Avsnitt
-
The classical economic assumption, from the days of Adam Smith, is that we all have free will and this freedom ensures the best possible outcomes for the economy, provided those decisions are based on greed and self-interest. This week’s episode opens with a student questioning Milton Friedman about the freedom of a man who couldn’t afford to pay his electric bill, so the power company cut him off and he died. Friedman says the fault lies with friends and neighbours who didn’t step in to support him. Perhaps they were too busy acting in their own self-interest. In a far-reaching discussion Phil asks Steve whether this is a failing of economics – and, if decisions can’t be made by free-will, who makes them?
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Ever wondered why Britain’s roads are riddled with potholes, why the trains keep breaking down and why there aren’t enough hospital beds? Simple. Britain is not making enough capital investments. Taking the public and private sector together, it amounts to about 6 percent of GDP, well below the 22% in the US - which has its own infrastructure problems. China can spend as much as 40% of GDP on capex projects.
Steve says there are two reasons why Berit5ian’s infrastructure is failing. First, not enough engineers. There needs to be more teaching of STEM subjects in schools. But more importantly the adherence to the notion that governments need to balance budgets means capex investment is often pushed aside by more pressing short-term spending. Phil asks whether the sensible way forward is to allocate an amount of money for capex investment that sits outside the budget that the government tries to balance each year.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Saknas det avsnitt?
-
Steve Keen says he builds his economic model based on the motivation of three types of actors. First, the worker, who wants to maximise his or her wage. Then there’s the capitalist who wants to maximise profits. And the financiers who wants to lend out as much money as possible with the best possible returns.
How does Steve’s model change if most businesses became cooperatives. Workers would also become shareholders, also wanting to see strong profits. They might also have other considerations, such as working conditions, which will impinge on the returns won by the capitalists. Financiers might lose out as the cooperatives seek to reinvest their funds in new lines of business.
This week Phil and Steve examine how co=operatives change the model of the capitalist system and ask why we don’t see more of them.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
What causes an economy to fall from a peak? Many economists will argue it’s exogenous shocks but, as Phil and Steve discuss, there’s not too many of those around. Maybe COVID was one, but even that came about because our economic system has drawn us closer to wildlife habitats.
Or is it a lack of resources? We run out of capacity to produce more, whether it’s factories, people or natural resources, like fossil fuels. Does the shortage relative to demand force prices up and its inflation that ultimately kills growth.
No, says Steve. Karl Marx had it right when he postulated that the rising pressure on wages will cut the profit that capitalists thought they would be earning, which would mean they cut investment. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
So, if that’s how economies peak, what is it that pulls hem out of a trough? And is there anything we can do to minimise the impact of business cycles, or are they simply the natural order of things?
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
It’s a sad fact that war can pay. The US arms industry is one major beneficiary. The UK is a long way behind, but it also a big supplier of armaments to the world. If governments of the world upped their defence pending to 3 percent of GDP that would see a massive increase in demand for weaponry. In Britian’s case it could re-engage the manufacturing sector and maybe even lead Britain back to a trade surplus. Phil asks Steve why we seem happy to see government spending on defence, supporting growth in the private sector. What a shame we don’t apply the same logic to helping other sectors grow – sectors that don’t involve killing people.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Phil tells Steve that he’s always struggled with Karl Marx’s idea of surplus value. The idea that workers work for themselves, then a bit more to create the profit for a business. Phil says, that seems like a cost-plus approach, whereas in his marketing days, it was all about creating a brand that people would pay more for. The extra value was created by the goodwill associated with the brand. How do you apply Marx’s theory of surplus value to a $1,000 Gucci handbag, for example. Steve says it still applies and explains why in this week’s episode.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Europe and the US are both recovering from the same problem – COVID and the inflation that followed. But last week the Fed in the US dropped interest rates by half a percent, with markets expecting a soft-landing for the US economy. Europe, meanwhile, is struggling, with Germany’s economy heading backwards for more than a year. So, when the big difference when both economies are coming from the same place? Steve Keen tells Phil Dobbie that the US would be struggling just as much if it restricted itself to the Maastricht rules on fiscal policy and government debt. Instead, Joe Biden spent big on the Inflation Reduction Act.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
The UK’s unemployment rate is 4.1%, the inflation rate is growing at 3.1% and the economy is growing at 0.6% quarter on quarter. That’s how the economy is doing, what more do we need to know?
Well, it would be useful to know whether the unemployed are predominantly in certain income groups, or that income growth was greater in particular parts of the economy Like, more for capitalists and less for workers?
As Steve and Phil discuss this week, economists are building business models built on aggregates. Breaking down aggregate data into functions in society, or income, will add a lot of extra complexity to models, but they would do a much better job of showing us what’s going on. For example, central bank policy right now aims to restrict spending and wage growth to tame inflation. But, even if that was the cause of inflation, what if those creating inflation by spending more on services, are distinct from those facing the consequences of central bank policy, losing jobs and paying higher mortgages?
Steve points out that as the economy slows – and it has to because of climate change - knowing the distribution of income and consumption becomes vitally important. Unless we are prepared to see the rich grow richer at the expense of everyone else.
Economic models are built on aggregates of key variables. Those aggregates hide distribution impacts. That makes it easier for central banks to pursue monetary policy without worrying about the consequences.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
The pandemic was the biggest economic disturbance since the second world war. In both cases supply chains were severely disrupted, either by German U-boats or, more recently, factories and borders closed to stop the spread of disease. On the face of it, though, we have got off relatively Scot-free. We haven’t seen the massive fall in GDP experienced after the war. In fact we saw a sharper fall in GDP in the 2008 financial crisis.
What is different is how we have handled the readjustment. After the war the focus was on growth, with very low interest rates, even though the inflation rate in Britain almost reached 17%. This time we’re told growth is again the focus, but the policies being applied, by governments and central banks, seem to suggest otherwise.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
A couple of years ago, when warning of the need to fight inflation, Jerome Powell, Governor of the US Federal Reserve says interest rate would rise and jobs might disappear. Yet, interest rates have risen, and unemployment hasn’t fallen anywhere near as much as expected. So, what’s going on? Does it mean, thankfully, that monetary policy isn’t working as well as expected? Now the talk is of a soft landing, where jobs have been protected and inflation has come down. The work of fine tuning by the central bank, or just a coincidence. Phil Dobbie and Steve Keen talk about the interplay between jobs, wages, inflation and central bank policy.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Some call it the silver tsunami. The wave of old people putting pressure on government budgets. And, as baby boomers retire and young people produce less and less children, western populations will continue to age. That means less productive capacity and more people dependent on welfare. On today’s podcasts Phil & Steve talk through the three options open to governments: flood the country with younger migrants to pay more tax, pay less and create a cohort of elderly poor, or rethink the idea that budgets have to balance. The last one is always quickly dismissed.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
The last time interest rates were this high they came down rather fast. This time central bankers are determined to manage a slow unwind and deliver a return to growth without wreaking havoc on the economy. Will they be successful? This week Steve Keen argues the high interest rates are inflicting damage without treating the problem. Inflation is being caused by businesses increasing their mark-ups. But, Phil asks, surely they are only able to do that because demand is outstripping supply. And what should interest rates return to? Central bakers call it the R* - is there a danger if they assume it’s too high we could drive ourselves towards debt deflation?
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Complex systems don’t have to be complicated to provided deep insights into the real world. That’s the view of Doyne Farmer, special guest on this week’s podcast. It’s an approach he shares to economics with Steve Keen. Steve develops systems from the top-down, whereas Doyne’s work focuses on agent-driven bottom-up modelling. But they arrive at similar conclusions. Phil Dobbie talks to them both about how we could arrive at a more accurate understanding of the economy and financial systems, which could result in better regulatory and planning behaviour by central banks and governments. Doyne also describes how he started down the road of complex modelling, using science to beat the casino tables in Vegas. Or more, get a copy of Doyne’s new book: Making Sense of Chaos– A Better Economics for a Better World.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
It’s curious isn’t it how we talk about household savings, rather than net debt. Many people do have money squirreled away in savings accounts, for a rainy day. That rainy day comes when hey lose a job and need that cash to pay their mortgage. So we are saving to help pay off an existing debt at a later date. How cockeyed it that? A lot of that money tied up in savings, including funds we’ve put away for our pension, ultimately become the source for investment. That’s supposedly a good thing. More money for investment means businesses can borrow more, and the bigger the availability of funds the lower the interest that will be charged to these businesses. But the more we save the less money we spend, therefore the less demand businesses will have and the less the appetite for borrowing for investment. Phil discusses all of this with Steve Keen, who challenges a lot of the conventional logic around savings, debt and investments.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
So, if economics is all about the allocation of scarce resources, isn’t energy the most scarce resource? And yet its not really included in any economic models. We look at labour and capital as the drivers of growth, but energy is just a contributor to those factors, not a key factor in itself. Yet without energy humans wouldn’t survive and machines would lie dormant. This week Phil talks to Steve about the need to give energy the dominant position it deserves in economic models. As you’ll discover, it doesn’t have to be that complicated. Then, once we have a clear model we can use them to ensure that we deliver economic growth without destroying the planet. Simples.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
We are obsessed with the need to own things, not least, our homes. But for younger people that is increasingly becoming a pipedream, unless they are lucky enough to gain a healthy inheritance. Even then it’s going to come later in life. In the meantime, we save like crazy, and even when we do get a house, we spend decades paying it off though a hefty loan form the bank. The finance sector are the big winners. But should we do away with this unhealthy obsession and rent our homes. A d should the government be the landlord most of us turn to, rather than a private property owner borrowing from their bank?
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
The global share market has always been dominated by the US, now we’re seeing a number share of very large tech companies claiming a larger slice of that pie. Even though they are trading with price to earnings ratios well beyond the historic average, these companies won’t fail. They dominate the market, with billions of customers, low production costs, a low number of workers and the spare cash to vest in growth without the expense of extra capital.
Phil asks Steve, what damage are these companies doing – to the share market, to the global economy and to investors. So we need to knock these companies down to size? Steve thinks not, but has another way of tackling the issue.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Labour has romped to victory in the UK and they need to get cracking on all their election promises. One of those is the creation of Great British Energy. Keir Starmer points to the number of foreign interests owning energy generation in the UK. But, as Phil highlights this week, foreign companies are also heavily invested in energy distribution and retailing. The National Grid is suffering from a lack of investment. Doesn’t that also need to be brought into public hands. And what about all the energy retailers who dd nothing to the picture apart from extra marketing costs, confusing plans and the risk of collapse.
Phil asks Steve whether, if you add all of this together, isn’t there a strong case to put the entire energy delivery chain into public hands, from creation to delivery. But that’s not what Keir Starmer is planning., even though its accepted wisdom in most parts of the world.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
In the UK the proportion of the population aged over 65 has grown from 16 percent in 2000 to over 19% today. It’s a similar story throughout the western world as the population ages. That’s seen as an enormous liability for governments who will have to pay out pensions to their old folk. Hence the drive to get people to put money into private schemes. In the UK there’s over £2.2 trillion tied up in pension funds, more than AUD$3.4 trillion in Australia. So, what good is that money doing? It will be paid out sometime, but is it helping the economy in the meantime? Steve says it’ll doing a good job in driving up asset prices, but Phil suggests some of it is being invested in productive causes, like property development and private equity funding. The good and bad of private pensions on this week’s podcasts.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Carla Denyer and Adrian Ramsay recently launched the Greens Manifesto in the run up to the UK election. Phil and Steve discuss it on this week’s podcast and conclude the one thing that seems to have slipped down the priority list, is all the green stuff. They talk about fixing broken Britain, like every party, and correcting wealth inequality. They also promise that their ideas are fully costed, and can be paid for – for example, by a carbon tax. But they know they will never run government, so why pretend? Why not use their moment in the sun to return the debate to the fundamental issue of climate change. The future of the planet looks pretty sick when even the Greens push it down the agenda.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
- Visa fler
