Mark Blyth: Why Do People Continue To Believe Stupid Economic Ideas? - Full Talk (April 2017)
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 06. 2024
- volatilityinvesting.co.uk Volatility and Tail Risk Educational Event, London, Thursday 06 April 2017
Slides: web.archive.org/web/201801271...
Guest Speaker: Mark Blyth: Why Do People Continue To Believe Stupid Economic Ideas?
Mark Blyth is the Eastman Professor of Political Economy at The Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs of Brown University. Before becoming an academic Blyth has been variously, a stand-up comedian, a chef, and a funk bass player. Realizing that such pursuits where long options at best, he finished his PhD. in political science at Columbia University in 1999. He then joined the Johns Hopkins University before moving to Brown University in 2009. His research focuses upon the causes of stability and change in the economy and why people continue to believe stupid economic ideas despite buckets of evidence to the contrary. The power of economic ideas is a common theme in Blyth’s work, as seen in his recent award winning Book Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea (New York: Oxford University Press 2015) and in his new projects on the economic legacies of the baby boomers and the politics of low growth. When not writing, he still likes to cook, and he recently has become a serious cocktail mixologist, which eases the pain of the stuff he writes about.
REALLY wish they would show the slides...
Hear hear. The slides are available as a PDF file at least; the link is in the description.
Cheers !
Thank you!!
Nah. The slides are a distraction. "Milton was wrong" is as far as you need to go. This is crap.
because...?
Economist + Comedian + Professor = Effing Brilliant Human Being. I can watch Mark all day.
Don't be overly impressed by people who only complain.
that sounds really crass
its not, it is a brilliant generalization for which I deserve all credit. Moaning is crucial in the process of asking the right questions but still far from finding their answer. Blyth skillfully jumps from complaining about one thing to the next but I wish he wouldn't leave the questions and answers as an exercise for the audience.
Don't be impressed by mean people who blame workers for the faults of central bankers.
+Scottish accent
"There's no inflation anywhere." That's true. I've been paying the exact same price for an eighth for 15 years now.
False. Rents are way up,house prices are way up, food is way up, the trades' labor rates are way up; only gas is down. Maybe in rural areas, you're accurate, but not in metro areas. Economists inflation yardsticks are not capturing the truth.
Do you pay $1.89/lb for onions, $2/lb for apples ? Too much QE...
The interesting thing is if we used the same inflation calculation that was used in the 70's we would have 10% inflation more or less. So do we have inflation or not. I think this guy may be FOS
Jefff Hanson - that's one concise accurate way of putting it. Full of Sh.T.
Lots of inflation in food and recently in computer parts.
hrmIwonder The only inflation is in the trading indexes, and gee, I wonder why that is? 15% yearly annual growth in the Dow Jones Index since the GFC. All the indexes are up, with some corrections affecting commodities that reveal a changing energy sector. Badly needed too.
Commodities have always had varying degrees of volatility, but you'd expect that in transitional political and economic phases anyway, particularly when the majority of nations are gearing up for renewable energy and automation revolution.
I tell you one thing Karl Marx was right about though. The relationship between human progress and the development of more and more sophisticated means of production is undeniable. Robots already do so much. So much of production, travel and services are already automated. If human labour becomes redundant in all but a handful of job classes, what's the solution to plummeting consumer demand and massive unemployment, if not high taxes on wealth and flatter distribution?
I'm not sure, but my gut feeling tells me that giving everyone what they need FOC (fresh food, clean water, shelter, information, medical attention, clean energy, and basic clothing) will become more and more necessary as time goes on no matter what the Miltons of this world think. You can still demand people give up some labour hours for that right if really necessary, but for the things individuals want beyond those simple needs, you have to earn the right and prove it can be built, maintained, and maybe even shared occasionally.
All sustainably too.
As Mark has pointed out before, we literally live in a world where 10% of the population could provide the equivalent of super-abundance for everybody. So, if we could construct an economic model that brought social and ecological systems back into balance, what would that look like?
Kate Raworth has some interesting thoughts, though not as cheeky on the mic lead as this Scottish git. Certainly worth considering, if you're not afraid of challenging ideas.
I get financial advice from my bartender. I feel reassured with the wisdom of my decision after watching this.
😂🤣so true.
Makes sense, your bartender has a vested interest in you having extra cash to buy from him rather than save a lot and just drink at home.
The Q&A at the end is properly hilarious.
2:11 -- "Stupid Economic Idea" ,Definition: One that is immune to empirical refutation while being useful to specific constituencies.
@Joakim von Anka That's the point
"“In so far as a theory can be said to have assumptions at all, in so far as their realism can be judged independently of the validity of predictions, the relation between the significance of a theory and the realism of its assumptions is almost the opposite of that suggested by the view under criticism. Truly important and significant hypotheses will be found to have assumptions that are wildly inaccurate descriptive representations of reality and, in general, the more significant the theory, the more unrealistic the assumptions.” Milton Friedman [1]."
www.resilience.org/stories/2013-04-19/the-con-in-economics/
@@hemiedwards217
The definition of absurdity is an economist, particularly a politically partisan economist like Milton Friedman talking about logic and philosophy.
Fun
Thank you very much for including the date the talk was given
That lady had a crush on him. She laughed at everything he said
It's the accent
Finally an economists (is he one?) who thinks outside the downward trodden paths and connects the dots. He's a scientist, where most economists are just bank employees with a degree parroting their master's voice. That's not science, that is highly skilled labour.
Mark Blyth is such an impressive speaker. Rapid fire truth bombs.
The speaker is brilliant. It is quite annoying however not to also look at the slides...
Link to the slides in the description... Cheers!
web.archive.org/web/20180127181206/www.volatilityinvesting.co.uk/sites/default/files/Stupid%20Economic%20Ideas%20-%20Mark%20Blyth.pdf
And the accent was rough
@@nickduffy8919 "DONKEY!" ~ Mark Blyth
Brilliant and funny. Awesome presentation.
The memes associated with these stupid ideas resonant within the minds they infect. This is true for more than just economics.
"Nobody ever died from debt." Tell that to the mob.
They die of capitalism
@@jacksonthesyndicalist2771 They die of the directionality of that foolish entrainment, more like.
You want idiocy? People - even Mark himself - think that "Democracy" doesn't quite behave in the same way.
@@Sakhmeov Ah yes the famous philosopher Karl Mark.
@@jacksonthesyndicalist2771 "It was offside!"
Nah, but really. There's a helluva lot of CLO-effect and buildup of that whole "Don't prick the bubble"-think in western rwpublics as well. We haven't figured out how to deleverage these things; all we've done is leverage them against each other. Which then inevitably ends in chaos and either some vile oligopolies or "USSR Two: The Convolutening".
Shit's fucked. We're working from just the wrong thought bases to start with. I was long and right some equities for a couple of years there, but now I'm hard into commodities because I know shit's gonna get shot. I just want to build my damn project and then tell the Grid to fuck off...
@@Sakhmeov I have no clue what youre saying? Are you google translating from Indonesian or some shit?
I worked on, and employed others in, Wall St. for many years. I wish Mr. Blyth (and youtube!) was around then, it would have been very helpful. He should be required listening for anybody anywhere near the financial industry, or anybody who wants to know about it. D.A., J.D., NYC
It would be good if we could see the slides/ graphics!
Check the description. There's a link for the slides!
A shame none of the graphs were shown. Makes this hard to follow.
Download the pdf linked in the description to see the slides and graphs in them in detail.
@@sietuuba link is dead
@@rahpowah01 How about this link? web.archive.org/web/20180127181206/www.volatilityinvesting.co.uk/sites/default/files/Stupid%20Economic%20Ideas%20-%20Mark%20Blyth.pdf
I feel privileged to be one of the so far 6,035 views. Watched every second.
Now it's over 128,000 views. This is a popular video.
The views are irrelevant as Google promotes him. If Google promotes it, then you want to do the exact opposite to what is suggested and it will be all good😂..
Prof. Wolf talks in a way that some how he paints a picture. This guy tells jokes a d mix it with gamea and formulas only corporatist can relate to.
Because economists continue to believe stupid economic ideas. The problem with economic theory is that whenever one particular theory gains widespread acceptance, everyone and their accountants spend all year figuring our how to beat it.
Scientifically speaking the cocktail you describe is literally a solution. Cheers!
The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong in this comment section.
Exactly. Look it up.
@@happyfase All cases?
In the US you can die of debt. You're in debt, they throw you in debtor's prison, AKA prison, wherein you die of an easily preventable/treatable disease, get stabbed by another inmate, or take the easy way out and commit suicide.
Or let's say you're in a state that doesn't have debtor's prison, you simply can become homeless, and it's really easy to die being homeless too.
Not seeing the charts hurts this video.
31:51 any idea what he's saying?
31:00 what the heck do budget deficits have to do with trade deficits? Is he mixing these up, or is it just me?
Budget deficits are the product of trade deficits and the savings ratio.
Late, but... When a EU country always has a trade deficit with another (anybody not Germany and Germany), that means more euros are always leaving the country than coming in -> which causes economic contraction -> lower tax revenues -> budget deficit. Most countries can devalue their currency to the other country or find a different trading partner, but EU circumstances are uniquely different for members.
brilliant
It's easier to spend time speculating about what mental or personal failings lead your opposition to disagree with you than it is to actually refute their positions. I guess on some level I understand why Blyth wants to take the path of least resistance.
Discussing any decision making process without at least mention of the biases that dual-processing psychology theories (ala Daniel Kahneman, Thinking Fast and Slow) can produce is doomed to hold poor descriptive value. What Blyth did in this video is impressive, it produced a lot of food for thought...
You're just a gullible idiot.
Oh my...
Go fuck yourself, buddeh...
What is the best way to manage the system?
too bad i can't follow due to missing the slides...
Macroeconomics is the branch of economics that studies the behavior and performance of an economy as a whole. It focuses on the aggregate changes in the economy such as unemployment, growth rate, gross domestic product and inflation.
Description: Macroeconomics analyzes all aggregate indicators and the microeconomic factors that influence the economy. Government and corporations use macroeconomic models to help in formulating of economic policies and strategies.
Another thing that happened in the 1970s was a peak in US oil production in 1971. That gave OPEC the ability to punish us for our support of Israel in 1973 with an oil embargo. The price of oil quadrupled. Quite inflationary. Then the Iranian revolution in 1979 dropped their oil output and world oil production dropped 4%. In inflation adjusted dollars oil went from ~$15 in 1970 to almost $100 in 1979. That’s an economic drag that added to stagflation.
Slides no longer exists on the link, does someone have them saved?
archive.org to the rescue: web.archive.org/web/20180127181206/www.volatilityinvesting.co.uk/sites/default/files/Stupid%20Economic%20Ideas%20-%20Mark%20Blyth.pdf
Coming back to this in 2019 proved him wrong on brexit.
How do I always wind up subscribing to CZcams vids that have less than 200 hundred subscribers?
Same thing happens to me on harpsichord vids. And on those I know I've visited several times and there I know I've visited several times.
Ok just to be clear, the lady who introduced him is a Kiwi, not an Aussie. She has a funny accent.
A Kiwi is an Aussie with vowel cancer.
Blyth for president.
no kidding...Dude is WAY smart...I have to watch his talks a few times before it all soaks in...
He's scottish.
But yeah, for president.
dgatos42 If it’s not Scottish, it’s crap!
You want to ruin the country,
nice
personzorz, I just wish the voting public would actually watch/listen to rational, smart analysis (as provided by Blythe and other nonpartisan educators), as opposed to the “playbook politics” & propaganda that is constantly barked out by Fox News and other mass media crap networks.
Good stuff, I only understood about half of it but I enjoyed it nonetheless.
I would like to see the metronomes "entraining"… link?
did you try googling "entraining metronomes"?
The real stupid idea is not showing slides...
Honestly? I can totally listen to his voice and see the graff all day.
So, what's more important here?
The graff.
Would nice if they had two cameras or the slide show to edit.
agreed..
Mark is a very interesting speaker and not boring. He does have many analogies with his ideas to other things like physical things. Still I watch all these economists and they say things that I know I could argue against. They make statements as if they are hard facts that everyone should agree on but I can immediately think of exceptions.
I find that there are no economists in the world that can explain economics and they have been trying for hundreds of years. Why do they all disagree ? Other disciplines are not like that. Physicists don't disagree on the major ideas in physics , they disagree on fine points and new things but Economists seem to have no idea how economies work.
I don't find Mark any more convincing than any of the other CZcams video lectures and everyone of them put forward different theories. It is just amazing.
If the government injects $1000 by giving someone this money , then that increases the money supply and everything else being constant , it will have to cause inflation because there is more money in the system. This money circulates and is eventually is taxed back out of the system and in the end we should be back to where we started but the taxing operation is sucking money back and should do the opposite and cause deflation.
For the inflation to be persistent , the stimulus has to be on going. So what is actually happening ? Is there ongoing continued stimulus or is there a shortage of goods ? Have wages increased the costs of production?
I mean these economists should really know what is going on, and why can't they figure things out ??? That is their job and they have had hundreds of years to devise a theory. I know when I took Engineering and there was a lot of advanced math, with partial differentials and advanced engineering math. Many students did not like the math and quit and went into economics , so it is a wide spread problem that the economists are not the greatest at math and generally have qualitative theories rather than quantitative. Many theories in economics are correct within limits but it is all quantitative in nature with tipping points and thresholds.
Yeah, this video strikes me as a diatribe of "Why does everyone disagree with me when all my ideas are correct?" He's not comparing theories, he's just strawmanning the ideas he doesn't like. The answer to his title question is "look in the mirror".
As for your point (which I agree with) about economists not really understanding what is going on, as opposed to engineering and the hard sciences, is that economics involves that difficult-to-measure entity known as "people". The laws of economics are simple, but people are complicated. So on the one hand, this guy is correct about government being able to print its own money so it's not like a family budget, but Milton Friedman is still correct that if you print bucketloads of money (euphemistically called "stimulus spending"), you'll get inflation. The complication is that there are lots of invisible variables in the causes of inflation. Paul Krugman recently admitted he was wrong about inflation precisely because he didn't see the supply chain problem in advance.
My simplistic theory is that the Fed has been very inflationary, but the inflation hides in asset bubbles instead of CPI, and CPI itself stayed low for a long time due to the deflationary aspects of technological advancements and Chinese outsourcing. But combine stimulus spending with supply chain issues and lockdowns in China (removing the Chinese-based deflation) and particularly the tight supply of computer chips (removing the tech-based deflation), you get inflation. That's just my theory based on lots of reading and investigation, in an effort to explain why extremely inflationary policies were causing only minor 1-2% inflation.
@@uumlau I agree with you , a lot of variables changing at the same time. If you do pump in a lot of money you have to get inflation. If you pump in money when the economy is deflating for other reasons then you might just get it right and end up with no deflation and low inflation. If you pump in money when the economy GDP is expanding then more money is needed in the system and there will be no inflation.
It is a numbers games better suited to a super computer. To me though inflation should take care of the excess money injected after a period without raising interest rates. If there is 10% more money in circulation than before the injection then 10% inflation should eliminate the excess and then drop back down to a low inflation. Only continued injections should cause continued inflation. I don't know what happened in the 1970's to cause persistent inflation.
Bubbles also are not really a bad thing. They are just different sectors growing at different rates. When real estate for instance bubbles up the way it did in 2008, then it is an extreme imbalance. When that happens you can get bubble popping, which is not desirable. So in an ideal world , small bubbles and growing evenly across all sectors is normal growth.
It may be impossible to ever come up with a theory of economics because it may be like the weather and unpredictable. Or it may be like the stock market which is unpredictable. Only the bigger picture is predictable like the climate or like long term trends in stock markets. Like the long term economic cycles that Dalio talks about.
Did anybody get green points cocktail recipe?
... why are so many filmers of these things so ignorant of the slides? A good 10% of speeches I watch on youtube, the slides are omitted.
12 minutes in and I am wondering if she keeps her mic on the whole talk
No slides.. good job..
My personal opinion is my sense of right and wrong. I concede rich people aren’t paying their share right now. I don’t believe the rich should be taxed any more, or less then their fair share
That story he told at the end definitely, 100% happened you guys.
There might be little inflation for those who already own homes, but for renters, you might need a different calculation. I don't see how with the housing market as it is now, you can say there's no inflation.
Anyone who buys groceries can see it plain as day
That drink, 2 and you're Milton Friedman.
Nice!!!!
What I'm missing is, what's the prescription for recovery? He doesn't want the job, is all I heard. It's easy to critique pop economics (which is pretty much all we have, in terms of actual political influence), but what is the _smart thing_ that we _should be doing?_ Remarking how stupid a thing is isn't the same as advising a smart thing to do instead.
This is interesting but i think, to say least, not a full picture. his worldview is entirely dissmisive of power and conscious manipulation of the people by different means be that Gladiator games, sofisticated mathematical algoritms of financial manipulations, as well as no regard to unavoidable uncertanity of the complex social life. There are countles people who stopped/or never believed mainstream economic ideas and guess what their voices are constantly supressed they dont get fancy positions and good wages which is the privilage only for those who conform and obey the interests of power.
Because if their economic ideas worked as opposed to the mainstream ones, they would be easily able to prove it by creating a model market and showing how it works. They either haven't done so, which gives no one any reason to bother adopting those models, or they've FAILED to do so, and have given everyone a good look at what a failure the proposed system produces (Hello Lenin my old Friend)
Why would anyone who runs counter to modern economic ideas be rewarded with a fancy position or good wages if their ideas didn't produce a situation where they could reap said position or wages? Where is the logic in your argument?
That rather assumes these alternative ideas involve a market.
It also assumes mainstream economic ideas 'work'. Given the degree to which they keep producing unexpected results, including crises, as well as enslaving and impoverishing people and devastating the environment, in what sense do they 'work'? It can only be if we consider their purpose to allow the rich to hold on to power and become richer while the poor become poorer, because that's certainly continuing.
He does occasionally mention that, albeit in passing. He's working with what he's got.
@@shanearmstrong9861 Mandelbrot did create better models of markets. Also for example Einstein and other groundbreaking physicists and astronomers created some greatly improved models that took many physicists a long time to accept. That stuff happens All. The. Time. In every field.
sofisticated???
Natural Economics is the utilization of everything without the loss of anything. Man-made economics is based upon the power to sacrifice right for night at the cost of general wastefulness.
Capital is wealth and wealth is anything and everything made valuable by human effort.
There is as much difference between CAPITAL and FINANCE as there is between milk and a sponge.
Finance is a vacuum that absorbs wealth through a fraudulent medium of exchange. - Alfred w. Lawson (1931)
I sure a glad I can't see his slides, they would only distract me from the information presented.
So, you have a two camera set up, but neither thought it would be useful for the viewer to see the slides...
Since 2008 to 2019 the UK inflation has been 34% measured by the retail price index. (About 2.7% a year) Is that what he means by "no inflation" even though it halves the value of money every 26 years? Did he just mean "low?"
What is the answer?
Who did the woodwork ?
Anyone catch the cocktail recipe?
Is Mark coming out with a scotch company? He's really peddling the alcohol.
dude likes a drink
The problem is that ignoring the macro and systemic effect in pursuit of wealth is _not_ analogous to playing Russian roulette, even for the losers, because they don't die. A few, and only a few, of the big players go broke, and even then, they aren't dead. If they had any sense at all, they weren't gambling with their entire net worth, so they only become less rich.
It is the less savvy, part-time investors, who have regular incomes, who lose their nest eggs. Cumulatively, they account for the bulk evaporation of false wealth. But it was paper wealth, it was never real to begin with. The prices people are willing to pay for assets in a bubble have no relationship to their intrinsic values. Drops in prices are not the same as drops in value.
21:50 - He just described Neo-Darwinism and mainstream cosmology.
I find Pound in here, and i like it.
Blyth: "Nobody's ever died of debt." Nice quote
*National Debt
the fuck they havent. Debt is what caused WW2.
debt has killed millions of people. Debt causes wars, which cause death. Many have comitted suicide over debts, many have been killed over debts, some of them honor-debts, but a lot of them over money debt.
Sometimes it's nice to read something aloud...
And nobody gets rich with debt either
Following Mark Blyth is very difficult because he is so knowledgable and speaks about very complex things to an audience that generally is very well educated about economics. The fact that they don't show the slides makes it impossible to follow for a person like myself. This video is worthless.
Why? Normally because they work in a central bank.
This, of course, leads to another question: Why don't central bankers understand economics?
The first section can be simplified by likening the whole situation of the subject matter to the game Monopoly....once one player owns everything on the board, without more money or more streets with houses and hotels on them being injected into the game....THE GAME WILL GO COMPLETELY STALE and everything pretty much comes to a grinding halt with one person wearing a large smile across their face and the rest of the countries(sorry, my mistake), players, ending up with pretty vacant or non-existent smiles on their faces, which seem to be gradually turning to grimaces towards the winner!!!!
13:09 so widely applicable
The shuttle blowing up had nothing to do with nitrogen.
it also didn't blow up it disintegrated from aerodynamic and other mechanical forces as the liquid fuel deflagrated
to believe in infinite economic growth you have to be an economist or a madman. their basic assumption is nuts so its not a proper subject unless your into making money or some other mischief
Why cant you have infinite growth? Because Mark says, is not a truth bomb🤣.
@@kurt.wilkinsongardendesign Because perpetually increasing economic activity inevitably means at some point increasing the exploitation of resources beyond their ability to recover and to support human civilisation. Until you find a way to get off this planet and go and pillage another one that is your hard limit right there.
@@peterv1436 rubbish. Unfortunately you must hang around with to many small minded people. We have finite resources but infinite ways to use them.
@@kurt.wilkinsongardendesign The old AM/FM problem. Wishful thinking ignores the limitations of Actual Machines and prefers to believe in Fucking Magic. What is global capitalism but a mind bogglingly complex machine?
How can you say you are from Lebanon and not now what part? As an immigrant that's required knowledge if you're interested in your heritage.
There is no inflation (according to this formula that divides by zero fifteen times to get the numbers we want).
Love the accent!
Loved the Kiwi-voiced presenter for a change but her initial chortled interjections were an annoyance. As interesting as always even if much regurgitated material. I appreciated his cynical comments on those unimaginative and incompetent fund managers who elect to stuff your funds in Indexed Funds.
"There's no inflation anywhere".
Thia guy missed the whole QE scandal and hasn't shopped for groceries since 1999. I'd like my $1/lb hamburger back, please.
Oh, right, BLS hand-waves that away because flat-screen TV's are cheap now.
Bill McGonigle QE had zip, zilch, nothing, nada, influence on inflation. Look around you. Where is the inflation? (QE is the bailout of the last 10 years)
the david attenborough/doug stanhope of economics
That's a hideous combination, he's not that bad.
@@johntaylor8463 fair enough
If you meant telling the truth ruthlessly in a constructive way...? OK
The other way might be hypocritical.
Without the slides, this talk is less than half-useful, and though I see I could look at the slides as these are linked in the description, that's simply lazy editing! First, how many viewers didn't notice the link? Second, how selfish to expect the thousands of viewers to each go between this video and the links, when one person, the editor, could and should have done so.
MMT teaches macroeconomics and makes sense.
Mark throws Venezuela as a spanner to MMT but MMT explains Venezuela
Somebody got owned at the end there.
Exhausting. I feel like I just listened to a recitation of Beowulf.
The way to solve all economic problems; return to nomadic hunting and gathering.
Excuse me, but all the engineers told them not to launch the challenger that day. The president overrode them.
“Nobody can ever die of death” uh... yes you can. Foodstamp is not available here mr know it all
He’s right about football hooliganism. This boy’s clever…
Credit means faith. 'Trust' is more accurate than faith. The point is a bit lame. Good talk though apart from that.
...as the not correct interpretation of German "Schuld", what is "guilt", whereby "Schulden" is colloquial for "debt". "Er hat Schuld" means clearly guilt while "Er hat Schulden" means that "he owes money".
Both meanings could be clearly discriminized because one meaning ("guilt") is almost exclusively used in the singular "Schuld", while "Schulden" ("debt") is exclusively plural a.k.a. a plurale tantum. But there also other words for debt in German like "Kredit", "Verbindlichkeit" oder "Soll" ("obligo") . "Soll" (or also in German "Debit") is the german translation of latin "debit" derived from debere ("to should" "to owe") and "debitum / debita", that again could mean both in English: guilt and debt. Ergo: the english version of debitum ("debt") only hides the same contextual double meaning in the latin origin of the word. As a university professor and married into a bunch of Germans Mr. Blyth should have known better.
It's pity that by such flaws and trivial interpretations in his interesting perspective seem to show missing depth and damage his general credibility...
This guy is right as fuck.
Why did aristocrats believe in the divine right of kings?
Well they would wouldn't they.
He is all over the place
this is a general talk not a university unit lecture
Brilliant man. Does he have Parkinson's? My dad's hand does that too.
People are like mindless metronomes, so we need central planners to put us in sync. Sad some people find this a compelling analogy for rationalizing central planning. The "system" made of of central planners (humans) are in no way similar to the function of this static piece of wood...Again, same thing with the bridge, there's reason people speculate on the actions of central planners. Where does this guy go beyond attempting to critique errors in thinking and actually refute positions.
Show the freaking slides. This talk is useless without them!!!
Difficult to follow his argument without seeing the f'in slides.
We had to wait until 2022 to see inflation.
But Can We Afford It? Economic Priorities for the Next Administration - CZcams
czcams.com/video/EyBhU19pD3k/video.html
This video is of Stephanie Kelton explaining what she calls "Zombie ideas", like the idea that the US government can go broke, e.g. run out of money.
I thought about doing an economics degree.. but my investigation into ecology in the 80s made me realise that its all bullshit.. humans have this weird idea that we are the nexus of everything and not subject to evolutionary extinction.. we are exempt from the natural world and our demands of it don't have consequences.. well .. I hope and pray that i'm wrong and everything will be fine. but..the fact is that we have an ever increasing population in a finite real biological system.. not a made up economic one.. and if we don't factor these truths into our systems .. nature will do it for us.. and not in a good way... by the way i'm fae Dundee Scotland like the speaker .. :-)
We need a nature-based economic system, right?
One of few intelligent comments here.
You really should've considered it, since the very first premise of Economics is what to do with scarcity, and your characterization of Economics not considering what would happen if we demand too much of the planet is woefully uninformed.
Of COURSE Economics understands that there are scarce resources to work with, that's the entire fucking reason economic theory even exists in the first place!
I never said that Mark Blyth wasn't a smart economist. but you seem to be saying that economists are somehow immune from being wrong? which if you actually listened to what he said in his speech it is the opposite of that ..but I dunno maybe you mean the same economic 'experts' who said there wouldn't be a crash in 2008? apart from Roubini and a few other realists?.. or the rating agencies trusted with your pension money who gave Lehmen bros a triple A rating 3 days before they went bust?..a lot of economic theory is based on political ideology and not empirical data but it still gets given credence and is acted upon by govts worldwide.. i'm 53 but if I had told you 30 years ago that China would be the most capitalist country in the world.. but run by a repressive 'communist' corrupt billionaire polit bureau.. everyone would've laughed me outta the room.. but hey guess what? it happened.. when I studied economics at school the teacher told me that the reason a lot of the terms they used were in latin an greek was; up until the 1930s economics was considered a branch of philosophy... yeh... fuckin philosophy .. not science.. and by the way.. all I said was I thought economics was bullshit compared to real empirical ecological/biological data which would actually be a benefit to the survival of the species.. we ignore nature at our peril .. even Einstein agreed with that...not trying to piss anyone off but I still stand by my point.. :-)
Mark Blyth states the way the world actually is, and is in fact ridiculing conventional economists commonly called Neo-Liberals - who deliberately conflate the purpose of their so called beliefs, in order to deliver benefits to the already well healed.
He says in his talk that he gave up calculating mathematical problems to solve economics, because it is a bogus science. Whereas there are Oxbridge economists that belittle those that don't as though they aren't clever like them. When in fact they are either stupid or deceitful because there is no way you can create an economic model that predicts the future. Which is what they pretend to do and why they always get it wrong.
Sadly all people like Mark Blyth are doing is trying to present factual information in place of the lies perpetrated in a systemic system of corporate capture. In short there are a few economists that highlight what is called fantasy economics (Neo-Liberalism). He is therefore a Heterodox economist rather than the usual Neo-Liberal.
It goes without saying with limited raw materials we can't go on exploiting ever diminishing resources.
I'm pretty sure he would agree with you on that score, but we first have to highlight the lies and deceit within the current general consensus, before we adopt a new paradigm called sustainable economics.