatsoever (unlike Keen who must rely on the scientist assertion shared by his neo-classical enemies, that mathematics=ontological reality) these presuppositions shared by mainstream economists in their view of the prevalent realiy of capitalist society. The result of this analysis by marx not reliant on mathematics bu rather on hegelian dialectics? the most enduring critique of capitalism in the past century and a half, still relevant today, unlike economists trying to grapple with these issues, overly reliant and uncritically dependent on concepts borrowed from main sciences

@alexb8560

5 жыл бұрын

You haven't read Marx, have you?

@thedude7319

5 жыл бұрын

You are aware this really sounds more like a religion than anything else right ? [although religion as well as communism are philosophical framing devices]

@CiabanItReal

5 жыл бұрын

Economics addition of Math Mathematical models HELPS us explain the models we use, playing hygalian word games doesn't make something more true.

@consciouscactus

5 жыл бұрын

He's not saying mathematics have no role in economics, they obviously do. He's saying that the math on paper that neo-classical economics use are not an accurate reflection of the real world.

@CiabanItReal

5 жыл бұрын

@@consciouscactus If there is a problem in the math of a model, then criticize that model, you don't just throw out the entire basis of the subject because it doesn't match your ideology. This is why people don't use the Harrod-Domar model (which is Kenysian) any longer, the math doesn't hold true for the real world. But that doesn't mean we throw out everything based on Kenysian economics.

Professors in general aren't the brightest people. Economists are just sad people.

There is no balance in the economy when only one source of money creation is used - private sector credit creation (monetary policy). Government fiscal policy is equally necessary to create economic health. Our Wall St gov't knows this but they prefer everyone to borrow credit from them for personal gain. Deficits hurt bank profits!! That's not how government finance was designed and they should not be the managers. Right now, the economy is lopsided, the HUGE financial economy sits like a tumorous growth on top of the real industrial economy, extracting wealth for the toll booth rentiers, the FIRE sector (finance, insurance, real estate). "Government exists to spend. The purpose of government is to serve the general welfare of the citizens, not just the military-industrial complex and the financial class. Didn’t we have a stimulus, oh, eight years ago? It was tiny and has not been entirely spent. As Yellen implied, we need more spending of the non-military kind (what Barney Frank memorably called “weaponized Keynesianism” doesn’t stimulate)." www.forbes.com/sites/leesheppard/2016/04/02/we-need-fiscal-policy/?fbclid=IwAR02l1AlZGMpapbTOdURjgRknx6Kai-24Z6fXBCXyBolgdgodvjSmYmXAdw#1c4e7dea8b40

@ArtsAlign

5 жыл бұрын

The 40-yr. Wall St/capitalist revolt is beautifully chronicled in Christopher Lasch's book, Revolt of the Elites. Prof. Michael Hudson also captures it here: "The bank strategy continues: “If we can privatize the economy, we can turn the whole public sector into a monopoly. We can treat what used to be the government sector as a financial monopoly. Instead of providing free or subsidized schooling, we can make people pay $50,000 to get a college education, or $50,000 just to get a grade school education if families choose to go to New York private schools. We can turn the roads into toll roads. We can charge people for water, and we can charge for what used to be given for free under the old style of Roosevelt capitalism and social democracy.” This idea that governments should not create money implies that they shouldn’t act like governments. Instead, the de facto government should be Wall Street. Instead of governments allocating resources to help the economy grow, Wall Street should be the allocator of resources - and should starve the government to “save taxpayers” (or at least the wealthy). Tea Party promoters want to starve the government to a point where it can be “drowned in the bathtub.” But if you don’t have a government that can fund itself, then who is going to govern, and on whose terms? The obvious answer is, the class with the money: Wall Street and the corporate sector. They clamor for a balanced budget, saying, “We don’t want the government to fund public infrastructure. We want it to be privatized in a way that will generate profits for the new owners, along with interest for the bondholders and the banks that fund it; and also, management fees. Most of all, the privatized enterprises should generate capital gains for the stockholders as they jack up prices for hitherto public services. You can see how to demoralize a country if you can stop the government from spending money into the economy. That will cause austerity, lower living standards and really put the class war in business. So what Trump is suggesting is to put the class war in business, financially, with an exclamation point." michael-hudson.com/2017/03/why-deficits-hurt-banking-profits/?fbclid=IwAR06awK0L-3z172I_q003EZMVaoAYfqxNg0xqjWXXtFb9mmWMdhOTwqnE4I

I feel like he kind of knows what he's talking about because he mentioned the needed intelligence level of god... But at the same time he's completely clueless on what capitalism is, because by no possible definition do we have anything resembling it currently.

Wow, this guy apparently hasn't read very much economics literature and doesn't know much beyond a few things he picked up while working in the computer industry and reading a couple of Minsky's books. The flow charts he describes are simply a graphical representation of a set of difference or differential equations. (Hint: You don't need matlab or any other software with a GUI to produce these sort of models - fortran or C or any other basic programming language and some really basic math will do). There are so many other problems with the drivel he is spouting, it might be time for him to learn about google, or google scholar or, god forbid, a library. (You are allowed to look in the economics section for books and papers that go beyond Econ 101). Yes there is a lot of talk about equilibria in mainstream economics, as in physics, but there is also a lot of talk about dynamics (as there is in physics) as well. Look up anything about business cycles, growth economics, control of the money supply, wealth accumulation, intergenerational transfers, etc., etc., etc. Good grief...

Who is or what is Valra? I cant find anything about him.

@RagingGeekazoid

2 жыл бұрын

Léon Walras

I CAN QUANTIFY INFINITY WITH MY VISION AND EQUATION GUYS, I SWEAR! THEN WE CAN ALL SACRIFICE OUR FREEDOM AND LIVE UNDER MY MAGICAL FORMULA! HEIL ME!