I've just learnt more about life in 22 minutes than I ever have in 53 years...well, economically speaking! I'm very grateful that this was posted. Thanks very much Mark!

"We know where the money is and we're coming for it." Absolutely 👍

Wow I know very little but this has made something complex comprehensible to me !

Occasionally I wish I weren't dumb. I mean, it's all good and fun to be blissfully ignorant, enjoying my TV shows and whatnot. But occasionally I kind of get this urge to understand what people like Blyth are talking about. Just a gut feeling.

will listen again good explanation

Fascinating! Amazing! What a brain! Thank you Mark

This guy does a good job of explaining why "Anarcho-Capitalism," is an inherent contradiction in terms. Capitalism cannot survive without a strong state, because without a strong state, you can't enforce property rights.

Great stuff. Be even better if Prof. Blyth would slow down a bit. He speaks at 78 rpm; I can listen and absorb only at 33

"And that's the next Act" I love it!

No problem, keep on spreading truth =]

Damn this video is such a gem

RSA, if you are listening: Great talk. Fantastic speaker. Crap audio quality.Solution? Invite him back for another talk.

Nice

Good talk, the podcast under 'about' is well worth a listen (jump to 22 minutes) :)

Immediate backtrack, he tackles Euro a min later, & this is pure gold with regards to how Economics works. The title is a tad misleading, he means Austerity in the Euro, and the Euro is the problem for Europe.

Exactly, the important parts to this unlock the non-solutions or uninformative remarks from supports of the modern day "left" and "right".

Slow down the audio speed solution: Click the Cog Wheel in the lower right hand side of the YT Screen. Click Speed. .75 works well but there's audio degradation. You can also turn on Subtitles, slow down to .5 and turn the audio off and just read his commentary slowly. Not perfect, but may be helpful to some. Personally I just re-listen to Blyths many lectures as for me he's pure gold and worth my time.

Get some of your grad students to make a continuous slide show for this talk and it would help. Continuous graphics has been RSA's strong point after all.

I am aware of what happened in Zimbabwe. I didn't choose to elucidate it in my previous comment, but I hold the view that private debt = personal choice (voluntary) and personal risk, but public debt = collective choice or entirely unchosen (force), and a systemic risk. Printed money is also inherently unsound. I would advocate at the very least not allowing public debt, ideally though, abolishing government monopoly on our most important commodity - they always sell us out to banksters.

Given his last comments about Tax Havens I'd say it's more: WE'RE FUCKED!! WE'RE FUCKED!! WE'RE FUCKED!! EAT THE RICH!!

Good talk, but why does nobody ever mention that there would be no burden of debt if we issued sound currency ourselves instead of borrowing it at interest from private interests? A country in debt = a country that is owned by bankers.

gee, thanks.

Oh god yes! Don't get me wrong, I absolutely loved this video. Thank heavens for people smarter than and with more information than me, especially in areas as woefully complicated as this. I was just turning my malaise and feelings of dread over the economy into parody is all.

It is possible to improve the audio as it is just clipping. Normalisation and EQ should make it sound much better.

The substance is not that we're fucked, but how and why.

Not sure what you mean (apart from general human self-interest) but if you mean stopping the practice of lending at interest within a sound money system, the problem with that is you create a situation where nobody wants to invest. So only people who already have capital can start businesses. Other obvious alternatives are fiat money (invisible theft from the poor) and socialism (doing away with price signals and not knowing when you have too many screws and not enough bread. Any other ideas?

So what we basically have is a type of economic warfare. Where in we do not have countries battling we have regions of the planet battling and in the long run whoever holds the most debt at the end loses. And the average person works in economic servitude just to keep him/her self and their family alive.

What will happen faster - we drain the tax havens, or the Boomer generation's pensions and home equity is siphoned off to care firms whose parent companies are based in... tax havens? Do profits simply get hidden somewhere else, like the UK & US property markets, or does a new type of tax haven get invented? And how long does it take for all this money to go round, and where does it end up? Because I can't see it being redistributed equitably, given humanity's past record on that.

Less growth, investment and stability in the economy

That was astoundingly dense in insight. I think I'll do myself a favour and go read the book (Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea) instead of the haemorrhagic crapflood that will inevitably get shat into the comments section.

In that case, I am in complete agreement with you. I apologize for misconstruing your comment.

Because what you seem to be referring to as "sound currency" is only endorsed by people who deny or literally do not understand the basic fundamentals of modern economics. A country in debt = a country that owes money to lenders. The degree of debt is what determines the ownership, not the form of currency in which it is held.

If it were simply a case of say, China holding a countries' debt, that would be more legitimate from a monetary standpoint (if not from a libertarian/'social contract' standpoint). Debt between parties is not the problem. The main problem is that when the currency issuance itself is based on debt, the only possible result is collapse.

Gosh

Maybe we should let it blow up

The view that Mark Blyth puts forward in his statement at 7:15 onward about the cuts in government expenditure having to result in increasing debt but he does not pursue the issue in relation to a balance of government expenditure to income. This balance is required because to do otherwise requires credit expansion which increases the interest payments by the private sector to pay for the increased debt through their taxation which they must do every year. This situation of increased debt also results in a government which is reluctant to allow interest rates to rise to either curb other variables in the economy which may be desirable since the need to keep them low becomes even more desirable. So if government keeps increasing the expansion of debt through money creation to pay for deficits that leads to a path of no return particularly in a fiat money situation. Blyth also ignores the facts of what happened in the 19th century and then the early and mid parts of the 20th century there was a gold backed currency in operation which limited the expansion of the money supply by governments. That is Not the situation now where governments and sovereign currency expanders are not restricted by a gold backing in creating debts. There was also an increase in efficiency of industry in the 19th century as aresult of a number of important wide reaching technical developments. Such things as the use and development of steam engines, the Bessemer steel process, rail transport, textile machines and the expansion of markets were all instrumental in increasing wealth overall. To run a deficit by 'borrowing' is not the same it was in the 19th century. The modern term is applied to monetary creation whereas it was debt by issuance of bonds and other loans. Actual monetary expansion by printing was just made more difficult than it is today (and practiced widely) when this restraint of a backing was in place. Another assumptions he makes which is not correct is that a growing money supply results in increased growth of the economy and that a decrease in government expenditure as a result of a deficit cut results in a decrease in growth. This view is countered by the evidence of what happened in the USA after WW2 where government expenditure was cut by 50% and despite the Keynsian predictions the economy surged. To quote Blyth himself he is "flatly factually Wrong !! " Finally to say that Apple has it's money in Switzerland and infer that others have is plainly stupid since any credits (investments) that people have in other countries supports the value of their own country s' currency. Why - since to repay that money the foreign money holders have to obtain the currency of the country to where it is owed to pay interest on it or return it when called upon. That is why investment overseas strengthens the currency of the lender. That is why the need to obtain a currency such as the US dollar which is the defacto world curency makes it more valuable.

Since sound ain't that good, subtitles would be welcomed.

ei pal Dundonian in the house

So basically prosperity can only happen as a result of exploitation.

Issuing sound currency is an oxymoron in this context. Governments want to spend more than they take in taxes. They can either borrow it with the existing system, or they can print it. You appear to be advocating that they simply print and avoid the debt. That's exactly what they did in Zimbabwe. Look it up.

Haha ok, completely understandable. The most frustrating thing about this video is the realization that despite their supposed expertise, they don't know what the hell they're doing, but since economics is not my field, all I can do is hope that they get their shit together.

we do live in a finite planet anyways.

20:30

No, that's not what I was suggesting at all. I'm not a Gold Standard advocate but I will say - there's a difference between deflation resulting from falling commodity prices and developing more efficient production techniques, and from a fall in consumer purchasing power. One thing I do believe is we should get government out of money. I've tried to be constructive and add to the conversation, you have tried to lump me into a category and ignored my question of what better ideas you'd support.

Pretty much nailed it, with a gazillion nails (he could've used fewer words, like this: If you lose control of money sovereignty, you're f__ked.) #LearnMMT Read "Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economics": www.moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf

I almost wonder if we have to go to a more radical route when dealing with the parasites of Austrian economics/ libertarianism.

No. There was nothing in this talk, that would suggest that.

At least he's honest about his Generational White Privilege.

I like Blyth, but he needs to quit wearing magician suits to events

In one comment you make a statement about the speaker "ignoring nearly infallible logical evidence" and in the other comment you equate decreasing income inequality with all labour being rewarded equally. That's pretty massive logical slip from you and makes one wonder about the quality of what you think is nearly infallible.

Im ready to invade Luxembourg, lads.

Mark needs to speak more slowly so that we have time to follow. We need time to think about what he is saying while he is saying it. That way we can understand. But at the speed he talks most of us don't have the time to process what he is saying and therefore we forget large parts of it and don't understand the rest.

He also didn't really mention the fact that said growth was attributable to the English rape of India, among other countries. The problem with the neo-colonialist model, is that we've since run out of countries which they can conquer and pillage.

I like a flat tax .. and #socialdemocracy

He’s on Adderall

This. The yo-yoing QE game is untenable.

He still considers himself a capitalism fan?? How?! confusedjackiechan.jpeg

Guy makes so many logical and historical errors it's sickening he's a professor. Nice cherry picking smith and Locke, ignoring the facts of what caused the Great Depression and completely ignore the fact that reducing gov spending, while keeping all else equal will reduce debt. Furthermore ignoring nearly infallible logical evidence showing why monetarism causes bubbles by incentivizing savers to save less thus

One of the problems with UK and austerity is that the 'Left' misunderstand living within ones means, and profligate spending that achieves nothing. UK Economy needs balance of payments 'balancing', this requires more manufacturing and services, not more consumer spending, but it is the latter that is always promoted. This merely sucks in more imports and increases trading deficit, which ends up with UK companies being sold overseas. One point would be to re-vamp Town & Country plan act 1947 and allow Cities to grow, not try building houses in the Country as at present, this will increase house building (Government & private sector), relieving the housing shortage but also 'not' sucking in huge amounts of imports.

Too much gaiiinnnnn

Anyone who advocates it is not a critical thinker. Decreasing income inequality = increasing labor value inequality. Bottom line is not all work is valued the same and so why should it be rewarded equally?

While his version of austerity might not work, his suggestion that state spending will is based on flawed history. England prospered after the 1700's because she was happily helping herself to the raw materials (including human slaves) of the third world. As there are no more victims to be had on this planet, the corresponding solution would be to venture out to other planets.

Scaw-ish AXE-int. Kewl.

Isn't austerity all about reducing the deficit rather than debt? Even if debt increases, as long as you reduce the deficit you're heading in the right direction, otherwise you will never be in a position to reduce the debt.

2 mins into vid & he has lost plot, the problem is the Euro & he has failed to say this is the ';core' problem, the Bond market is a side issue.

Speak slower please