An Introduction to Post-Keynesianism (Engelbert Stockhammer & Victoria Chick)

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 พ.ย. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 14

  • @josejesusborjonnieto394
    @josejesusborjonnieto394 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Estupenda explicación, Clara, convida y muy ilustrativa*****

  • @merveburnazoglu
    @merveburnazoglu 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I'm curious about the order of names in the video description. Isn't Victoria Chick first to speak?

  • @Attalic
    @Attalic 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Neo-Marxist here, really solid introduction.

    • @robowizard6132
      @robowizard6132 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Marxism fails

    • @Attalic
      @Attalic 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@robowizard6132 thanks for that well thought out critique

  • @Nhoj737
    @Nhoj737 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    " . . . . what it stands for and what's in store for the future. . . . "
    It's 'too late'?
    'We' have ten years?
    “ . . . our best estimate is that the net energy
    33:33 per barrel available for the global
    33:36 economy was about eight percent
    33:38 and that in over the next few years it
    33:42 will go down to zero percent
    33:44 uh best estimate at the moment is that
    33:46 actually the
    33:47 per average barrel of sweet crude
    33:51 uh we had the zero percent around 2022
    33:56 but there are ways and means of
    33:58 extending that so to be on the safe side
    34:00 here on our diagram
    34:02 we say that zero percent is definitely
    34:05 around 2030 . . .
    we
    34:43 need net energy from oil and [if] it goes
    34:46 down to zero
    34:48 uh well we have collapsed not just
    34:50 collapse of the oil industry
    34:52 we have collapsed globally of the global
    34:54 industrial civilization this is what we
    34:56 are looking at at the moment . . . “
    th-cam.com/video/BxinAu8ORxM/w-d-xo.html&feature=emb_logo

  • @larisabug6917
    @larisabug6917 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    thank youu

  • @jamesbancroft2467
    @jamesbancroft2467 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    An Austrian here but interesting

  • @cameronburnard2301
    @cameronburnard2301 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

    18:40

  • @lowersaxon
    @lowersaxon 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Chick is like her books are written. Thats fine and not surprising. Stockhammer is often terribly wrong. => You need no financial markets ( in certain models) bc there is no uncertainty and therefore no need to hold any money. What? So the only reason to hold money is uncertainty?? Sorry, but Nooo!

  • @Greg_Ulmer
    @Greg_Ulmer 7 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    What a poor speaker!

    • @RushuFriends
      @RushuFriends 7 ปีที่แล้ว +12

      She's pretty good actually. If you read Keynes, that's probably as good a summary as you can get.

    • @jessicag67
      @jessicag67 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      You are mean

    • @fachriranu1041
      @fachriranu1041 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Maybe it is your poor intelect?