Steve Keen's Debtwatch

The ABC Radio Nation­al pro­gram Rear Vision is a cur­rent affairs pro­gram that presents “con­tem­po­rary events and peo­ple in their his­tor­i­cal con­text”.

I was recent­ly inter­viewed by Rear Vision for a ret­ro­spec­tive on the cri­sis, enti­tled “Here we go again: A look at the US econ­o­my post the 2008 GFC crash” which debat­ed why the cri­sis is still with us today.

Oth­er speak­ers were Ed Har­ri­son from Cred­it Write­downs, with whom I’m very much in agree­ment, eco­nom­ic his­to­ri­an Richard Syl­la from New York Uni­ver­si­ty, and Steve Han­ke from John Hop­kins with whom I almost com­plete­ly dis­agree. Han­ke does­n’t even dis­cuss the lev­el of pri­vate debt, puts the stan­dard neo­clas­si­cal argu­ment that gov­ern­ment debt is the prob­lem, that a stim­u­lus is con­trac­tionary (the so-called “reverse Ricar­dian Equiv­a­lence” argu­ment) and so on, ideas which I regard as total non­sense.

I was high­ly crit­i­cal of Paul Krug­man’s recent aca­d­e­m­ic paper on the finan­cial cri­sis, because it argued, on neo­clas­si­cal a pri­ori grounds, that:

Ignor­ing the for­eign com­po­nent, or look­ing at the world as a whole, the over­all lev­el of debt makes no dif­fer­ence to aggre­gate net worth — one per­son­’s lia­bil­i­ty is anoth­er per­son­’s asset. (p. 3)

Giv­en that crit­i­cism, I feel oblig­ed to point out that in his recent com­ment on Rick Per­ry’s nom­i­na­tion for the Pres­i­den­cy, “The Texas Unmir­a­cle”, Krug­man makes a very sen­si­ble obser­va­tion about the impor­tance of “the over­all lev­el of debt” that con­tra­dicts the assump­tion he made in that paper. Observ­ing that Tex­as­’s alleged­ly bet­ter per­for­mance on employ­ment growth is due main­ly to “cheap labor”, Krug­man com­ments that:

CAPM still dom­i­nates the teach­ing of finance, but it was always non­sense because it relied on the fol­low­ing two assump­tions:

In the first half of this lec­ture, I show that even if all con­sumers were util­i­ty max­i­miz­ers whose indi­vid­ual demand curves obeyed the “Law of Demand”, the mar­ket demand curve derived from aggre­gat­ing these con­sumers could have any shape at all. This result, known as the “Son­nen­schein-Man­tel-Debreu Con­di­tions”, is actu­al­ly a Proof by Con­tra­dic­tion that mar­ket demand curves do not obey the “Law” of Demand, and there­fore that Mar­shal­lian par­tial equi­lib­ri­um mod­el­ing of indi­vid­ual mar­kets is invalid–let alone the Neo­clas­si­cal prac­tice of mod­el­ing the entire macro­econ­o­my as a sin­gle agent in “Dynam­ic Sto­chas­tic Gen­er­al Equi­lib­ri­um” mod­els.

Ann Pet­ti­for is one of the hand­ful of econ­o­mists who pre­dict­ed and warned about the finan­cial cri­sis of 2007 well before it hap­pened. Ann first came to promi­nence when she led the Jubilee 2000 cam­paign to abol­ish the debt of the world’s 42 poor­est coun­tries. She was one of the 12 nom­i­nees for the Revere Award; some of her pre-cri­sis com­ments that were high­light­ed there were:

Remov­ing con­trols over the finance sec­tor paved the way for its rise to dom­i­nance, which in turn has led to a trans­for­ma­tion of the glob­al econ­o­my and increased insta­bil­i­ty.

Fig­ure 1: Asset Prices ver­sus Con­sumer Prices since 1890

Far be it from me to under­es­ti­mate the stock mar­ket’s capac­i­ty to pluck the embers of delu­sion from the fire of real­i­ty. How­ev­er, the crash in the past few days may be evi­dence that san­i­ty is final­ly mak­ing a come­back. What many hoped was a new Bull Mar­ket was instead a clas­sic Bear Mar­ket ral­ly, fuelled by the mar­ket’s capac­i­ty for self-delu­sion, accel­er­at­ing pri­vate debt, and—thanks to QE2—an ample sup­ply of gov­ern­ment-cre­at­ed liq­uid­i­ty.

I’m writ­ing a post on the end­ing of the stock mar­ket’s Bear Mar­ket ral­ly now, where I’ll be focus­ing on US data.

At the same time, one of the US’s great deflation/bear ana­lysts has just pub­lished an “I told you so” post on Aus­tralia.

Click here to read Mish Shed­lock­’s “Secret­ly Broke in Aus­tralia”

ABC Radio’s pre­miere cur­rent affairs pro­gram PM asked me to debate the caus­es and impli­ca­tions of last week’s mar­ket sell-off with Chris Caton, from BT Aus­tralia. Click below to hear the debate.

Steve Keen’s Debt­watch Pod­cast

The tran­script is below  (and here on the ABC site). As is usu­al with such things, the tran­script is wild­ly ungram­mat­i­cal at times.

MARK COLVIN: The under­ly­ing fact about the glob­al econ­o­my is that there’s still a huge dis­crep­an­cy between what the eco­nom­ic his­to­ri­an, Niall Fer­gu­son, calls Plan­et Finance and Plan­et Earth.

My pre­vi­ous blog post on the RBA not­ed their ten­den­cy to fol­low a Tay­lor Rule pri­or to the GFC. A col­league points out anoth­er sta­tis­ti­cal reg­u­lar­i­ty that holds either side of the GFC, and right back to 1990: the RBA’s deci­sions fol­low the 90-day bank bill. Below are Phil Williams’ obser­va­tions on this issue.

In the days run­ning up to the first Tues­day of each month, the Aus­tralian pop­u­lace is sub­ject­ed to the excru­ci­at­ing pageantry of whether the RBA Board will increase or decrease inter­est rates, or whether they will keep them on hold for anoth­er month.

Today’s 4.78% fall on the S&P could eas­i­ly be reversed tomor­row if the BLS unem­ploy­ment num­ber is bet­ter than expect­ed; equal­ly today’s fall could turn out to be just the starters if it is worse. But beyond the volatil­i­ty of the stock mar­ket, it is becom­ing obvi­ous to every­one now that the cri­sis that began in 2007 is still with us.