Debunking Economics - the podcast

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.

Economists seem conditioned to think that we need to suffer before an economy can get back on track. They argue an economy can’t grow if there is a large amount of accrued government debt. That the economy needs confidence to grow, and the confidence won’t exist the government owes a lot of money. Phil suggests to Steve that confidence and the private sector’s a willingness to invest are two staple requirements for economic growth. A government deficit will also help, but does it really help in terms of the growth in the money supply as much as private borrowing? And isn’t a growth in the money supply essential to growth? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s clear to just about everyone that we won’t reach the climate targets set out in the Paris agreement. It was a pipe dream even before President Trump  v2.0 came along. The various COP summits, which rely on agreement from everyone, are nothing more than gabfests. They are a COP-out. This was recognised in a paper this month from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, entitled ‘The Climate Paradox: Why We Need to Reset Action on Climate Change’.There are some sound observations, says Steve, but it doesn’t go far enough. It doesn’t recognise is the mismatch between climate scientists and economists. Climate scientists believe global warming could ultimately be an extinction level event, he says, whereas economics see it having a relatively minor impact on GDP.  The more we listen to the economists the more likely the climate scientists will be right.There’s one positive takeout from the paper though. It recognises that we need breakthrough solutions. But that’s likely to come from high cost, high risk investment. Who is going to pay for that? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A key policy area of Modern Monetary Theory is the idea of a job guarantee. There might be a limit to available resources, but the labour force should always be employed. It helps the economy and it’s good for the individuals and for society. But Phil wonders how practical it is. If there’s an economic downturn can the government miraculously conjure up worthwhile jobs? Steve says it was less of an issue in the 50s and 60s when a higher proportion of the population worked for the government. Perhaps a return to those days would mean less extremes in the ups and downs of the economy and less need for a job guarantee. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Why is it, that whilst there are an increasing number of billionaires on the planet, the rest of us are no better than we were decades ago? Young people can’t get on the housing ladder, there’s an increasing waiting list for health services, schools are short of money and tertiary education, once free, leaves students with a lifetime of debt. Except for the very rich, of course. Cahal Moran says more economics students are questioning what they are being taught in lectures and examines what’s really happening in his Unlearning Economics You Tube channel. He joins Steve and Phil to talk about his new book ‘Why We’re Getting Poorer’. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The standard excuse for why states fail is the rampant printing of money. That certainly doesn’t help, but it’s often the symptom not the cause. In most cases states fail simply because the government isn’t in control. Take, for example, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, South Sudan. Burt Phil asks Steve whether recent warnings on bond markets show that government debt can place the economy in a precarious position. Take the Liz Truss disaster budget. Or Trump’s swift reversal on tariffs in response to a rising cost of government debt driven by fears of a severe economic slowdown. Are there warning signs of states that are close to economic collapse? And is Trump creating many more of them in small dollar-dependent nations who relied on a trade surplus they can no longer achieve without starving the population? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In 1944, at Bretton Woods, 44 countries agreed to make the US dollar the world's reserve currency. This decision inflated the dollar's value, making American exports expensive and imports cheaper. Donald Trump is now addressing this imbalance with tariffs on countries with high trade surpluses. Steve suggests that adopting Keynes's proposal for a neutral Bancor currency might have been better, while Phil wonders if it's time to reintroduce it, perhaps calling it “Trump” to appeal to the President’s ego. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s clear that President Trump lied to the American people about his reciprocal tariffs. Many of the countries he is imposing tariffs do not impose anywhere near those numbers on imports from America. As Phil points out, some countries, like Cambodia, that sell cheap goods to the US don’t buy from the US because they can’t afford to on their low wages. You can only have trade equalisation if you have similar income levels.Steve takes us through the formula that was sued to calculate these ‘reciprocal’ tariffs. The only resolution to the issue, says Steve, is a new currency for international trade. An idea the Americans knocked back at Bretton Woods. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s often the easy excuse on how to fix the problems of wealth inequality - just tax the rich more. Former trader turned YouTuber economist Gary Stevenson argues regularly that it’ll fix a lot of the problem. He’s right that the wealthy own assets and the richer they become the more the price of those assets increases. Take land as an example. The government is on a push to build more houses to benefit lower income earners. But who owns the land those houses will be built on? The rich? So, who wins from the demand for more land? Gary’s argument is if you tax hard enough the rich  will be forced to sell assets which will bring the price down. Steve’s less convinced, simply because the uber-wealthy have always found a way to avoid taxation. But he thinks the argument also ignores (or isn’t aware of) the fact that government deficits create money. Perhaps the focus should be ore on where that deficit spending ends up. Maybe we should get Gary on the podcast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s likely that many countries around the world will face import tariffs in retaliation for imposing a value-added-tax on American goods sold in their own country -  alongside other goods, taxed equally, that are not from America. As Steve outs it this week, “What tortured brain cells have communicated to other tortured brain cells to make a proposition that VAT on imports from America is discriminatory”.Still, it looks like it might happen. And how do you resolve that situation. Do you get rid of a value added tax? Phil asks whether that could be a good thing. It’s unfair, complicated, bureaucratic and easily avoided. Would we all be better off with a transaction tax? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Are we kidding ourselves when we talk about an energy transition? Sure, we are using more renewables than ever before, but the planet is also using more fossil fuels than ever before. Phil asks Steve whether part of the problem is that we pout faith in incumbent energy companies managing that transition. The way BP and others have switched focus back on fossil fuel exploration shows how ill-conceived that expectation was. But, irrespective of who drives the transition, is it too much to expect that we will leave energy untapped. If renewables provide a new source of energy, won’t we just use up more energy, because the more there is the greater the productivity, the better off we are.Watch the video of the podcast here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArfsehlKMo8&t=2s Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Donald Trump is doing everything he can think off to improve the US economy. Tariffs, cutting government spending, bringing manufacturing back home, accessing more resources and lowering the cost of energy. Will it work? And, if it does, Phil wonders whether there’s a ceiling to how far the US economy can grow. Or does it grow at the expense of other countries/ In other words, Phil wants Steve Keen to explain what happens as the US, the world’s leading economy, tries to heighten its supremacy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In a recent podcast Phil suggested that bringing manufacturing home to America won’t necessarily create jobs, because most factories will be automated. They just need one man and a dog, he said. The man to turn the machine on, and the dog to make sure he doesn’t touch anything else.That touched a nerve with Brian Hanley has spent his life refining manufacturing processes. The key ingredient suggests, is people. Elon Musk was the latest to try the lights out approach and realised it didn’t work.Instead, if the US wants to succeed with a competitive manufacturing sector, it needs to look to post-war Japan. Workers were an integral part of the refinement and adaptive nature of manufacturing processes, in part  because of the company-based (rather than industry-speciifc) union structure. Listen in to find out how Japan’s adaptive approach is what’s needed if the US is to develop a successful manufacturing sector.Two books related to this, that Brian says should be required reading or every economist:-         Kanban Just-in Time at Toyota by Japan Management Association-         The Sayings of Shigeo Shingo by Shigeo Shingo Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Donald Trump, as the world’s highest profile climate change denier, has famously said, repeatedly, that he wants to drill baby drill, to make US energy even cheaper. It’s already half the price of Europe, and all the productivity benefits that provides. Phil and Steve talk about whether this the final nail in the coffin in a world which is paying lip service to the changes required. Is nuclear our only way to fast track a workable solution? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Reciprocal tariffs could be coming to every OECD country if we believe everything Donald Trump says. He sees VAT as a tariff imposed on US imports, which means he wants to impose the same amount on those countries for goods they export to America. That would apply to every OECD country and, supposedly, the President has said there will be no exceptions. Does this mean a global trade war is just about to happen? Steve has been a supporter of protectionism as a way to aid growth, and understands the need for America to bring jobs back home, but not with the “bull in the China shop approach” that Trump is taking. But Phil asks whether the horse has already bolted. The web of international supply chains is well established and difficult to break. Haven’t we all benefited from lower cost goods? And even if you brought back production functions would automation mean few new jobs would be produced? In short, is Trump too late to make a difference. Will he just create chaos? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The new US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently re-iterated the US desire to remain as the world’s reserve currency, because they like a strong dollar that’s in demand worldwide. Burt he also says he doesn’t want other currencies weak, because that gives thema trade advantage. That sounds like a “cake and eat it” philosophy.   This week Phil asks Steve whether the US would be better off if it wasn’t the reserve currency, and whether,  in these days of electric transfers, do we actually need a reserve currency?  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Phil asked Steve a lot last week about how bank create money through the loans they issue. But he has been, it’s fair to say, a little less convinced about how government deficits create money. So prepare for a light bulb moment as Steve breaks down the process that sees the government spending more, with more money moved to the private sector, and people buying bonds, effectively with new money.  They also answer a couple of listeners questions -one on the impact of Donald Trump’s tax cuts, another on crypto and another on a Worgel-like supplementary currency. Which of those creates new money? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Steve and Phil have described the island of Coinucopia in previous editions of the podcast. It started as a place where only coins were legal tender, and the supply of coins didn’t increase. They explained how that created deflation and inhibited growth, so the government started adding more coins. Then they let banks issue loans.  Now, what happens when the island allows banks to issue electronic loans. Actually, life becomes much simpler. Much simpler than most conventional economists would have you believe. Listen in to understand how banking now works, not just in Coinucopia, but in the real world.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Rachel Reeves, the UK Chancellor, has fallen into the debt-trap argument. She says she is focused on growth, but she is also determined to balance the budget. Cuts to government spending is part of the picture, but her biggest attack has been on business, increasing tax on employment. You could argue that if you are going to tax anywhere, taxing business is better than taxing personal income, but Steve argues that anything that drives money out of the real economy will slow growth, evidenced by the latest numbers showing GDP has flat lined. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There are, its estimated, 8.2 billion people on the planet. The UN projects that the world's population will reach 9.7 billion by 2050 and 11.2 billion by 2100. We won’t reach that, says Steve Keen. Even if we ignore climate change, we’ll exceed our capacity to support the population, and the as countries become richer their fertility rate will decline. The hope is that the natural decline happens before more extreme declines brought about by war, climate change and starvation.  But, even intis best case scenario, we need to address the issue that the population is not always close to the food it needs, and economics naturally concentrates capital. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Last week Phil introduced us to the island of Coinucopia, where only a limited supply of gold coins could be used to keep the economy functioning. But the island is suffering from very slow economic growth. Steve explains how any innovation, that sees new products come to market, will see the same money chasing more goods, so prices will necessarily come down. That’s until the island decides to allow bank loans. At first, they only allow banks to loan out coins that have been deposited with them, but eventually they realise the potential of introducing bank notes. Now they have growth, but how do they curtail inflation? They’ve read Milton Friedman and believe an increase in money automatically creates inflation. But maybe he was wrong! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week Phil introduces Steve Keen to the fictional island of Cornucopia. It’s a simple place, where the only trade takes place with gold coins. Banks are not allowed to give loans, and the money supply remains constant, unless the Chancellor decides to mint new ones. In such circumstances, how many basic economic principles work? Most of them, it seems. Sadly, this is not the real world, and economists who practice double entry book-keeping are imprisoned. Until the Chancellor realises there’s no growth and seeks help. To be continued. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Elon Musk has been moaning that he pays too much tax. He wants to keep more of the $14 billion or so that he earns each year. But has he got a point? Do we need to the opportunity to become incredibly wealthy to drive innovation. If we had more equal levels of income, would we actually suffer from lower growth, so everyone would end up worse off.? Phi puts the question to Steve Keen on this Christmas edition of the Debunking Economics podcast.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

When central banks declare a new interest rate, how does that magic into existence? Steve explains how they trade in bonds, to drive yields close to their target rate. If they are buying up bonds held by pension funds and the like, are they also adding to the money supply? Could that have more impact on the health of the economy than playing with interest rates? But the problem is, the money created is circulating in the financial sector. If the central bank really wanted to boost the economy, it should find ways of pushing new money to those less well off. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There’s a common myth around banks. That banks are the intermediaries who collect deposits from customers, keep a bit in reserve, then lend out the rest at a higher interest rate. That argument then extends to a multiplier effect, where the money loaned out is deposited in banks, freeing up more money for further loans. The multiplier is how textbooks argue that banks create new money for the economy. This week Steve argues that the multiplier doesn’t exist. Not in that way anyway. And banks create money, not by lending out deposits, but by creating new money to lend out, which appears as deposits in the bank’s balance sheet. This week Phil brings the textbook arguments to the table for Steve to shout them down. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Does government debt expand the supply of money? According to Modern Monetary theory, yes it does. It’s all down to simple double-entry book-keeping and an understanding of the role of financial equity.   As Steve explains, in this step-by-step guide, for the private sector to experience positive equity, the government sector has to have negative equity. In other words, without the government sector spending more than it’s earning, there’s no new money being added to the private sector. As Stephanie Kelton puts it, their red ink is our black ink. This is one episode to share with your friends. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

You’ll know the name Mario Draghi. He was the President of the European Central Bank and, for a short while, Prime Minister of Italy. Earlier this year he produced a report EU Competitiveness. It called on the need for more Europe-wide investment, particularly for innovation, emerging industries and the transition to green energy. Phil and Steve talk through the ideas and the challenges they present to the structure of the EU. Are the challenges insurmountable? Is that why Draghi’s plan already seems to have been lost at the back of the bookshelf. There is one competitive edge of Europe though. Steve says if the US successful cuts government spending by the touted $2 trillion, that’s money pulled out of their economy. If Europe was to take the opposite tack, it could tip th balance in its favour Particularly, suggests Phil, if the extra public money is spent building Europe-based AI data centres to challenge the US dominance in this rapidly growing sector. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

At least half of America is elated with its new choice of President.  Money is already flowing into the country, with early gains on the NYSE and the dollar shooting higher in value. Tariffs will be front and centre early in the new Presidency, with Trump describing Tariffs as “a beautiful word” recently. But will it have the intended effect. Could the strength in the dollar wipe out any of the benefits from domestic production? Will higher tariffs add to the cost and drive inflation? Does America have the skills base to manage the onshoring of so much productive capacity? Phil Dobbie and Steve Keen discuss what will happen next in America. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The UK Labour party seems top have scored another own goal, with their inheritance tax on family farms. Previously farms were exe pt from inheritance, but that meant wealthy landowners, with massive stately homes set in sprawling estates could buy a few sheep and claim they were a farm. Hence, the government limited the exemption to properties worth less than £1 million, a threshold which Steve Keen suggests is well below a realistic level. Thresholds should only be there for th every rich, which is the US approach to inheritance. This week Phil and Steve look at ways of managing inheritance and ask whether there are better ways of ensuring we don’t see intergenerational wealth getting out of control.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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.

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.