วีดีโอ

Neo economics has fail because of Deep State.

Edit 2008

🌀🇨🇳💙🇷🇺🌀 ïsn'† i† pravda tha† ukrainian become piano keyboard 🎹 for NATO composers to play🚽🎹 (zel+en+sky) choseni†e s†yle Symphony of Necropolis, For: Black Rock, 💱 Black S†one,💱 Black Wa†er,💱 In Whi†e House. Wha† A clowns. 👉Moreover Capitalist 🤑System mean: Debtalist and Sanctionists, Without it They Can't survive, 👉This has been Method of the Inquisitors = Dog Barking & biting. Method of the Predator = animals. Mostly copied by Toxic humanoids Who believe in Dog . They have to make more & more Toxicstan. 👉 They are calling it Demonocracy & Republican= Greek o Romanized Abrahamic Nonsense... Predator sss.

Mainstream economists are trolls. They are not even trying to be right.

The solution is always more freedom -moral freedom.

Of course imposing a violence-backed currency can ‘work’; any slavery can ‘work’ -poorly and for a while, anyway.

This sounds like MMT, which is just the same insane Keynesian economics we’ve disastrously experienced for the last half century, but on crack….with a more overt appeal to authoritarians. (Update) yup, I was right…it’s just crackhead MMT.

Finally! An analysis of MMT by someone who ACTUALLY understands it! Well done. I’ve read about MMT extensively, including a 400 page anthology of critical reviews. It’s not a unique economic theory. It’s just a description of how (mostly) the US monetary system actually works. The rather radical policy suggestions by some MMT proponents have nothing to do with the theory, per se. Using MMT I can just as easily argue that we need 100 aircraft carriers instead of, or in addition to, a jobs guarantee program, for example. MMT and UBI will become a necessity once AI and robotics displace the majority of our workforce.

Mr. Sharpe, I believe you may have misunderstood what AI researchers mean when they say “Median Human”. Let’s use the often denigrated measurement for cognitive ability, the IQ test, as an approximation of intelligence or cognitive abilities. Median in IQ by definition takes us to the 50 percentile. In my view, that covers sufficient number of folks to force a severe employment crisis without a major shift in both culture and the political economy. I think a Median Human will not mean that these AI tools can take over higher order function that require judgement and conjecture generation and so significant level of human involvement is still required. To me, this is the skilled AI that can be taught to fly and combat other fighter jets in collaboration with the human as its leader and the software factory that work in collaboration with human software engineers. These scenarios are already well underway as fruitful research and development areas. As an aside, psychologists say that people engaged in skilled trades require above median level of cognitive skills, and higher still if they are running a business and must employ workers. So a Median Human level intelligence would not be enough to replace plumbers and electricians. But could mean that they can do a lot of the work under supervision of a human. However, even this level of AI will mean half the population would become unemployable because a single human with the aid of AI collaborators can produce what took an entire team of people. And obviously this is more than sufficient to require a rethinking of work and how our economy works. And over time, the level of higher order function could reach the level entrusted to humans with bachelor degree equivalent leaving only those folks with the cognitive abilities typically required for graduate level education able to find employment. That may indeed require “Super Intelligence” that may eventually arrive, but we don’t need to get to that level to experience huge employment and cultural crisis when the majority of people cannot be gainfully employed. The solution seems obvious to me. We are getting this backwards. Economy and technology are there to serve human needs and wants. If most humans can stop participating in the Producer side of the economy then a cultural and political shift is required to enable people to continue to receive an allotment of products and services produced by the economy. After all what is the point of production when you don’t make it possible for anyone to consume them?

Feudalism looks EXACTLY LIKE communism...just spelt different...self appointed " leaders" stealing from people...the quintessential contradiction. Capitalism ..on the other hand.....looks EXACTLY LIKE....communism...this time you go to university, get a degree in ...I dunno ...HR....Economics, banking...then STEAL stuff off people who clean up your shit and give you fresh water, and roads...

I'm working for a company that did this : created a product based on need / requirement...etc. it worked well. They produced spare parts technical backup etc. Now it's changed hands....internationally...south Korea in fact...now...most of our work is warranty...read this as bad product...AND...they don't give a shit...next stop...extinction I guess...same for Boeing, John Deere...now run by accountants and white collar ideologies.....point is...there was no competition to arrive at this point...they did it ...ALL BY THEMSELVES...

Economics has always been bullshit. If you hand THE SAME DATA to anyone with a deal science or engineering background ( and as a minimum an Excel spreadsheet) it is certain you will get intelligent analysis and encumbent permutations. 19 century economist don't have enough grey matter to overcome their ideological belief in an infinite planet...its their God. I mean ...in Australia ( at least) ...we listen to these BS ban, economists giving us the daily spell on coal oil and realestate prices...and that's it,..how we can keep consuming !! And the stupid journalists who have bought the fraud forever.,..humans are dumb and dumber.

If economics is indeed sufficiently chaotic, we may as well stop predicting anything except the immediate short term future.

Paul Krugman?!?!? Are you bleeping serious? What a joke😂

well explained

Will you be reviewing Markets in the Name of Socialism by Johanna Bockman?

I did two years of economics at university over 30 years ago. My professors were at pains to point out - even then - that the models used in classical economic theory were largely rubbish and rested on multiple assumptions that almost never represented real world conditions. While i found studying economics interesting, i was struck - even then - by the fact that my professors were - almost literally - telling their students this was all nonsense. I went on to switch to Law and became a lawyer, but the baffling thing was that, while working in international finance and financial services, i generally came across two types of people in the big corporates - the ‘analyst’ types, who used all the models and theories to prepare recommendations that generally amounted to no more than gobbledygook dressed up with technical looking pictures and words, and the ‘salesmen’ types, who generally ignored all that and simply went with whatever spiel they needed to use to score a commission. The salesmen were generally more financially successful but, were more likely, on the whole, to blow themselves up, or blowup their customers, sometimes spectacularly. From this i concluded that the ‘classical theory’ stuff is basically insurance - if an analyst used it in their research papers and someone lost money on it, the analyst could point to some gobbledygook in the theory to justify the losses, leaving the customer with little comeback, since the theory was nonsense to start with. The surprising thing though, is that the nonsensical classical theories still have such a strong hold on so many people. Even those who know its all nonsense, dont generally say so publicly. Ps i was in financial services before and during the GFC - 2006-2009. I had deals going for clients with Bear Sterns and lehman brothers, among others, when they both went bust. Long before that id forgotten most of the maths id learned at university for my econ and commerce degree - i always left the numbers in the derivatives contracts to my clients’ PhD maths people around the world. But prior to everything going south it was very obvious - even to me - that disaster was looming. We were doing deal after deal that was leverage on leverage on leverage. Gearing all built on thin air. It was very basic common sense. But, you know, those guy’s don’t listen to their lawyers, because what would we know, right? I always tell people that if you were in financial services and didnt see the GFC coming, you werent in financial services.

I don't want to criticize Keen for he writes simply, and Oli explains simply as well. But most of it can be explained in simpler ways without complicated and boring tables, e.g. if people borrow to speculate on Nvidia and banks are willing to lend to earn more money, then the risk of default is high (it peaks at "Minsky moment") and a chain of defaults, staring with a few bank runs, leads to panic. Since you don't whether your bank will be next (i.e. imperfect info), you rush to withdraw your funds as well, and it spirals down. Most people (economists included) have given up on neoclassical economics over the last two decades; they only appear in useless textbooks and journals. Practical men are not slaves of defunct economists (as Keynes would have it); instead, it is the other way around. Neoclassical economics fails on many counts: equilibrium, cultural desert, lack of political considerations, and absence of institutions. Most developing countries are more keen on the alternative state-led East Asian model.

Most ofWestern GDP is leveraged speculation in stocks and real estate. Industtial output and resource exports are undervalued.

Keen is really little different from neoclassical economists: he just tries to replace one set of mathematical models and state interventions with a different set. That approach is doomed to failure. Austrian economists were able to predict the 2008 financial crisis and predict future crises. Unlike both neoclassical and Keen, Austrians recognize that quantitative, mathematical modeling of the economy as a dynamical system is impossible in principle. That is also what experts from other disciplines will tell Keen. There are general, qualitative principles that tell you that less government regulation/intervention and a market based monetary system will lead to the best outcomes and that ongoing government intervention leads to a buildup of structural debts that inevitably lead to crises and collapse. But there is little more we can say.

this is absolutely un true. republicans have a very firm understanding that if they give the public thelion share of the money we spend it all up which puts the money right back into their pockets. see democrats are greedy and communist. they think they are supposed to have it all and horde it. leaving a few scraps for us we the pl...which is whats currently happening. see democrats invest everything in their foreign communist options. while republicans know that a healthy public is a superior nation. before you blame the economy, try factoring in 12 out of 16 years democrats reign has done to the world... get your own brain and fill it with actual truth... instead of repeating some rhetoric youve heard or saw some where....

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

The inflation that was happening at the time of this vid was largely greedflation. Economist Elizabeth Weber noted it and was ridiculed but the mockers had to eat their words after corporate profits soared. She did not, however, detail the mechanism that explains why companies became 'greedy'. The mechanism works like this: Covid relief money worked its way up through the economy until it reached the investor class, who used it to bid-up the prices of pre-existing stocks. In order to maintain the value of those stocks once the relief funds stopped, investors demanded their customary (say 8%) return on the new stock price, which was delivered by inflating consumer prices. Governments were disincentivised from addressing this by price controls (as Weber suggested they ought) because state-endorsed private savings schemes (401K and equiv's) and sovereign wealth funds were beneficiaries. This analysis is supported by stats for the relevant variables. The correct procedure would have been for governments to apply a surcharge to corporation tax and top-bracket income tax at the same time as the relief funds were issued to remove that money from the investor class before they could speculate with it. In fact, targetted taxation is *always* the correct foil for inflation rather than interest-rate hikes, though one can see why the collectors of interest-payments might disagree.

cool channel. glad i found it.

I think there's one thing missing in your last point about political push-back: there is a growing unease and anger that (I believe) is being turned against governments by the big tech giants who are building these models. I can see a near future where societies lose the power to push back against "corporate leviathans" that are wrestilng governments right now. Another thing is: humans have a tendency to curiosity and boundary pushing... Economic gain doesn't have to be clear for people to wanting to invest more and more in a big intelligence which they think they may get something in return in the future. Even if it isn't money. Faith and longing for the supernatural is a human characteristic too, to cope with death. That's why economic decisions are not entirely rational.

Ok, I see.... instead of full-blown AGI in our smartphones, robots or cars, "we" will have it at Amazon's/Meta's/Alphabet's Headquarters. I've seen this movie too.

Double entry accounting has no place in modern world. It’s an ancient system that worked for the ancient world only but we have held on to the ridiculous system because those that discovered how to game this also had the power therefore to continue their Ponzi scheme

Economics were always a fairytale told and the gullible swallowing it up. Making USD the world currency is the witch in the fairytale.

When you see “Neo” in front of anything. It is the exact opposite of the suffix.

Steve Keen is likely to be one of the posthumous Nobel Laureates in Economics. Who knows, we may not have economies to talk about around the globe -- thanks to the USA, Israel and the rest of the settler colonizers of the Global North!

Detective of money politics is following this very informative content cheers from VK3GFS and 73s from Frank from Melbourne Australia ❤

Steve Keen is more focused on profiting from a small fan base than actually doing something useful.

This is mostly nonsense. Private banks do not and cannot "create money". Fiat money is created by the Fed Res Bank.

An underlining assumption is that all situations have a solution. In the real world this does not happen. AGI will require that the tool has the ability to recognize a situation that has no solution, rather than giving up (ending) because the amount of resource limits is reached and end that solution construction. For centuries mathematicians tried to derive Euclid's 5 postulate from the other statements. It was only in the last centuries that the true nature of the situation was discovered. The ability for an AGI will require the ability to recognize this situation. This is beyond our current path to AI. Current AI must always produce a result. I like to think about how knowledge is acquired. In the beginning, for all humans, all knowledge was unknown. It was only with time that man ( building tools ) made in roads into the unknown. What was learned was at the "edge of the unknown". Human knowledge moved from the unknown into the known. Then over time, some of what was learned was forgotten. So we have an edge of knowledge that drifted back into the unknown (probably because things changed and the value of the knowledge diminished, or those who had that knowledge died and their knowledge no longer existed. In category of what is known man was able to see more of the edge of the unknown (seeing things that existed but were unknown). Behind that edge of the unknown is the unknown unknown, for which we have no idea what even exists. Given the limits of the mechanical (i.e. in any form or composition) tools, I do not see AGI will be able to reach into the unknown unknown. This ability into the unknown unknown is true AGI. I am not saying this ability is impossible, it is just not possible within the confines of human limits.

Inflation isn't a good measure to see the effects of MMT, but on the values of houses, stocks and other assets, as these are the primary target for all that surplus money, as are the rich people who got those printed money first. When the inflation rises, it is because it is too late, and things got out of control.

To sum this up, straw man economists as all "neo classical" (even though most of who work for government are Keynesians), babble some stupid about double-entry book keeping, as if this is some great insight. Pretend the economics community are confused by how fractional reserve banking works. Steal some stupid ideas from MMT and re-package them... Hopefully the book is not as dumb as you make it sound, but given your review, I'm not inclined to waste my time on it.

5:10 - Anti-trust led to the monopolization 9:10 - Return to anti-trust 😢😅😂

I point to Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorum, applying it to the "decision mechanism" ("what is correct"), that is part of an AI model construction. The decision agent will always be a constrained finite mechanism, requiring an external agent for validation. This will lead to an unending recursive process (as the concept of "infinity", being a "good enough" approximation). This is what happens in the human mind in knowledge acquisition. Together with the "law of diminishing returns" (s-curve) places a limit on the ability to actually achieve ASI Humans have not achieved ASI in their time span because they are limited. Humans are limited tools builders. We build tools. The tools we build "that build tools" will also be limited.. From my point of view, ASI is a fantasy, a part of utopia. The only product that a humans produce, that is not a tool, is another human being. This reminds me of Michael Angelo's painting that pays tribute to the passing of consciousness from God to man.

People exist in nature, trading freely, without economics. Economics is the facade that a few men can be more fair than freedom by managing all resources. Which only results in grand theft, involuntary servitude, and environmental destruction: the fruits of greed.

Best explanation of social impact of AI I've seen. Thank you so much!

2:48 bullshit. Companies create wealth all the time, real wealth. Think Amazon, 25 years ago it didnt exist now it has grown and is worth a fuck ton of money. I think you are just a closet big government Marxist

Definitely have to pick this book up. Thanks for the excellent overview.

When I see that interest on the national debt is now the third largest government expense (after Medicaid and social security) I find it hard to believe that an ever-growing national debt won't become a problem. At some point the interest is going to become the single largest item in the government budget.

You mention that Varoufakis's idea of "cloud serfs" and "cloudalists" just describes "roles" we all inhabit, rather than defining distinct classes. But traditional class structure has always allowed for some role flexibility (e.g., managers who control others yet still answer to higher-ups). What Varoufakis is highlighting seems to be a unique structural dependency in digital systems, where ownership of data determines power. This could be seen as creating new class tensions worth a more rigorous analysis. You suggest that broad public ownership of stock diminishes class distinctions, but most of the wealth and decision-making power in tech is still concentrated among large shareholders, executives, and venture capitalists, not average pension-holders. This centralisation of data’s wealth-generating potential means that influence over these assets remains deeply imbalanced, even with stock exposure spread across society. Drawing a parallel to traditional media moguls like Murdoch might overlook some key differences. Unlike newspapers, digital tech firms don’t just control content; they control the very infrastructure through which people interact. This allows them to go far beyond traditional media reach by using detailed behavioural data and high-fidelity influencing. It’s not merely influence but also control over the space where agency is exercised, which seems to reshape user autonomy on an unprecedented scale. You argue that tech firms’ ability to avoid profit pressures is more about finance than digital. While financial speculation is certainly part of it, the exponential growth unique to tech firms, driven by network effects and data monopolies, sets them apart. Traditional businesses don’t have this same advantage, which indicates that the phenomenon is tied more closely to digital economics than just financial strategies. You mention that these technologies would be equally exploitative in socialist or communist settings, but class distinctions might differ greatly within those frameworks. For example, socialist structures could theoretically facilitate a more equitable redistribution of data ownership, suggesting that political economy remains essential to shaping technology’s impact. You acknowledge that “big data” represents a new kind of asset, but you downplay its potential to create new class tensions. Varoufakis’s argument seems to be that big data is collectively created but centralised in ownership, forming a new frontier of exploitation. This idea of everyone “labouring” by generating data for free while ownership remains highly restricted does seem like a critical point to explore further. All in all, these points reflect how digital capitalism has transformed, if not intensified, traditional class structures in nuanced ways. Dismissing these shifts as mere roles might miss how data control has centralised power in unprecedented ways.

Classic ideas like supply and demand not actually working in economics is real, but it’s not that it doesn’t work. Just look at videos discussing the spoofing of gold. Some foreign central banks maybe does future contracts and then cancels at the last minute. Did you know the bank of international settlements I think have some gold component or may help manage gold. If central banks are privately owned and if the bank of international settlements is privately owned and actually had Englands monarch as a shareholder up to the year 2000 September 11 it’s like of course if you’re a billionaire and want to continue using fiat currency along with your government you may simply manage demand or supply. If you’re a central bank and can have off sheet liabilities like normal banks and it’s not reported and if you’re a central bank and you literally create new currency out of thin air what’s stopping them from buying or selling future options to manage price? Yes individuals or companies would go bankrupt doing that but if you’re a central bank you just keep creating new Monopoly money for your game or task. Also if the federal reserve is never audited no one will ever know,

excellent, thank you

Business owners don't like competition? Isn't that the point of talking about competition in capitalism? Also I feel like a lot of times capitalist is used interchangeably with business owner and supporter of capitalism, whereas this video points out correctly that business owners are not necessarily supporters of capitalism, especially the competition aspect of capitalism. And this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who has beyond a middle school understanding of capitalism/market economies.

Richard Koo used to a central banker at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. He introduced me to the central banker’s “flow of funds”. Richard Koo shows the graph central bankers use and it’s the flow of funds within the economy, which sums to zero (32-34 mins.). th-cam.com/video/8YTyJzmiHGk/w-d-xo.html You can clearly see the zero sum nature of the monetary system. You can see how, as one thing goes up, another thing goes down. Before the Japanese financial crisis in 1991, the Government moved into surplus as the corporate sector was going more and more negative. A Government surplus sucks money out of the private sector. A Government deficit pushes money into the private sector. It’s the zero sum nature of the monetary system I could only understand the central banker’s flow of funds after I had grasped the basic principles of MMT. Private banks create the money supply. www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdf Money and debt come into existence together and disappear together like matter and anti-matter. Bank loans create money and debt repayments to banks destroy money. Bank loans create 97% of the money supply Banks create money and debt at the same time. This is the zero sum nature of the monetary system. This is why it behaves in ways that you often don’t expect.

The dollar is a leader currency, other Currencies will always do what it does. For that reason the US will never face the consequences of it's frivolous spending since there will be no competitors to replace the dollar

Thank you for the great video. I appreciate the info very much, as it’s presented in a calm manner and with good backup data. I don’t know how I feel about all this. As an American, I’m concerned about the profligate military spending, both from a financial position, as well from humanitarian grounds. I believe that military spending is inherently inflationary as the goods are produced using tax dollars, but cannot be bought by the economic markets at large. FYI, I also believe that words are important, and the political, fiscal, and monetary lingo is jingoistic and not meant to inform, but to confuse. The prefixes like “neo-“ is emblematic. You don’t know what the user stands for, nor what he means. Again, thank you.