Why Do People Continue to Believe Stupid Economic Ideas - Mark Blyth
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лют 2025
- Noted author, professor and expert on global politics and economics, Dr. Blyth regularly speaks to diverse global audiences including financial institutions, multi-national corporations, associations, governments and literary festivals. In addition to keynote speeches, he is a sought after moderator and live interviewer for notable figures such as Tony Blair, Gerhard Schroeder, and the ex-Greek Finance Minister, Yanis Varoufakis. Blyth distinguishes himself on the speaking circuit with an ability to break down complex, financial and political issues with clarity and sharp Scottish wit. He predicted the Brexit vote, Trump’s election and Italy’s referendum well before most pundits.
To book now: www.apbspeakers...
Yeah, some of my favorites, "My business is successful, look how much debt I have." or, "Inflation is a problem, let's make money cost more and raise interest rates," or, "Too big to fail." Oh gosh.
When you have a speaker, a screen, and 2 cameras, have both cameras shoot the speaker. There's a stupid idea.
Is the full lecture available somewhere?
would like to know as well...
I know you're asking about this specific lecture, and I'd like to see the rest, too, but in case you don't know it, his talk "Global Trumpism" is the best thing I've seen on the rightward turn. It's on UA-cam.
I've been looking, but this was a private event hosted by the company Volatility Investing. All I found on their website is a notice about the event. I didn't feel like answering a bunch of their questions to (possibly) dig deeper into the site to find a full video.
Iandrasil. Me too. He's a becoming a bit of a rock star, in a good way.
I've found the full talk - www.volatilityinvesting.co.uk/events/london-2017 - go to 3:00- 3:45 pm and the video will be there. You have to tick some silly boxes on an initial page to get onto the website though, just to say that you aren't going to sue them if you take their investment advice and it goes tits-up.
"Nobody dies of debt"
Not true. Plenty of people have been killed, imprisoned, made into indentured servants, or had their property confiscated and starved because of debt.
German reparations debts to the allies eventually led to hyperinflation, and this was a major factor in WWII occurring.
Debts have directly led to tons of wars.
This guy wants to act like debt is no big deal. Debt is a *huge* deal, both for the individual and the country.
And he insults Milton Friedman. This guy is nobody compared to Milton Friedman, one of the great economists of the 20th century.
Correct Solan. Libtards believe that debt does NOT have deadly consequences on a national level. They are quite insane.
Patrick EH Last I recall, Republicans control all three branches of government, but they're too busy giving tax cuts to fix the national debt. Don't blame us that your representatives won't fix the problem
Matthew Ruth
Both parties are guilty of eating their cake and still wanting to have it.
Democrats want to tax and spend us to oblivion. Republicans want to cut spending...except military spending, and are often in favor of corporate welfare and big business bailouts. And want to cut taxes on the rich, with the logic cutting taxes will lead to growth, a claim for which there isn't really any empirical evidence.
IMO, we should cut spending, including on the military and corporate welfare. While keeping taxes steady, neither cutting nor raising.
cant we just kill the 99%
The hyperinflation was over pretty fast. The economic depression was what allowed Hitler to rise in power.
humans are and always have had the ability to be gullible.
Mark Blyth is brilliant!
No, he's an idiot. An articulate idiot.
I don't think there are too many idiots who teach at Brown University.
Care to elaborate?
Brown University is an ivy league college, with some of the best professors in the world!
how many of Browns professors predicted the 2007 crash ,I wonder.. I would take a guess at none of them.
These aren't stupid economic beliefs, if you accumulate too much debt you can't pay it back and you go bankrupt, Japan spends over 30% of taxation revenue on paying debt interest
Would have been nice to be able to see the slides...
I can't see the powerpoint
This gives examples of stupid things people believe, but does nothing to try to explain why.
fedos
Seems like full lecture not posted.
His giving things that people believe and stupid "reasons" why they are wrong. The irony is strong with this one.
Because people are stupid, dipshit.
FULL TALK
www.volatilityinvesting.co.uk/events/london-2017
go to 3:00- 3:45 pm and CLICK ON IT
I thought for sure this was going to be some jingoistic BS. Was surprised, and learned something
.
Did not know Robert Englund was into economics!
NYBORG
When you have debt in your dreams, you have debt for real!
because more than half of adults think like 12 year olds
If for some strange messed up reason I became preminister, he would be my Chancellor of the exchequer......no doubt....If he wanted the job. If not he would be my chief advisor or something.....hopefully.
Brilliant as always.
something I'm not getting here ,you say the state controls and therefore owns the central bank , my question is then why do we have this national debt , who do we owe the money to ?
"The state owns the central bank"
In most countries this is true, but in the US for example, it is different I think. (Don't know enough about it, so no guarantee on the US)
"Who do we owe the money to?"
The people lending the money. Companies, retirement fonts, private citizens etc.
Money is just an illusion and only worth something, cause we trust that it is worth something.
If the government needs money they can
1. print more money or
2. find someone with money and pay interest on it
History has shown that 1 can lead to hyper inflation, as it destroys the trust in the money, so most states choose 2 and try to keep inflation low, but above the interest they pay. This way they have debt,meh ich shrinks on its own.
The government have given the right to a private bank ( BOE) to oversee the banking system. This gives them the right ( 1694 BOE act.) to create currency out of thin air and lend it to government. Along with giving the right for commercial banks to do the same in the private sector, ( with small limitations).
and so , the government are paying through the nose with taxpayer currency ( that people actually worked for) for monopoly money. And the interest alone last year was almost £ 45 billion... Nice work if you can get it.
Money is actually real. It is currency that is the illusion.
In the US the fed was created by the 1913 federal reserve act.. And so it is a state appointed private bank ( a monopoly). The US owes the holders of the government bonds the money.. amazingly this is also the fed. because the fed have been caught buying up US bonds with proxies.
Historically speaking. Fiat currencies have an average life of 45 years.. Which is as old as the latest incarnation of the £ and $. when it went completely off the gold standard in 1971 ( nixon Shock).The currency has already been hyper inflated. But it is locked up in the derivatives market. ( currently estimated at $259 T).. All it needs is a trigger.
People REALLY need to listen to this guy rather than Friedman. He blows Friedman out of the water. Blyth actually breaks it all down and cites very specific instances whereas from what I've seen from Friedman, just uses generalities to support his economic beliefs.
great
This is probably the worst talk passing for genuine economics I've ever seen anywhere. Did somebody pay to sit through this? And how do I tap into that large market of stupid people?
Poor camera work. Next time show the screen the speaker is talking about.
did he just call Milton a fake economist?
yes, that's pretty bold.
@@ENoob no kidding, what a joke. Miltion Friedmans awards over his lifetime would squash this guy like a bug
Trickle down economics. Like giving more money to rich people will mean they give more to their employees. Profits be damned! Right.
Much potential for being a very educational talk. His dialect made it very difficult for this native American to understand what he was saying. Too bad the camera guy couldn't pan up to the graphics he kept pointing to.
Dan V. I used to film thongs like this for businesses, any editor worth their salt would take the slides and integrate them into the video at relevant points, I rarely see this on UA-cam videos.
Did he say that full employment with strong labour rights in a country with its own currency creates an inflationary bubble and is economically unsound because of this?
Yes. Because if you have full employment it creates a market in which 'workers' can demand more wages because of the surplus of jobs. this leads to higher prices, assuming that a corresponding rise in wages leads to a similar rise in debt to fuel the wage inflation..
bo ptah but don't workers tend to spend their money? In which case if the profits of consumption are invested in production and r and d won't the inflation be nullified by an expanding economy? And weren't the problems of the 70s linked to the oil shocks as well as the disruption of globalisation as well?
yes and no. If countries were on a 'sound money' policy then yes the expansion in all sectors including r and d ( as you pointed out ) would nullify the increase in wages ( this is not actually wage inflation) because wages can increase and not be inflationary if the entire economy remains relatively debt free.( in a sound money system ). . But in the modern economy ( ponzi scheme ) debt is a requirement otherwise the economy crashes and so wages are subject to 'wage inflation' ( expansion of the currency supply due to loans) but it is actually unsustainable growth because the debt requirement in the unsound money system cancels out any net gains ( and then some).
classical economic thinking ( common sense ) does not apply nowadays with fractional reserve banking because the market is rigged towards an ever increasing amount of debt to fuel the debt fueled growth..
When workers have bargaining power they demand higher wages, the employer gives them, because he needs the workers, but the only way to keep his profits at a certain level is to increase the prices. The workers now feeling the higher prices demand yet higher wages to compensate, and the cycle repeats.
no. the cycle does not repeat.. there are limits to the wage demand dynamic based on competition from similar producers of the good or service. to remain competitive some bosses in firms have to accept lower wages than key employees. to keep the business going. The market is a constantly moving mechanism that has natural limits 'capped 'by competition.
"Have a look at that slide there." I'd love to, what slide? The camera man is too busy with a close up of the back of your head.
Did he call Milton Friedman a fake economist? Those are fighting words, sir.
Why?
@@kajaskov6270 because they're true
Surely we should do the exact opposite? Cut government spending when the economy is good, and borrow when it's bad?
Thats the intelligent grown up approach, yes.
Governments should not borrow unless it is life or death situation like war.
That is simply not realistic, practical or optimal.
It is 'war borrowing' that has got us the central bank system. Governments should NEVER borrow money. If there is a war on the the rich need to 'donate ' their money to the cause. After all. The poor are giving their lives..
Its not all about war, is it?
Slides slides slides!!!
Well, Milton Friedman isn't wrong. It is an increase in money supply that causes inflation. But we have to be slightly more specific: It isn't the money that the central bank creates and leaves in the vaults of its member banks as reserves that counts. It's specifically the money in circulation times the velocity of money that counts.
The problem for central bankers is that during times of high debt (such as the last 10-15 years or so) it becomes increasingly difficult for the economy to absorb more debt, and more debt is how bankers create more money. They mostly don't literally print more currency. And again, packets of currency sitting in bank vaults don't create inflation, it's currency in circulation (and bills paid electronically). In other words, it's money specifically being used to pay for goods and services that causes inflation. Why? Because it's increasing the rate of the act of buying things that allows and encourages businesses to raise prices, and a general pattern of rising prices is exactly what we mean when we use the term inflation.
When people and businesses get paid for their goods and services and turn around and buy stuff with the money they've earned, that increases the velocity of money. If instead they use the money to pay off bank debt or save it in a bank vault (or bury it in the yard or stuff it in a mattress) that decreases the velocity of money. The more bank debt there is, the more debt payments there are, and the lower the velocity of money.
What happens is that central bankers decide that they would like to expand the money supply in order to fund government or full employment or stimulate the economy or whatever the excuse _du jour_ is. Since they need new debtors in order to make new loans and create more debt, they lower interest rates in the hopes of attracting more debtors and encouraging them to take on more debt. Their only direct control is over interest rates, not debt creation itself. For that it takes two to tango, a prospective debtor and a lender.
Astute money managers among the Fortune 500 and other large corporations quickly get in line at banks for new loans, but then use the proceeds to pay off higher cost debt and buy back shares. This does not succeed in getting money out into circulation and causing economic growth or inflation. It's just juggling money from one bank vault to another and restructuring ownership of corporate earnings in favor of bankers. To the extent that corporate profits now go to paying interest to bankers instead of paying dividends to stockholders, it takes additional money out of circulation, the exact opposite of what the central bank had intended when it lowered interest rates in the first place.
It's only when the large corporations use their loan proceeds to expand their business by investing in their operations that the banker's strategy actually works as intended to expand the economy, but bankers have no control over how the corporations spend their money. Corporations are not inclined to expand their businesses when the economy is clearly in trouble, such as when bankers typically want to stimulate it.
Lowering interest rates also has another immediately counterproductive consequence. People who earn money by holding debt and getting paid interest suddenly start earning less money because they can't charge as much interest. This hits pension funds hard, which is why we're currently seeing so many pension funds in trouble. Traditionally it also hurts insurance companies and other holders of bonds and debt as well.
Another route is for the central bank to create debt by buying up the bonds of governments, lowering their interest rate and encouraging them to take on more debt (by issuing more bonds). Initially this is much more satisfactory, because governments are much better able (and more willing) to put money in the hands of people who will immediately spend it, i. e. welfare recipients. To be fair, governments also spend huge amounts of money on other things too, and it's all expansionary/inflationary. But again, this increased debt burden affects the government's ability to borrow yet more money in the future, so the banker's job becomes that much harder next time. Government debt tends to hang around indefinitely because they only rarely make principal payments. Mostly they just pay the interest and roll the debt over when the principal comes due.
The last route for the central bank to create debt is to lend to small businesses and consumers. Small businesses issue no shares so they don't act the same way the big corporations do. They can't use new debt to retire shares, so they don't do that. They will borrow money to pay off higher cost debt, but they don't carry as much debt in the first place, so they are far more likely to borrow money to actually expand their businesses. Consumers too, pay off higher cost debt with new lower cost debt, but also tend to borrow money so that they can spend more. It's when the banks succeed in making new debtors out of lots of consumers and small businesses that the economy really starts to take off. But naturally, so does inflation. But if small businesses and consumers are already up to their eyeballs in debt they can't take on any more and bankers fail to expand/inflate the economy. The best they can do is distort the economy and create asset bubbles.
Note that there is very little difference between causing economic expansion and inflation. Economic expansion occurs when there is increased demand for goods and services and that is met by increased supply to meet that demand. Either new entrants into the economy start producing more goods and services or existing businesses expand their operations, or both. Existing producers raise their prices, earn more profits and it is this rise in profits that attracts the new entrants and investments. The increased competition eventually drives prices back down to where they were before.
So both expansion and inflation involve a price rise, at least temporarily. With inflation though, a rise in prices does not result in a rise in profits, instead, costs rise as well and profits remain stagnant or suffer degradation. In fact, it is typically rising costs that motivate a rise in prices, not greater apparent demand. Note that relatively debt-free businesses have lower costs than businesses that must pay interest on large amounts of debt, all else being equal. Taxes are also significant costs to all businesses. The more outstanding debt a government has, the more it must tax in order to maintain services since debt servicing consumes a larger portion of the government's budgetary outlays.
For the US dollar there are additional complications. The dollar is the world's reserve currency and significant amounts of dollars and dollar denominated debt resides outside the US borders. Also, significant amounts of the national economy (most notably manufacturing and illicit drugs) have been offloaded to foreign soil. Therefore the Federal Reserve has much less control over the dollar than other central banks, and much less visibility into the total economy that will be affected by its decisions since much of it is outside the USA. Interest rates directly affect foreign exchange rates. It can easily be that whatever inflation or expansion (or contraction or deflation) would ordinarily occur in the domestic economy gets quickly exported and actually ends up impacting much smaller and more vulnerable foreign economies instead.
There is one more significant complication that affects the USA and many other countries. We are not energy independent. We depend on imports of foreign oil, and the cost of that oil is dependent upon how those foreign producers of oil value US dollars. The cost of oil impacts most other costs throughout the economy because of its pervasive use in energy production and transportation. A rise in the cost of oil tends to be very inflationary.
Given the above analysis, a central banker never knows when he lowers interest rates whether he is going to get an economic expansion or inflation, or even economic contraction and deflation. All are possible. He/she hopes it will be economic expansion, but it would take a rather detailed computer simulation of the entire global economy to have any good chance of predicting the outcome in advance.
Specifically in refutation of Dr. Blythe, the labor markets of the 1970s were characterized by continued labor strife and strikes. This is not an indication of labor power to demand higher wages. On the contrary, it's an indication of higher costs causing laborers to become so dissatisfied with their wages that they become willing to participate in very unpleasant strikes against their own employers in order to get wage increases sufficient to keep up with inflation. Labor power can be defined as a labor shortage sufficient for employers to bid up the compensation for those willing to take the jobs in question. It's only areas of the economy such as computer programming where strikes did not occur that there was any true labor power. Workers strike only when they are in a painful cost squeeze due to inflation (or have other equally serious grievances such as safety, health care or pension worries.) It is ironic that Dr. Blythe would set forth his erroneous idea that "labor power" causes inflation in a video entitled "Why Do People Continue to Believe Stupid Economic Ideas".
diwatib. your entire post . Was an essay in the justification of operating a ponzi scheme, What most people do not realise is that an economy. Is merely , " the exchange of goods and services". There is no growth or diminishment requirement in an economy, only a ponzi scheme requires that. And so. Your entire argument is based on the assumption that the ponzi scheme ( modern economy ) can be saved by the illusion of more growth. just makes it worse.
As an aside. you do not have to actually lend out the QE currency to increase the velocity of currency. The sheer fact that it potentially exists gives the ponzi scheme the hope that it can continue and so encourages more debt to be created. In reality. the whole lot should have collapsed in 2007. But ALL the governments would then be powerless over the people. and that is the bottom line.
How about the idea that if a government lowers the amount of taxes you take from the citizens, that it will have more money to spend. Yes, that is actually something a significant portion of Americans believe.
Yeah but see, they believe that because they're told to by the rich people who already don't pay their taxes because they're told that the private sector will somehow magically provide for them all the needs and services the government covers now.
What's really going on is that the rich want to pay even less tax than the taxes they already don't pay and tax the poor instead.
That depends on where taxes already sit. If you tax high enough you destroy the tax producing base. (shown repeatedly in history.)
Rodzilla There have been several studies to try to determine that point. They all have been between 60% and 80%, which is much higher than I can ever remember them actually being.
Jeff C that is true. Who can spend your money better. You or the government. . Individuals spending their money on goods and services expands the economy. government spending diminishes the economy. Because people do not like to be robbed.
Haha, yes, lowering taxes usually means less tax revenue. But who says the government should be so big and spend so much money anyway? Granted we have to cut the budget not just the tax revenue. I hope Americans can get behind cutting the size of the federal government before it is too late, but I fear the cycle of bigger and more expensive and ineffective government is not turning around.
I like his accent
I was surprised to see the title coming out as a rhetorical question
the problem with most economic debate is first finding agreement on what the target should be. Blyth's ideas are correct when one's sole purpose is to stimulate economic activity in the short term. but there are trade offs that have to be made to achieve that. Friedman and other laisse faire economists emphasized the long term repercussions of these short term benefits.
from a simple moral view. Blyth's ideas inherently require people right now to steal from the people of the future. its an overly complex and subtly deceitful process, but fundamentally, it's theft.
Holy shit the irony.
this person is wrong about one thing fundamentally. Specific to Spain and Portugal. The fact that public sector jobs, especially in the sectors of medicine, health, transport & public utilities (which includes a hundred sub sectors) Did Not Loose their Jobs. Did not loose their pensions nor did they loose their rights to demand higher pay in the consequential years that followed the European economic crisis of 2008.09.
The people who lost the most, losing jobs, investments, market based funds and financial security were those from the agricultural sector as well as the construction & finance sectors. Which is quiet obvious to understand as they made the worst gambles and deals with their German and Dutch counterparts.
Spain and Portugal have way better health care services and old-age assistance programs than richer nations like England, France, Belgium and Holland.
That's just a giant ball of bullshit.
Economists: so much confidence, so little value.
UA-cam commenters, so much arrogance, so little knowledge.
Actually, I have a degree in economics. You?
You mean like the oracle, Ayn Greenspan.
No, it was a reply to SilortheBlade's comment that I had 'little knowledge', not an attempt to 'prove' my original comment, which is an observation rather than a deduction or didactic remark.
I always ask economists, if you are so smart, and know so much about economics, and if what you are saying has so much value, why aren't you rich? The answer is quite simple. Economists study the abstract economy, but wealth and riches is found in the detailed decisions of the individual, and making use of opportunities and building assets and wealth.
Pretty hard to follow
Unfortunately, this is about 5 minutes of what is usually a 90-minute presentation.
nuanil it's beyond the boundaries of most minds unless you're an economist
Davidoff007 yeah, this segment is the cliffs notes of a cliffs notes of a cliffs notes of the normal lecture
Why not the stupid trickle down theory?
There is no gravity in ecinomics! So the trickle up theory is just as true.
(That is give every poor man free money they will spent it all, so more jobs more busness)
lapland123 Trickle up is more true because demand-side economics actually makes sense while supply-side doesn't. We can also see money trickle up in real time. But the corporate interests have infected everyone's minds with their false ideas so most people are blind to facts like these.
I think so too. Corporate intrests are now more important that peoples intrests, and that is as we call it in the Netherlands `the horse behind the wagon`.
Problem with trickle up is who is giving the poor people money? When the govrnment does it, it´s almost communism and that will be hijacked by power mongers. Like Hugo Shavez and Stalin. And it makes bad products like the LADA.
And companies will not give money. (supermarkets rather throw away food than give it away)
So maybe a Frence revolution? Where the people just kill of the 0,01 percent?
That goes against my moral....still i let it happen to the poorest people on earth, that is also gainst my moral....life is a B....
Money is a thing we as people can dicide where it is. We can dicide who has it. As we do with power.
At this time i´m not so happy with the choises we are making.
We give the money to sociopaths and power to arrogant bullies.
So the people who make the investments just do it for their ego. It would be nice if their ego would make them to build roads and bridges with their name on it, give heath care or help poor people, but they say the government must pay for that. What they do with it is getting more money and a bigger yacht.
I say there must be a maximum of what you are allowed to own, lets say 100.000.000$ in that's keeping the money more fluid.
Jobs don't solely come from investment. If they did, you'd see businessman spending money on businesses that don't turn profits.
Consumer demand is a guaranteed way of a business turning a profit. A profit is the only reason a businessman invests in the first place.
So while investment 'creates' jobs - it is consumerism that protects those jobs ya clueless libertarian.
+Justin Beagley
Words like 'clueless' are demeaning and do not help this conversation.
Delete those words befor you post your comments, it helps your argument and the conversation.
Send this to every conservative you know
they wouldn't understand it. would go right over their heads.
It's like sending a bible to an atheist. They know the content is nonsense and they don't give a fuck that you believe it.
"They know the content is nonsense" - tell that to post war Germany UK France USA etc...where they SPENT their way to rebuilding the 1st world economy again. The only thing that's nonsense is YOU, mrblack.
+Justin "they wouldn't understand it" - I don't think that's the main problem...Vox just posted a new vid about how people (doesn't matter their political alliance...lib or con both can do this) have a real hard time acknowledging they're wrong (and, to an extent, having their very identity compromised) and accepting the truth about these sort of things (hence why most Trump supporters actually believe say Obama wire tapped Trump during the election, despite there being absolutely no evidence, whatsoever, that this happened)..
It's pretty sad and pathetic, when in truth, actually admitting you're wrong (or sorry) is a sign of STRENGTH, not weakness.
Every conservative that you know would laugh your ass off. This guy is a clown. What he talks about is complete nonsense. It is mindboglling how much nonsense he crammed into those few sentences.
1. Money is representation of value created in economy.
2. If you lend money the value was created by somebody else, you just spent
3. If you are doing something productive with this money and you suceed, new value is created and you can pay back with this value
4. If it turns out that people had wrong ideas how to create value and they cannot pay back, it means you have nothing, you have lost resources
5. Jut creating new money isnt gonna do anything, it is just going to increase problem, because you create false impression of value existence whereas there is none
6. As result you have to cut down your expactations about future and re-assign resources, you have to restructure. You have wasted time, resources and skills on endavours that will no bring value, you cannto afford future you expected, you have to scale back and start from scratch. So there is no "austerity", there is simply NOTHING THERE.
There are no magical solutions, there are no magical wands, and this guy ignores everything that reality represents. He does so in the name of banksters. Because he is not explaining what money is, what debt is and how current monetary system is created on debt which makes slaves out of people. The money you receive in form of a loan from bank is empty, there was no value that was created beforehand to cover it. It is just paper printed with permission of the government. But you have to pay back with actuall work. This is slavery and very, very inefficent form of resource management, because you are falsely made to believe in the existence of the world of plenty (I got the loan, somebody created value before so that this loan exist). In short, you shmucks work for free, while banskters get fatter. And this fucker is helping them mantaining this system. He should be executed together with his masters for treason of humanity.
Thank you for this video. It saves me having to buy this joker's book.
MMT is a Psy Op
Hmmn... Mark Blyth.
Ignore the wealth that the state has at its disposal whilst the poorest suffer. Austerity? No such thing! A myth.
Close libraries, reduce public services...
But always maintain central government funding to increased levels.
Cuts? Myth.
Inflation? Why?
He's arguing that the theory that supports austerity is a myth, not that austerity doesn't exist. In other words, he's against austerity.
Ha ha ha ha ha
What a troll.
Trickle down.
chris casey You mean to quote Bush 41 voodoo economics
Where Obama economic, got great line BS don't you.
The empty chairs tell it all. Another quack economist spitting out self-deluding candy floss ideas.
Your : *ZERO* Subscribers - reminds me of : ZERO Growth - *7 year* : _DOUBLE_ - criminal Tory banker debt *_R > G_*
Yeh...just another ivy league professor correctly predicting stuff...
GUD GUD Seriously , you watch the economy explode & then watch the economy stagnate because of austerity & the man who points it out as lunacy is the quack. Fuck off back to Kindergarten, you need to start again.
Then does his very large following tell it all too?
Are you just having a pout because you can't understand the big words?
but he offers no solutions.. and his inference that to stop austerity would be better, is pathetic.
He is wrong about inflation. The currency supply is inflating because of central bank policy. That is just a fact.
But that's his point. Where the fuck is the inflation, given the massive dumping of money into all economic systems? Where is it? The only real noticeable inflation's that seem to have occurred are in the form of multiple asset bubbles around the world. The US quadrupled its money supply after the crisis, and there is no significant inflation of which to be found. New figures from the UK, show inflation falling unexpectedly.
Personally I think this recent one is because of an unexpected negative credit impulse, and is an indicator of an impending recession within the next fiscal year (that'll be fun to witness). Give *Steve Keen* a look for understanding how money really functions, as I'm much more persuaded by his view than anyone else's, in understanding how money functions in the economy. QE, SHOULD, have led to a large level of inflation, but very little has been seen, and Keen's explanation(one that Blyth is at least aware of), is that private Banks, CREATE money via loans, and that currently, with new money injected into the economy, is being subtracted away, in the form of loan repayments, netting low levels of inflation, with the exception of massive asset bubbles.
The biggest area of inflation is debt. Which has skyrocketed. The housing market has inflated and so has food.. In fact everything has significantly gone up. butter was 56p in 2008. now it is £1.18. But it is debt that has stored away all the inflation waiting for an event to trigger the next debt tsunami.
Debt has a negative relationship to inflation. The higher the inflation, the more debt gets lowered, as the value of both savings, and debt are lowered, relative to the new introduction of currency. This is also why deflation's are bad. In deflation's, Debt increases, and removes the incentive's for Capital to go chasing after profit as you just need to sit on your existing currency, to see an increase in value, and only invest in the most safe ventures. Houses are more of a problem, certainly, and its where we've seen inflation, along with the stock market have just jumped in price with little explanation, but they come under asset inflation. Since the QE money went to the banks, this is where the banks gambled the money.
Butter is anomalous, due to a price increase of 80%... in a single year. That's not an inflationary trend across the market. Moreso its a supply issue.
Read up on the Donning Kruger effect.
If debt rises at a higher rate than inflation then there is no debt reduction through inflation. government debt has quadrupled since 2008, so has student debt and housing debt has outrisen inflation. as well as the stock market.
the butter price inflationary increase is just an example of across the board price rises that have manifested differently. Smaller pack sizes are also inflationary.. It is not a supply and demand issue , It is due to higher feed prices, machinery, wages ( living wage above minimum wage is inflationary).
The bottom line is, QE = inflation. And now it is starting to manifest in prices at the shops as well as debt.