Neoclassical economists have created a totally delusional methodology that they are using to direct us all over the cliff. If this were something benign, like a Minecraft simulation, no problem. But it is the real world that they are totally misinterpreting with their insane assumptions.
I don’t think that’s what he or the Michaux piece he’s championing is suggesting. They’re rather suggesting (rightly, I believe) that the minerals and natural resources we would need to fully replace fossil fuel-based energy production and consumption with renewables do not exist.
Steve Keen talks too fast and assumes his readers are steeped in math. I have 40 years experience in this math, but he loses me. I do have enough experience modeling bipolar transistors to know how different an exponential is compared to a quadratic (MOSFET transistors).
Keen's fast talking doesn't convince me. It makes me want to watch my wallet.
Say something that shows us how you followed him. It is easy to say you follow. I run across many MMT followers who think they understand MMT, but really don't.
Your inference of my understanding of MMT is all wrong. I know full well that it is a description of what is. I am a little concerned that it bases itself on an accounting truism, without mentioing that accounting is a quasi-static discipline. For instance, in accounting for money, there is talk that private banks create money that is balanced by an equivalent debt. There is no mention that the "money" is created instantaneously, but the debt may be paid back over 30 years. There is an awful lot of reality that takes place between the time the "money" is given out and the time the debt is repaid.
To make more sense of reality, I like to say that private banks create "promises of money", but they don't create actual money. If private banks could create actual money, then there would never be a run on a bank that would need backup from The Federal Reserve.
When people like Stephanie Kelton say that USA bonds are like money, I say, "They are like money in certain ways, but there are a list of ways that they are not like Federal Reserve Notes." Take a USA bond to the grocery store to try to buy a loaf of bread with it. In WW2 how were USA Govt bonds used to tamp down the problem of inflation? People deferred their attempts to buy consumer goods with their money as long as that money was held in the form of bonds.
What MMT advocates say in social media is the equivalent of a high school explanation of MMT. There is a deeper version for the graduate level explanation of MMT.
When you talk about friction in physics, you recognize that it can frequently be ignored in many real world situations. If you want to understand the role of friction, you don't look at situations where it does not matter. To understand friction, you have to look for the situations where it does matter. It is easy for the high school level explanation of MMT to stick to the examples where certain things can be ignored for the purposes of simplification. As a modeler of real physics, you have to know when your simplification is valid and when it is not. If you send rockets into outer space, there are all sorts of aspects of physics that you have to take into account, that are less important for smaller objects staying in earth's gravitational field
I am talking about sector balances in MMT. That is where the accounting truism comes up.
If private banks create money, then when there is a run, why don't private banks create the money to satisfy the run. Why are you trying so hard not to understand me?
If deeper questions than the superficial MMT explanations can answer bother you, then maybe you don't understand MMT as well as you think you do. I had the discussion of "promises of money" with Warrren Mosler. He thought that just saying private banks create deposits was good enough, and you should not ask deeper questions. That was not a satisfying response to me, so I let it drop.
To discuss any of your longer responses would require the graduate course in MMT that I am not prepared to offer on a YouTube thread.
Another step in breaking the stranglehold of neoclassical economics over university economics departments.
Seminaries...
Brilliant seminal work. One of the very best videos that you have ever don on this..
Brilliant seminal work. One of the very best videos that you have done.
Neoclassical economists have created a totally delusional methodology that they are using to direct us all over the cliff. If this were something benign, like a Minecraft simulation, no problem. But it is the real world that they are totally misinterpreting with their insane assumptions.
No one tells it like Prof Keen. Love him.
Keen is most likely wrong regarding the assumption that mineral shortages will seriously dampen the current exponential growth of renewables: https://rethinkdisruption.com/part-1-the-mythology-of-mineral-shortages/
I don’t think that’s what he or the Michaux piece he’s championing is suggesting. They’re rather suggesting (rightly, I believe) that the minerals and natural resources we would need to fully replace fossil fuel-based energy production and consumption with renewables do not exist.
Thank you for sharing this Stephanie!
Steve Keen talks too fast and assumes his readers are steeped in math. I have 40 years experience in this math, but he loses me. I do have enough experience modeling bipolar transistors to know how different an exponential is compared to a quadratic (MOSFET transistors).
Keen's fast talking doesn't convince me. It makes me want to watch my wallet.
Say something that shows us how you followed him. It is easy to say you follow. I run across many MMT followers who think they understand MMT, but really don't.
Your inference of my understanding of MMT is all wrong. I know full well that it is a description of what is. I am a little concerned that it bases itself on an accounting truism, without mentioing that accounting is a quasi-static discipline. For instance, in accounting for money, there is talk that private banks create money that is balanced by an equivalent debt. There is no mention that the "money" is created instantaneously, but the debt may be paid back over 30 years. There is an awful lot of reality that takes place between the time the "money" is given out and the time the debt is repaid.
To make more sense of reality, I like to say that private banks create "promises of money", but they don't create actual money. If private banks could create actual money, then there would never be a run on a bank that would need backup from The Federal Reserve.
When people like Stephanie Kelton say that USA bonds are like money, I say, "They are like money in certain ways, but there are a list of ways that they are not like Federal Reserve Notes." Take a USA bond to the grocery store to try to buy a loaf of bread with it. In WW2 how were USA Govt bonds used to tamp down the problem of inflation? People deferred their attempts to buy consumer goods with their money as long as that money was held in the form of bonds.
What MMT advocates say in social media is the equivalent of a high school explanation of MMT. There is a deeper version for the graduate level explanation of MMT.
When you talk about friction in physics, you recognize that it can frequently be ignored in many real world situations. If you want to understand the role of friction, you don't look at situations where it does not matter. To understand friction, you have to look for the situations where it does matter. It is easy for the high school level explanation of MMT to stick to the examples where certain things can be ignored for the purposes of simplification. As a modeler of real physics, you have to know when your simplification is valid and when it is not. If you send rockets into outer space, there are all sorts of aspects of physics that you have to take into account, that are less important for smaller objects staying in earth's gravitational field
I am talking about sector balances in MMT. That is where the accounting truism comes up.
If private banks create money, then when there is a run, why don't private banks create the money to satisfy the run. Why are you trying so hard not to understand me?
If deeper questions than the superficial MMT explanations can answer bother you, then maybe you don't understand MMT as well as you think you do. I had the discussion of "promises of money" with Warrren Mosler. He thought that just saying private banks create deposits was good enough, and you should not ask deeper questions. That was not a satisfying response to me, so I let it drop.
To discuss any of your longer responses would require the graduate course in MMT that I am not prepared to offer on a YouTube thread.