Steve Keen's Debtwatch

You will notice a strange lit­tle icon at the bot­tom of all my posts now:

This is just an image–the actu­al Flat­tr but­ton is at the end of the post

This is a link to a new web sys­tem called Flat­tr. It’s a way of enabling micro­pay­ments to be made via the web.

One of the great strengths of the web is the great abun­dance of free material—and this site is part of that. How­ev­er it’s also one of its great weak­ness­es, since it’s not free for web authors like myself to pro­vide this infor­ma­tion.

I was inter­viewed on the peren­ni­al top­ic of Aus­tralian house prices by Aus­tralian Bro­ker News. The seg­ment, “The Big Sto­ry: Is the bub­ble set to burst?”, includes two indus­try rep­re­sen­ta­tives as well as me. I enjoyed how the 5 minute sto­ry was put togeth­er, and I think you will too. Click below to watch the Aus­tralian Bro­ker News item.

As seen on Brokernews.com.au

I spoke at a MFAA Pro­fes­sion­al Devel­op­ment Day, fol­low­ing a speak­er who point­ed out that most deci­sions are made by the emo­tion­al com­po­nents of our brains–hence some of my ref­er­ences to using the CEO seg­ment of your brain instead.

| Open Play­er in New Win­dow

Guest post by Geoff Davies

Many peo­ple, includ­ing many het­ero­dox econ­o­mists, under­stand that the neo­clas­si­cal equi­lib­ri­um approach to under­stand­ing economies is futile and mis­lead­ing [1], because mod­ern economies are far from equi­lib­ri­um. The neo­clas­si­cal pre­dic­tion of equi­lib­ri­um or near equi­lib­ri­um requires a string of patent­ly absurd assump­tions. How­ev­er the devel­op­ment of bet­ter the­o­ries seems to be sig­nif­i­cant­ly hin­dered by a feel­ing that any super­sed­ing the­o­ry has to be thor­ough­ly quan­ti­fied before it can be use­ful, and a feel­ing that the neo­clas­si­cal the­o­ry has set a bench­mark for sophis­ti­cat­ed math­e­mat­ics that must be matched before anoth­er the­o­ry can be respectable. Less fun­da­men­tal­ly there seems to be a com­mon per­cep­tion that empir­i­cal insights can only be gained through elab­o­rate sta­tis­ti­cal treat­ments of obser­va­tions.

A blog par­tic­i­pant (Lyon­wiss) recent­ly made a com­ment about the gen­er­al state of aca­d­e­m­ic eco­nom­ics that was so “spot on” I want­ed to share it more wide­ly. I have of course fol­lowed the exact oppo­site of the con­ven­tion­al route to pub­lish­ing suc­cess that Lyon­wiss out­lines here–and I’ve encoun­tered the neg­a­tive con­se­quences he notes, of rejec­tion by neo­clas­si­cal ref­er­ees and edi­tors.

Here is Lyon­wis­s’s fool­proof for­mu­la for pub­lish­ing suc­cess in aca­d­e­m­ic eco­nom­ics:

Aca­d­e­mics wants to write research papers and have them pub­lished. Uni­ver­si­ty bureau­cra­cies are not only bean coun­ters, they are also paper coun­ters. Pro­mo­tion depends on the num­ber of papers pub­lished. Pub­lish­ing papers is not the same thing as actu­al­ly doing research.

Click here for this post as a PDF

I recent­ly fired a stray shot at Paul Krug­man over his joke paper “The The­o­ry of Inter­stel­lar Trade” (Krug­man 2010), for which I have duly apol­o­gized. How­ev­er in that apol­o­gy I not­ed that Krug­man has also recent­ly pub­lished a draft aca­d­e­m­ic paper pre­sent­ing a New Key­ne­sian mod­el of debt defla­tion, “Debt, Delever­ag­ing, and the Liq­uid­i­ty Trap: A Fish­er-Min­sky-Koo approach” (Eggerts­son and Krug­man 2010), and I observed that I wish this paper was in fact a joke. Here’s why (this is a mod­i­fied extract from my forth­com­ing sec­ond edi­tion of Debunk­ing Eco­nom­ics, which will be pub­lished by Zed Books in about Sep­tem­ber or Octo­ber this year).

OK, apolo­gies to Paul Krug­man, now that I real­ize the Inter­stel­lar Trade paper was a joke and first draft­ed in 1978. I should have checked more before writing–but as not­ed, in the thick of writ­ing the sec­ond edi­tion of Debunk­ing Eco­nom­ics, I latched on to a diver­sion.

How­ev­er at some stage I’ll be pub­lish­ing a cri­tique of Paul’s paper on Min­sky, which I wish was a joke… More anon once the book is fin­ished.

I have almost fin­ished writ­ing the sec­ond edi­tion of Debunk­ing Eco­nom­ics (to be pub­lished by Zed Books in Sep­tem­ber 2011), which (a) makes me par­tic­u­lar­ly sen­si­tive to the dri­v­el neo­clas­si­cal econ­o­mists write and (b) in need of the occa­sion­al diver­sion when read­ing non­sense dressed up as sci­ence gets all too much.

So I have to thank Paul Krug­man for feed­ing both needs at once, with a paper that has been just brought to my atten­tion via the West­ern Eco­nom­ic Asso­ci­a­tion 2011 con­fer­ence newslet­ter (I’m pre­sent­ing a paper at the con­fer­ence, and being a dis­cus­sant on two oth­ers).

Whit­ney Fitzsim­mons’ inter­viewed Chris Joye and myself on house prices for the ABC’s Busi­ness Today last week, and the 11 minute seg­ment ran last Fri­day. The Busi­ness Today site does­n’t allow you to embed a giv­en inter­view, so I’ve saved it onto my blog for view­ing here.

I made one stuff-up, as can hap­pen in an interview—I said that house prices had risen 20 per­cent “last year” when I meant “under the influ­ence of the First Home Ven­dors Boost”. The actu­al peri­od of the rise was from March 2009 till March 2010 (and it was an 18.8% rise in nom­i­nal terms and a 15.5% rise in real terms).