Debunking Economics - the podcast

In this episode of the Debunking Economics podcast, Phil Dobbie and Steve Keen explore the core of economic theory: the definition of value. They contrast the classical cost of production theory with the neoclassical focus on subjective utility, arguing that while neoclassical models often fail mathematical rigor, the cost-plus approach reflects how real firms operate. The pair discusses the critical role of innovation and market segmentation, noting that while competition typically forces margins back toward production costs over time, elite brands like Ferrari can maintain high markups by intentionally limiting supply and occupying unique segments where value is tied to exclusivity. Ultimately, they conclude that while short-term utility and innovation drive initial pricing, the long-term evolutionary dynamic of capitalism is anchored by the actual costs of production. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week Phil and Steve examine the concept of compound interest and its inextricable link to exponential growth in a world with finite resources. They discuss how interest was historically viewed as a sin—the crime of usury—across major religions until the industrial revolution provided the physical growth and energy consumption necessary to support such financial claims. The duo highlights the systemic risk posed by the expectation of permanent improvement in living standards, noting that while interest rates may not have an inherent limit, the biosphere certainly does. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Phil points out that the US is likely to spend $1.5 trilion on defense/offense spending this year. Acknowledging that sovereign currencies can essentially create money to fund defense, doesn’t there get a point where too much is just too much? A significant portion of this expenditure flows to major defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, often resulting in "corporate welfare" where increased military budgets are prioritized over social welfare. Steve says that while money creation is theoretically limitless for the US, the real-world constraint lies in physical production capabilities and the availability of essential materials like rare earth elements, which are largely refined in China. This strategic dependence on foreign resources, combined with the inflationary pressures that can arise from massive government spending, suggests that a nation's ability to sustain a war is ultimately determined more by its domestic manufacturing capacity and resource security than by its purely financial reserves. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week Phil and Steve dive into the mechanics, ethics, and economic consequences of a Windfall Tax.The discussion starts with the UK’s energy levy on North Sea oil and gas producers, questioning why these taxes are often temporary "clunky" fixes rather than permanent structural policies. They explore the fundamental disconnect between international corporate profits and the national resources they exploit, comparing the UK's approach to the nationalized success of nations like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Norway.The conversation expands beyond fossil fuels to ask: Should the same logic apply to the "tech bros" of Silicon Valley or the banking sector, both of which benefit from network effects and central bank policies that create massive profit "windfalls" without a corresponding increase in production costs? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Debunking Economics podcast, Phil and Steve Keen explore the shifting value of higher education, questioning whether the move toward commercialization and high student debt is fundamentally undermining the learning experience. Steve reflects on the decay of academic standards over the last thirty years, arguing that universities have transformed from centers of scholarship into profit-driven credential mills that prioritize enrollment numbers over depth of thought. They discuss the rising financial burden on graduates—averaging £53,000 in the UK—and compare the declining real-term starting salaries of academics and white-collar professionals with the robust earnings of skilled tradespeople like plumbers. The conversation also tackles the looming threat of AI, which Steve fears will amplify the trend of superficial learning by replacing critical thinking and clerical skills, ultimately risking the creation of an "uneducated community" more focused on paying off debt than engaging in meaningful discovery. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Phil and Steve Keen discuss Steve’s recent experience at the World Forum in Berlin, which he frames as a progressive "antidote" to the World Economic Forum. Their conversation touches on a wide range of global issues, including the conflicted leadership in the Palestinian Authority and Israel, the necessity of a two-state solution in Gaza, and the controversial role of figures like Hillary Clinton and Bob Geldof. A significant portion of the dialogue focuses on Steve’s proposal to expand the legal definition of ecocide to include criminal negligence, arguing that economists and corporations should face personal liability for their role in climate change. Phil remains sceptical of the practical enforceability of such laws given the entrenched interests of powerful nations, but both agree that current international agreements like COP are largely ineffective, serving more as a venue for fossil fuel lobbying than real environmental progress. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week Phil and Steve dissect Elon Musk’s futuristic vision of a moneyless society driven by AI and ubiquitous robotics. Drawing parallels to Marxist ideals and ancient "slave" societies (reimagined with robots), they explore the logistical impossibilities of such a world—from the staggering mineral requirements for billions of droids to the complex social dynamics of status and resource allocation in the absence of a pricing mechanism. Ultimately, they argue that while our current monetary system is flawed, the move toward a post-scarcity world requires a "better" multi-dimensional currency rather than the complete abolition of money, which serves as a vital tool for managing scarcity and human competition. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode we ask whether monetary policy actually works, as the RBA lifts rates to 3.85%—well above other advanced economies—despite inflation being driven by capacity constraints rather than excess demand. We explore why higher rates may worsen the problem by choking investment and productivity, why the quantity‑of‑money story doesn’t hold when spending velocity rises, and how fiscal tools could target inflation far more precisely. Steve argues that Australia’s deeper issue is its housing‑debt machine: high house prices, bank‑driven mortgage lending, and a credit‑fuelled economy that rate hikes can’t fix and may even reinforce. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Phil Dobbie talks to Prof Steve Keen about the one modern economy that actually let its banks fail — Iceland — and what the rest of the world should have learned from it. They unpack how a tiny country ended up with banks eleven times the size of its GDP, fuelled by high interest rates, foreign borrowing, and a carry‑trade frenzy that made Iceland look less like a nation and more like a hedge fund with a flag. When the krona collapsed, imports doubled in price, inflation exploded, and the banking system imploded — yet Iceland refused to socialise the losses, letting foreign creditors take the hit while rebuilding with new domestic banks, capital controls, and a currency so cheap it sparked a tourism boom. Phil and Steve contrast that with Ireland, Greece, and Cyprus, where governments guaranteed bank debts, couldn’t devalue, and ended up trapped in austerity. The episode asks the big question: what’s the real lesson from Iceland’s crash — and why did so few countries follow it? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week Phil and Steve explore who would be hit hardest by a full‑blown US–EU trade war, and how the escalating Greenland dispute exposes Europe’s dependence on American defence and technology. They examine whether Europe could credibly build its own security architecture — from a eurozone‑funded army to a rapidly expanding domestic arms industry — and how tariff retaliation, energy costs, and the dominance of US big tech complicate the picture. With studies suggesting EU exports to the US could halve under 25% tariffs, and with Europe still buying billions in American weaponry each year, the discussion asks whether a strategic reset is inevitable, and what it would take for Europe to stand on its own economically, militarily, and digitally. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of Debunking Economics, Phil Dobbie and Professor Steve Keen dive into the thorny world of “sovereign money” and “100% money” — two reform proposals that aim to radically reshape how modern banking works. Prompted by a listener email, the conversation unpacks why today’s system of bank‑created money, reserves, and government deficits is so convoluted, and whether a simpler, more transparent architecture is even possible. Phil sketches the appeal of a world where everyone holds an account directly at the central bank, bypassing the private banking system for everyday payments, while Steve explores what such a shift would mean for money creation, government spending, and the role of commercial banks.As the discussion deepens, they examine the historical roots of these ideas, from Irving Fisher’s 1930s push for 100% reserve banking to modern proposals emerging from Switzerland and Germany. Steve highlights the technical and political challenges: how to separate the payment system from the credit system, whether banks could remain profitable without the ability to create money, and why double‑entry bookkeeping is essential to understanding any reform. Phil presses on the potential benefits — stability, simplicity, and a more direct way for governments to manage the money supply — while Steve warns that poorly designed reforms could unintentionally collapse the very financial system they aim to fix.The result is a lively, accessible exploration of one of the most misunderstood corners of economics. Whether you’re curious about sovereign money, sceptical of private bank power, or simply trying to make sense of how money actually moves around the economy, this episode offers a clear and provocative guide through the debate Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Phil and Steve take listeners on a guided tour through the mechanics of government bond markets — stripping away the myths, misunderstandings and textbook clichés that usually cloud the topic. Starting from a listener question, they explore why governments issue bonds in the first place, how deficits translate into reserves within the banking system, and why double‑entry bookkeeping is the only reliable way to understand what’s really happening behind the scenes.Steve explains that when governments spend more than they tax, they create deposits in private bank accounts and matching reserves for the banking sector. Bond issuance doesn’t “fund” this spending — it simply prevents the Treasury’s account at the central bank from going into overdraft, because most governments have imposed legal restrictions on doing so. Phil pushes on the role of banks, reserves and the idea of “bond vigilantes”, while Steve clarifies the difference between the primary and secondary bond markets, and why private banks are never constrained by reserves when issuing loans.The conversation also tackles common misconceptions: that banks lend out deposits, that reserves are part of the money supply, or that bond sales create new money. Instead, Steve shows how reserves move around the system, why they can only be used for interbank settlement or buying bonds, and how government deficits are the true source of reserve creation. The result is a clear, engaging walkthrough of a system that’s often presented as mysterious — but becomes surprisingly logical once the accounting is laid bare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of Debunking Economics, Phil Dobbie and Professor Steve Keen tackle the global obsession with interest rates. From Australia’s Reserve Bank to the UK’s faltering economy, they explore how central banks use rate changes as a blunt tool to manage inflation and growth. Phil highlights the real‑world pressures on households—mortgages, rents, and tax thresholds—while Steve dismantles the neoclassical models that underpin mainstream policy, exposing their unrealistic assumptions about consumption, altruism, and infinite planning horizons.Together they reveal how rate hikes often enrich bondholders while squeezing ordinary borrowers, skewing income distribution and destabilising financial systems. The conversation ranges from Keynesian misinterpretations to modern monetary theory, questioning whether interest rates can ever be the fine‑tuned instrument economists claim. It’s a lively, critical look at the myths of monetary policy and the urgent need for alternatives that address capacity, inequality, and democratic accountability. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this week’s Debunking Economics podcast, Phil Dobbie and Prof. Steve Keen dive into the global water crisis under the banner “Trouble on the Waterfront.” They explore the paradox of Earth’s abundant water supply versus the tiny fraction that is actually accessible, highlighting UN figures that show billions still lack safe drinking water and sanitation. From the UK’s tight margins between renewable supply and consumption, to Australia’s surplus constrained by geography, and Iran’s alarming shortages that threaten the viability of Tehran itself, the discussion underscores how climate change and poor management amplify the risks. Along the way, they touch on desalination’s energy intensity, the embedded water footprint in consumer goods, and the stark reality that water scarcity is as much about distribution and governance as it is about absolute supply.The conversation then pivots to the UK, where privatisation of the water industry has left infrastructure lagging. Keen points out that while the public sector once invested in long‑term projects like Kielder Reservoir, the private sector has built virtually no new dams since the 1990s, preferring short‑term profit over resilience. Together, they argue that essential resources like water and power require excess capacity and long‑term planning—something markets alone cannot deliver. With wit and urgency, the episode makes clear that water is the ultimate recyclable resource, but without effective stewardship, even countries famed for rainfall could face scarcity. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Foreign aid is shrinking fast. The UK has cut its commitment from 0.7% of national income to 0.3%, the US has scrapped USAID and axed 80% of its projects, and overall global aid is down by more than a quarter in just five years. That’s less than 0.2% of the world economy — smaller than Walmart’s turnover — even as the Gates Foundation warns that cuts have already reversed decades of progress in child survival. In 2025 alone, 200,000 extra children under five are expected to die from preventable causes. And in places like Afghanistan, Somalia, and the Central African Republic, one in ten infants won’t make it to their first birthday.Economist Steve Keen argues that aid is often designed with the assumption that chunks of it will flow back to donor countries through trade and contracts, reinforcing global imbalances rather than fixing them. He suggests revisiting Keynes’s old idea of a Bancor — a global currency to balance trade — so aid isn’t just a disguised subsidy for rich economies. Without structural reform, we’re left with the paradox of trying to support countries where GDP per capita is $150–$200, while the same amount is a single day’s salary in Luxembourg. Rethinking aid means asking whether we’re propping up conflicts and fragile states, or building a fairer system where resources actually stick and help people survive. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

So, what does it mean to be Austrian? And we are not talking about wearing Lederhosen every weekend, going on long hikes through the mountains and eating schnitzel. Instead, the focus in this podcast is on the Austrian school of economics. They are two very different things, The country has moved on, but the theory remains. This week Phil and Steve look at the principles of Austrian economics – what they got right (partially) and what they got wrong. They contrast it with neoclassical economics, exploring the significance of equilibrium and innovation in capitalism. The discussion also touches on the concept of praxeology, the limitations of introspection in understanding economic systems, and Schumpeter's contributions to the evolution of economic thought.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The early days of Bitcoin its proponents argued that this could be the global currency to replace fiat money. Governments the world over were issuing too much currency, leading to inflation, whilst imposing arbitrary regulations that would be impossible once authorities lost control of money.Steve says for that to work Bitcoin would need to be capable of the instantaneous transactions we are used to with the billions of banking transactions that happen every day. What’s more, the limited supply of Bitcoin means increases in productivity are likely to result in deflation p- a bigger enemy to the economy than rising prices.Instead Bitcoin has become just another asset class. The initial argyument that it served as a useful hedge against a downturn, in the same way gold does. Except now Bitcoin has started to mirror movements of other assets, like shares. And speculators are buying into it, often in highly leveraged positions. Risky?Still the argument remains that Bitcoin could be a workable currency. One that consumes a lot of energy in the process. When energy becomes really scarce, says Steve, Bitcoin will be the first thing to be turned off. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

How far are we willing to go in accepting the corporate takeover of just about everything. In Britain public utilities were sold off, so companies could profit from selling resources whilst minimising maintenance of facilities. Phil asks the question how Britain’s water infrastructure is in such a state of repair in an industry that makes £13 billion per year. Then there’s the moves to strangle publicly funded media and privatise the funding of health. But it gets worse. Britain’s freeports are local areas run jointly by local authorities of local business. Democracy has become just another seat at the table. And there’s a proposal from, one consortium for a new town in Britain that is run by a corporation where residents sign a contract for services. No local democracy. Such towns already exist in many parts of the world. Is that the conclusion - we privatise everything and we are all at the whim of big business. Elon Musk is already working on how to create your artificial best friend. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Several listeners have written in to get Steve’s views on the path being taken by Mark Carney to rescue the Canadian economy. Initially it looked like the country was rebounding strongly from the pandemic, but in the last couple of years the growth has slowed and then declined. That was before President Trump hit them hard with tariffs and then said he’d like them to become part of the US. In some ways he is trying the same approach as the UK – to balance the operational side of government spending but inventing in infrastructure beyond that balanced operational budget. That would be fine if a large chunk of that investment wasn’t going to defence. There’s also very little attention to the most fundamental issue for Canada unaffordable housing. Proudly the most unaffordable in the world. Hard to get people to spend when a huge chunk of their income is disappearing into mortgage payments.There’s another fundamental problem with Carney’s approach. As Steve points out, it almost every policy it relies on outside influence, rather than domestic resolutions. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week Phil and Steve look at cost-plus inflation, driven by rising wages. Right now its being given as the reason that services inflation is remaining sticky and that’s why many central banks are reluctant to reduce interest rates. Steve says it’s a far more sensible assumption than the neoclassical belief, promulgated by Milton Friedman, that inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.It's not just workers who can put prices up, of course. Companies can increase their margins, and we saw a fair bit of that post-COVID. Burt what of the tech-driven future, where wage negotiations will be harder. Basically, we’ll be lucky if we have a job. Does that mean the tech bros call the shots and wage driven inflation will be a thing of the past? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Is it fair enough to totally write off Ricardo’s theory of competitive advantage? Certainly, President Trump isn’t an advocate, using tariffs to protect America’s domestic industries from those countries that produce stuff cheaper. A broad economy, producing a range of products and services, is preferably to a narrow one, reliant on one or two key exports, which is what Ricardo advocated. But in support of Ricardo, some of the narrowest economies, like Australia, have some of the highest levels of GDP per capita. It seems to work for resource-based economies, so far. But could they be even richer? Phil and Steve discuss Ricardo and economic complexity in the age of Trump’s tariff agenda.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The UK Labour party has struggled to forge a recovery for the beleaguered economy. Rachel Reeves is intent on reducing the government deficit. Her first attempt involved increasing the National Insurance contributions made by businesses – in effect, raising a payrolls tax. In short, a reason for companies unsure about recruiting in a slow growth economy to err on the side of caution. Now, there’s talk of tax rises. Steve and phil talk about the impact on growth of added more to the consumer’s tax burden, and the impact it’ll have on money in circulation. Then there’s the confusing idea of increasing savings as though that’ll drive investment which will add to economic growth. That might be the case if the money was invested in new businesses, rather than inflating share prices and other financial instruments, which all deflect money from the real economy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Before he was the UK Prime Minister at war with the Nazis, Winston Churchill ws the UK’s Chancellor. He played it very straight, with a preoccupation with balancing the budget. He also took the Uk back onto the Gold Exchange, despite warnings from Keynes that the move would be deflationary. In 1928 he reinforced his neoclassical credentials, saying very little additional employment and no permanent employment can be created by state borrowing and state expenditure. That is, of course, the exact opposite of the idea of a job guarantee, but is Churchill partially right? Can a job guarantee ever create jobs that will enhance productivity?This week Phil and Steve look into job creation and Churchill’s fear of using government spending to protect the labour market. It was a time when even Joh Maynard Keynes didn’t get everything right. For example, he argued that the multiplier effect would add new money and new employment from government cash injections. But how can you multiple the injection if no new money is created? And it ignores the real benefits jobs can create, behind the money gained from those directly employed, whether by the government or the private sector.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In UK politicians of all persuasions agree that foreign investment I s important to add to the growth of the UK economy. Steve says you have to have foreigners buying into the UK to counter the currency losses from a sizeable balance of trade deficit. But a lot of that investment will see profits being repatriated back overseas. And then there’d the overseas investment in UK bonds and shares. Andy Burnham, the Manchester Mayor who seems to be positioning himself to replace Keir Starmer, has said we need to limit the ownership of UK nbonds to foreign investors, and not be ‘in hock’ to bond markets. Has he got his thinking right? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

recent spoke at a meeting of Jeremy Corbyn’s new venture – Your Party. Steve gave a presentation on how governments can spend more without worrying about the deficit, provided it was done sensibly. The argument that the private sector buying up government bonds will crowd out investment in other initiatives is bunkum. The private sector can still borrow for investment, perhaps benefiting from the enhanced infrastructure and trading environment government spending has created. But Phil argues there’s a big education job to be done – the politicians, the electorate and, more significantly, the bond vigilantes, who will see high government spending as a reason to push up bond yields, which will flow through to borrowing costs for everyone. Meanwhile, what chance as Corbyn’s new party got? Is the left divided itself between Corbyn, Galloway, the Greens, Labour and thew LibDems? Is this division creating a pathway for Reform to offer an agenda of low tax, fewer government services and heavily controlled immigration. In other words, Project 2025 transferred to British soil. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

During the pandemic central banks had no choice but to buy up government bonds. There were just so many of them being issued. That’s why the UK’s quantitative easing program totalled more than £900 billion during 2020-1. Recently, the bank – like other central banks the world over – are trying to unwind these huge additions to their balance sheet. Recently the Bank of England slowed down the pace at which they sold-off these assets. Why? In part because this process of ‘quantitative tightening’ can reduce the amount of money in circulation. That could slow what little economic growth we have right now. But, Steve says, if these bonds are bought up by banks, it’ll simply mean they replace reserves with zero impact on the economy, except for the interest the banks will earn from those holdings. All this raises the question, why sell now? Or ever? And how much does QE and QT sit alongside or in contrast with government fiscal policy? Don’t they need to be coordinated and, if that’s the case, is there any case for an independent central bank? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

You would assume that government spending is largely designed to help those on lower incomes. The NHS was designed to ensure free healthcare for all. The same for public education. And for welfare payments. So, I theory, the more the government spends, the more wealth is transferred to lower incomes.This week Phil and Steve explore the idea that rising government deficits actually help the rich. That’s because the so-called debt is financed by the issuance of bonds, much of which is nought on the secondary market to add to the wealth funds of the richer end of society. They receive dividend payments funded from the government. That’s a case of government money supporting the wealthy.So, is there a way of government money being used to support the less well-off, without helping the rich to get richer? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

After the war the European economy was humming along, with growth rates of 5 percent or more. Now Germany’s forecast to grow by just 0.1 percent. Allowing for population growth and inflation and it’s an economy in decline. Steve says part of the problem is the assumption that rising government debt is bad for the economy – the old neoclassical belief that if the government spends, it crowds out the private sector. They’ve been testing that theory in Europe for a while now, and it isn’t working for them. Yet, politicians have convinced enough people of the principle such that populist right-wing governments are taking more political control across the continent. All the while, Europe has lost its innovation, and its manufacturing capability is in decline. Hence, Phil asks, how can it get its mojo back? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Copyright and IP rights has always been notoriously difficult to protect. Does it become impossible with the rise of AI? The ideas presented to you through your favourite AI engine come from somewhere whose ideas are being used to support an argument. Or, if you create an artwork that is analysed and used to create other artworks, has copyright been infringed, or is what we would have traditionally called inspiration? Phil asks, is it time to just admit defeat and accept that copyright is an outdated notion and find other ways of compensating the artist and creator? Then there’s the social cost of intellectual property rights. A question that existed before. If Statins had been available as cheaply as they are now before their patent lapsed thousands - possibly hundreds of thousands -of lives would have been saved. Does the same apply to Mounjaro? How do you balance the commercial imperative from big pharma against the social benefits? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We keep hearing about the productivity gains from AI. This week Phil asks Steve about the difference between productivity for a company versus the societal benefits. For example, AI and robots might do a job more efficiently than a human, but it’ll chew up energy in the process, and the human will still be consuming energy as well, unless robots start killing us off. So, this revolution might make some companies more efficient, but as a society as a whole what is the price we are paying? Or is Phil just an old-fashioned laggard? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The small number of technologists who increasingly control the planet’s wealth and political and social agenda are, it seems, big supporters of UBI. Elon Musk is at the forefront of this push. And why wouldn’t he be? His vision is a future of unbounding economic growth, in which the work of humans is almost completely replaced by robots, leaving us all plenty of time to pursue interests, engage in deep philosophical thought or, more likely, get fat watching daytime TV with no sense of purpose. This week Phil and Steve look at the consequences of Musk’s vision and discuss the one factor Musk has yet to answer – where does the money come from? Steve says the tech bros don’t seem to grasp the workings of fiat money creation, which h might be part of the answer. But Phil is more concern ed about the power that Musk and his brethren wield. Do we need to redefine capitalism, so the power of these feudal tech lords is diluted by working cooperatives, to ensure technology is used for the betterment of society and not leading to a hunger games future? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

18th century economist Richard Cantillon theorised that new money added to the economy always reaches the wealthiest people first. If there’s a lot of it, the extra supply will push up prices, but the rich won’t feel it, they’ll just create it. The impact down the track is that the poor, surviving with the same money as before, get hit with the higher prices. Phil suggests that wouldn’t be the case if extra money was created through government spending. It would be the workers and those on welfare getting the first touch of the new money. But, as Steve explains, most money created through government deficits is counteracted by the private sector buying up the government’s bonds. Most of the new money is created through private debt - bank loans, for example. So Cantillon was right.The way to fix the problem s to put in place policies that would see more of a balance between public and private sector money creation. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Phil and Steve pick up from last week’s discussion about the merits of central planning. Last time they talked about how big companies, like Walmart in the US, plan centrally, yet free marketeers have a problem with that sort of coordination being applied to the free market. This week Phil asks how you can ensure that government planning can ensure resources are allocated effectively. For example, isn’t there a risk that you’ll use raw materials and labour to satisfy the wants of the very rich, before you have met the needs of the very poor? How do we arrive at a hybrid approach that works? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In one of his many walks around his neighbourhood Phil has been listening to a book, The People's Republic of Walmart, by Leigh Phillips & Michal Rozworski. Basically, a contrarian economist and a journalist teaming up together. Could such a combination ever really work?The book highlights how part of Walmart’s success story was its meticulous central planning, in contrast to Sears, a business decimated by an adherence to a market based internal structure. 30 internal division competed for resources, including shelf space.Clearly, Walmart’s focus on delivery helped it succeed. So, shouldn’t the same approach be used in the broader economy? When should we choose planning over open market competition?   Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Lesotho (pronounced ,li-su-tu0 is a small African nature that President Trump  threatened with 50% tariffs, describing as a country nobody had ever heard of. Maybe that’s enough for his disciples to dismiss the hardship tariffs will place on the country, where youth unemployment is rife and the minimum wage is US$100 per month. Phil says twenty years ago America was trying to help countries like Lesotho, with tariff free trade to help the economy grow. Why? Because as Steve points out, if developing countries grow, they will buy more American goods. Cut their trade off at source and people suffer. Or Lesotho, and other developing nations, develop closer ties with China and expedites its path to being the largest economy in the world. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There is a huge reliance on data to aid decision making – whether it’s Investors wanting to know where to move money, central banks pretending to understand the economy, governments making policy decisions or companies planning for their future. Sadly, data collection faces two challenges. One is a lack of sufficient government spending. As Steve points out, perhaps Texas would be more prepared for the horrendous flooding of the last few weeks, if they hadn’t sacked so many meteorologists. The other problem is the increasing unwillingness of the public and businesses to complete surveys. Fortunately, as Phil points out, data is now being collective more from primary sources -like bank records or store transactions. That’s a big step forward, but a lot of data is based on answering traditional questions, like what’s our GDP? It’s base don conventional thinking. Phil asks whether we should be paying more attention to money supply whilst Steve says understanding company mark-ups would also be a good predictive indicator. What data sets do you think are missing? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In real terms the amount the UK spends on healthcare has risen from £500 in 1970 to £3,000 per person today. That’s a massive increase, but the payback has been that we are living 10 years longer. Ask people if they would be prepared to spend 10% of their income to live ten years longer, most would say yes. Yet we have a real problem in having the government spending more on healthcare.As always, it gets back to the question of where is the money coming from? A government provided healthcare system is funded with government created money. A privatised system is vying for a share of your pay packet, using money that is already in circulation.Phil and Steve discuss how our approach to healthcare is based on the standard question of, ‘where does the money come from?’, rather than ‘what can we be doing to make everyone’s life that much better?’ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Financial markets don’t like it when governments announce plans to spend more money. That’s why there’s concern over Donald Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill, which will add, by some accounts, $4 trillion to the US budget deficit over the next decade. Steve Keen says it’s not a problem. Banks buy up the bonds and the central bank ensures they have the liquidity to do so.  In which case, why are people ditching US bonds in favour of other sovereign debt elsewhere? And isn’t there a risk that higher treasury yields will reduce the differential with corporate bonds, which could discourage investment in the real economy? As Phil and Steve nut it out, they both agree, Trump’s bill is a bad one when it comes to income distribution. It assumes trickle down economics. When has that ever worked? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There’s been a lot of talk lately about de-dollarisation. In other words, global investors are parking less of their money in US dollars (in the form of US treasuries/bonds). What was once considered a safe choice, is now seen as having more risk, and that’s being accentuated right now by the falling value of the US dollar. If, as an overseas investor, you bought US government bonds a t the start of the year, they’d be worth 10 percent less now, simply because that’s how much the dollar has fallen by. Steve says it’s not a big issue for the US government, because the Fed will always ensure there’s enough liquidity for primary dealers to buy up what the government is selling. But it’s the falling interest in the secondary market, particularly from overseas investors, which is contributing to the fall in the dollar.But the other part of the equation is, does the dollar losing its dominance as the world’s trading currency. It used to offer stability. Not any more it seems. So, want replaces it? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There was an article in The Economist last week, shared widely in press around the globe, about the apparent fixation with manufacturing. Aussie economist Saul Eslake calls it Manufacturing Fetishism, with government support focused more on that sector than anything else. President Trump wants to bring home everything from steelmaking to drug production and is putting up tariff barriers to do so. Britain is considering subsidising manufacturers’ energy bills; Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, is offering incentives for electric-vehicle-makers. But of everyone subsidises the same products, does anyone come out ahead? And isn’t the manufacturing focus based on the simple notion that they are better paying jobs than hospitality and retail? Steve thinks manufacturing is important for a while variety of reasons, including building the skillset to make economies more self-sufficient. That requires well-funded education, which is not one of the central pillars for Trump’s strategy of bringing jobs back home. Perhaps he hasn’t thought it through enough. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There’s an irony that the UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves has imposed an inheritance tax on farmers, whilst a trade agreement with the US could see Britain selling-the-farm on a farm grander scale.Phil argues that some sort of tax on the inheritance of farms makes sense kif its only used as a tax dodge. Jeremy Clarkson bought his farm (reportedly for £6 million) and had a farm manager run it for 10 years before he started making his TV series. If we he died before the new tax rules the £6 million would have been passed on exempt from the rules of inheritance tax. A nice little tax dodge. So, surely, the government was right to close a loophole.The broader question, though, is what the government does about farm productivity more generally. As Steve points out, 40 percent of UK food is imported. Just over the channel France is 80% self-sufficient. Rather than talking about buying stuff from over the Atlantic shouldn’t the UK be working out how to be more reliant on its own food sources, in the same way it is pushing to be more self-reliance on energy and defence? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Bill Gates has predicted that within 10 years we’ll be working a two-day week, thanks to advances in AI. He says it’ll mean a vast rethinking of the workplace. It’s not too dissimilar to Keynes's prediction in the 1930s that wed al be working 15-hour weeks, with more time to enjoy the good things in life.Of course, Keynes was wrong. We are working longer hours with loads more stress. Tools to aid productivity have freed up time for us to take new jobs and add to the economic output. Steve says a lot of this extra income has been used to increase the price of assets, particularly housing. This time, though, who is to say the replacement jobs will exist. AI and robots could replace us in almost every job. So then what do we do? A universal basic income, perhaps, which Phil says will not be too dissimilar to unemployment benefit. But that’s going to take more government money. If we ignore the MMT arguments about governments’ ability to create money the only way to pay for the unemployed is through higher taxes on those businesses doing the work. But the focus today is on less regulation, so these companies can complete their cycle of job destruction unhindered. As a society have we really thought this through? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There are challenges that the insurance industry faces, even though it can look like a licence to print money, Since the Big Bang of the nineties, when deregulation allowed the industry to flourish, insurance now accounts for 2.5% of UK GDP. Not bad money for an industry that is a cost to society, rather than a benefit. Until now the business model has been simple; charge a premium based on the risk profile of the customer, avoid high risk customers altogether and invest the payments you receive in the markets to make even more money. And, unfortunately, payout when someone makes a claim, but keep the legal profession gainfully employed to ensure that doesn’t happen too often.If you find claims are rising, imply put up th premiums next year. Which is why we’ve had several years were premiums have grown significantly faster than inflation. The consequence of that is people from lower- and middle-income households simply can’t afford the insurance, so they avoid it altogether or under-insure.Phil and Steve discuss the merits of government-run insurance. We already have it in health, of course. The problem with having it applied more broadly is that it won’t alert us to the impact of climate change. As insurance moves from covering us for episodic events, to systematic change, the business model folds. Steve’s hope is that, as this happens, the industry starts to squeal and wakes us all up to the profound impact of climate change. It acts as the canary in the coal mine and becomes the first industry to lobby for us to take it seriously. Although, with them still enjoying healthy profit margins, it’s not happening yet. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The pandemic killed 200 thousand people in the UK. Are we ready for the next time? Experts reckon will be even less prepared should we see another pandemic in the near future. Prof Tom Koch from the University of British Columbia reckons we don’t have long to wait - the next one could strike in the next five to eight years.If you were a virus with an understanding of how economics is taught, this is exactly how you would have planned it. Yet governments to spend a fortune on the first blow, knowing they would spend the intervening years trying to pay back the debt, rather than spending new money on the preventative measures to dampen the impact of the second blow.If we had a clearer understanding of how fiat currencies function, maybe we would be better prepared. Meanwhile Steve has a mask he can sell you. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.