I’m giv­ing two talks at Swin­burne Uni­ver­si­ty of Tech­nol­o­gy on Thurs­day Feb­ru­ary 4th. The infor­ma­tion below is repro­duced from the fly­er for the event devel­oped by reg­u­lar blog con­trib­u­tor Matt Mitchell, who has arranged the talks:

12.00pm – 2.00pm: DebtWatch : Observations and reflections on the educative role of modern media

• Dr Keen will dis­cuss his expe­ri­ence using his Debt­watch­blog on which he posts reg­u­lar arti­cles for dis­cus­sion and the role of this media in both edu­cat­ing the pub­lic and stim­u­lat­ing debate among econ­o­mists, stu­dents and lay peo­ple around eco­nom­ic the­o­ry and prac­tice.

I for­got to post my pre­sen­ta­tion file in the first ver­sion of this post. I’ve since edit­ed it, but I know that a lot of peo­ple using RSS feeds would not notice the change. So here is the pre­sen­ta­tion that I gave at that talk to UNEP in Novem­ber:

The Pow­er­point File

A PDF ver­sion

The Unit­ed Nations Envi­ron­ment Pro­gram did a very unusu­al and far-sight­ed thing last year: it asked the CSIRO to pro­duce a ver­sion of its bio­phys­i­cal mod­el of the Aus­tralian econ­o­my for devel­op­ing coun­tries, and to pair that with an eco­nom­ic mod­el which had to be non-equi­lib­ri­um in nature.

The Stocks and Flows Resource Mod­el­ling team at CSIRO Sus­tain­able Ecosys­tems, which main­tains this bio­phys­i­cal mod­el, approached me in July to see whether I would be will­ing to attempt the devel­op­ment of that non­equi­lib­ri­um mul­ti­sec­toral eco­nom­ic mod­el.

The US Sen­ate should not reap­point Ben Bernanke. As Oba­ma’s reac­tion to the loss of Ted Kennedy’s seat showed, real change in pol­i­cy only occurs after polit­i­cal scalps have been tak­en. An eco­nom­ic scalp of this scale might final­ly shake Amer­i­ca from the unsus­tain­able path that reck­less and feck­less Fed­er­al Reserve behav­ior set it on over 20 years ago.

Some may think this would be an unfair out­come for Bernanke. It is not. There are sol­id eco­nom­ic rea­sons why Bernanke should pay the ulti­mate polit­i­cal price.

A num­ber of read­ers have com­plained that the video of my talk at Google took up too much band­width, result­ing in “jerky” vision. Here are the same two files in a some­what low­er qual­i­ty compression–half the size of the orig­i­nal files.

| Open Play­er in New Win­dow

| Open Play­er in New Win­dow

As one view­er not­ed, it is also fea­si­ble to down­load the files to your PC and view there with­out band­width prob­lems dur­ing play­back.

Google runs a reg­u­lar sem­i­nar series on top­i­cal issues, which I spoke at last week. There was a sub­stan­tial audi­ence (see the quick scan of the audi­ence below) and Google’s staff lived up to their hyper-intel­li­gent and hyper-engaged rep­u­ta­tion.

| Open Play­er in New Win­dow

I gave a pre­sen­ta­tion that com­bined my stan­dard talk on debt and Min­sky, with some expo­si­tion of the Cir­cuit and Min­sky mod­els, befit­ting of an audi­ence to whom sim­u­la­tion is no big deal–unlike eco­nom­ics con­fer­ences where such approach­es are still fringe activ­i­ties.

The Real World Eco­nom­ics Review Blog–which is run by PAECON, the “Protest against Autis­tic ECONomics”–has just launched “The Igno­ble Prize for Eco­nom­ics”.

The intent is to select by pop­u­lar vote the “three econ­o­mists who con­tributed most to enabling the Glob­al Finan­cial Col­lapse (GFC)”.

Nom­i­na­tions are now open, and any­one can nom­i­nate up to three indi­vid­u­als by vis­it­ing this page and leav­ing a com­ment.

As it is cur­rent­ly stat­ed, the prize is open for posthu­mous award; this may change if there are sim­ply too many dead econ­o­mists who get a guernsey.

This is often treat­ed as a “how long is a piece of string?” ques­tion, but The Econ­o­mist has per­formed a great pub­lic ser­vice by allow­ing an easy com­par­i­son of the length of this piece of string across many coun­tries and over time.

Check it out your­self. For Aus­tralian read­ers, house prices today are almost 2.5 times what they were in real terms in 1986; and our price bub­ble (in CPI-deflat­ed terms) turns out to be small­er than some coun­tries (notably Bel­gium’s) but larg­er than the USA’s and UK’s.

Party like it’s New Year’s Eve 1930

I rec­om­mend that you fin­ish the year with a look at the News from 1930 blog, which is pro­vid­ing some “year in review” com­men­tary on 1930 now–including these details on the mar­ket highs and lows. Obvi­ous­ly some things were much worse in 1930 than today–notably indus­tri­al pro­duc­tion and the stock mar­ket:

Mar­ket highs and lows:

Dow indus­tri­al aver­age high of 294.07 Apr. 17; low 157.51 Dec. 16. Rail aver­age high of 157.94 Mar. 29; low 91.65 Dec. 16. Util­i­ty aver­age high of 108.62 Apr. 12; low 55.14 Dec. 16.

Last week­end’s Sun­day Tele­graph point­ed out a new record for Aus­tralia: our ratio of house­hold debt to GDP is now high­er than the USA’s. I’ve writ­ten the fol­low­ing com­men­tary on this dubi­ous “gold medal” (or is it real­ly lead?) for the ABC’s The Drum.

In all the self-con­grat­u­la­tions over how Aus­tralia has man­aged to side­step the GFC, an incon­ve­nient truth has been over­looked: the cri­sis was caused by too much debt, and Aus­tralian house­holds have had a stronger and longer love affair with debt than even the Amer­i­cans.