Debunking Economics - the podcast

In this episode, Prof Steve Keen and host Phil explore the complexities of hedging, its applications, pitfalls, and its impact on markets and the economy.

Hedging, rife in the financial and commercial world, is designed to protect our investments. If prices of our investments go down, or the cost of our business inputs go up, hedging is the insurance that stops things getting too bad.  But does it work?  Steve argues it doesn’t work when there’s financial crisis - when all prices go the same way.   The example is people who have bought gold to hedge against equity investments, if they are forced to sell leveraged shares, they might recover their position by selling the gold, forcing that down in price too. Phil also asks whether hedging creates a distortionary impact. For example, stable companies might see higher share prices because they are seen as safe, rather than having any growth potential.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham has said he wants government departments to focus on buying British, The UK state spends roughly £300bn to £400bn a year on public procurement—and currently treats it merely as a bureaucratic exercise to secure the absolute cheapest upfront contract, rather than using it as an economic driver. Steve says it’s a step in the right direction, but Phl asks what is it that Britain makes that the government would want to buy? And how long before the usual argument that its costing more and who’s going to pay for it? 

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Unless you are one of the tech bros, it is difficult for anyone to push on with innovative ideas, probably why the world seems reliant on the US for the next big thing. If you not running a Megacap getting money for a new idea is virtually impossible, particularly in the early stages. Even government schemes are focused on reducing risk, to the pint that they offer little more than is available from the commercial finance sector. Steve says China has a better idea, but for those countries that don’t want such centralised economy is there a way to fund start-ups that uses a mix of private funding and government assistance. Phil and Steve both have ideas on this.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There’s only one reason a government issues bonds. It’s so their account with the central bank is not overdrawn. It’s only regulation that stops the central bank from saying a rapidly expanding deficit is fine. After all, it’s an indicator of how much government money has gone into supporting the private sector. But economists and finances see that as monetising finanacing, and it’s a no no. Instead, regulations insist bonds are issued to the value of the government’s spending deficit. But what purpose do they serve, other than allowing investors to influence their price and yield, often as a response to government spending. In short, they seem to think their market pricing can influence government policy. So, why do we pay so much attention to an artificial process that only happen because we can’t trust governments to regulate their spending and keep inflation in check.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A listener (Doug) left a comment on YouTube saying I assume Phil intends to play "devil's advocate" when he speaks as though taxes are necessary for money issuance by governments with sovereign currencies. He’s worried that it might confuse new listeners to the podcast. So this week, Phil and Steve get stuck into the more contentious side of MMT – how government spending creates money, and bond issuance has limited impact on that. It depends on who is buying them. They discuss how government spending differs from household spending funded by a bank loan. Consider it a catch-up for new listeners and viewers.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Phil happened upon a book to Australian economist Joshua Gans (and Andrew Leigh) called Innovation & Inequality – how to create a future that is more Star Trek than Terminator. He discusses some of the concepts with Steve, including whether companies responsible for the creative destruction of other industries should be made to pay. As Phil puts it, if I burnt down a shop, I would possibly go to prison. But if I make that shop go out of business -and all the shops around it – because I happen to run Amazon, I face no consequences. It’s progress. But I the next chapter, the progress of AI will see more destruction, as more of us lose jobs. Then the only way we will be kept alive is by a basic income, provided by the state or possibly by people like Elon Musk. If it’s the latter, imagine the political control we would hold. So, how do we balance wealth whilst still providing incentives for innovation. And how much of that innovation is destroyed by the momentum of existing big tech players?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Andy Burnham is now the British Prime Minister but, Phil asks, aside from convening cabinet meetings in the north, will he do anything different to his predecessor. No, he will follow the same neoclassical economics approach as all Prime Ministers, with an obsession for balancing the books, rather than developing creative outcomes to distribute wealth and grow the economy. In short, it’s a slightly more attractive head, stuck on the same ugly body, he says. So what about Count Binface’s contribution to UK politics? Steve’s verdict: well, he might be trapped inside a dustbin, but its better than being trapped in an economics textbook! So, that all said, is there anything positive to from this change is stewardship of the nation?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week Phil and Steve talk about the staggering accumulation of capital, which has ratcheted up since the pandemic. In the US the top 0.1 percent of companies hold 88 percent of all corporate assets. In 2017, the top 10 S&P companies accounted for 20% of the market cap of all 500 companies, now they account for 37%. And its not because these companies are good. It’s because the nature of products today gives them a stranglehold on their customers, however bad their offering. Steve calls it the ‘shitification’ of business and Phil managed to get Microsoft’s AI to admit just how bad their own products are. ‘Held together with duct tape’ was the gist of it. So bad products, capital accumulation, income and wealth diversity – and governments do nothing but embrace it all, ignorant of what damage it is doing to society.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week Phil and Steve confront the mathematical and environmental reality of a "zero growth" future, sparked by a debate over the deflationary traps of finite currency systems like Bitcoin. Steve thoroughly dismantles standard neoclassical theories of "decoupling"—the fantasy that global economies can indefinitely expand their wealth while reducing energy consumption—exposing how mainstream economic models trivialise energy as a minor production input. By presenting real-world data showing a linear, lockstep relationship between global energy use and gross world product over the last 50 years, the hosts argue that modern capital is merely a conduit for turning energy into useful work. Ultimately, they outline the profound structural challenges of transitioning to a deliberate zero-growth framework, explaining why managing a massive, debt-leveraged economic downshift is a biophysical necessity for the planet, yet an absolute impossibility under our current credit-driven capitalist architecture.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

How much longer can the United States rely on the US dollar to dominate the global financial system, and what happens when the cracks finally start to show? In this week's Debunking Economics podcast, Phil Dobbie and Professor Steve Keen travel back to the 1944 Bretton Woods conference to revisit John Maynard Keynes's ultimate lost argument. Steve details how Keynes's visionary proposal for a global clearing union and an international currency—the Bancor—was explicitly designed to penalise both hoarding surplus nations and debt-ridden deficit nations, spreading wealth to developing countries and preventing destructive "beggar-thy-neighbour" tariff wars. By rejecting Keynes's framework in favour of institutionalised US dollar hegemony, the modern global economy has instead trapped itself in a cycle of systemic trade imbalances and ballooning private debt. Tune in to explore why today's aggressive tariff landscapes are exposing the structural fragility of the greenback, whether Alternative Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) baseline assumptions are entirely wrong about trade, and what a chaotic shift away from the world's primary reserve currency means for global stability.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Phil and Steve confront the global surge in anti-immigration rhetoric and right-wing political momentum, tracing its roots to the structural failures of neoliberalism rather than the actions of migrants themselves. Steve dissects how decades of fiscal paranoia, deregulation, and slashed public spending on health, welfare, and education systematically eroded working-class security, turning migrants into easy scapegoats for falling real wages and housing shortages. They evaluate how corporate-led migration has been historically weaponized by business elites to depress labour costs at the expense of local training, while contrasting the economic benefits of "capital deepening" through technology against raw "capital broadening" through rapid population expansion. Ultimately, it paves the way for Pauline Hanson and Nigel Farage tocapitalise on very real working-class anxieties, but their adherence to the exact same deficit-obsessed economic playbooks will only invite further structural chaos.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Steve and Phil critique our systemic over-reliance on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as the definitive baseline for comparing global economies and measuring societal well-being. The discussion underscores a fundamental flaw in neoclassical modeling: while GDP measures raw industrial output, it completely fails to reflect actual public welfare due to stark differences in income distribution, unpriced volunteer and domestic labour, and varying national structures of public service delivery. For instance, a per-capita GDP comparison artificially flatters the United States over Europe or China simply because American citizens are forced to spend massive out-of-pocket sums on privatised health care, transport, and education—essential services that are heavily subsidised or provided entirely free by the state elsewhere. Would it be more worthwhile to measure something fundamental, like the relative happiness of a nation. Steve argues that GDP still has a place, but it should never be used on its own. That’s just lazy.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week Phil and Steve dig into the storm of controversy over Australia's new budget rules targeting property speculators. The Labor government has scaled back negative gearing and abolished the 50% capital gains tax discount for established dwellings—major tax shelters that have historically rewarded people for gambling on rising asset prices rather than working productive jobs. Steve demonstrates that the country's absurd house-price-to-income ratio is driven entirely by the acceleration of private mortgage debt, heavily fueled by decades of destructive government policies designed to protect the wealth of baby boomers. Phil notes that while these changes may discourage real estate hoarding, Australia's massive, housing-reliant pool of intergenerational wealth still avoids inheritance taxes. So, is this a smart move by the Australian government, and could curbing the rentier class finally force the financial system to back local innovation instead of property speculation?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week Phil challenges Steve on how the futures market handles terminal risk, pointing out that oil prices slope downward over time simply because traders blindly assume the Strait of Hormuz will reopen. Steve agrees and tears into the financial sector, explaining that modern pricing models dangerously mistake unquantifiable "uncertainty" for manageable "risk" by using flawed Gaussian distributions that erase the possibility of catastrophic, extreme events. Phil notes that the financial system's obsession with short-term hedging actually prevents behavior change and masks physical scarcity, leading corporations to scrap vital emergency buffers like PPE or fuel reserves in the name of market efficiency. Ultimately, Steve warns that while Western economies face a massive financial crash when these paper bets collide with zero physical supply, nations like China are strategically bypassing the market system altogether by stockpiling massive, real-world physical buffers of grain and energy to survive the looming collapse.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week Phil and Steve dismantle the structural shift of the global economy toward a permanent state of debt dependence. Following a critique of Steve’s recent debate on the Piers Morgan show and a revisit to last week’s discussion on th link between energy and productivity, they look at how policy since the 1980s aggressively incentivizes borrowing over saving. Steve argues that the banking sector now functions primarily to inflate asset bubbles—particularly in housing—rather than funding productive industry, effectively conditioning entire generations to rely on debt-fueled asset growth for wealth. By debunking the neoclassical "savings myth," they show how the broader economy is dangerously fragile to any slowdown in the relentless creation of new debt.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of Debunking Economics, Steve Keen dismantles the mainstream economic obsession with "Total Factor Productivity" (TFP), labeling it a mythical construct that ignores the laws of physics. He argues that economists historically "fudged" data to credit an abstract idea of technology for growth, while in reality, productivity gains are almost entirely a function of increasing the energy throughput of machinery. Keen asserts that "labor without energy is a corpse" and "capital without energy is a sculpture," emphasizing that real output only rises when we design machines capable of converting more energy into useful work. The discussion concludes that as the global economy faces energy supply shocks and shifts from fragile "just-in-time" efficiency toward localized resilience, we must brace for a structural decline in traditional productivity, as "resilience" is effectively the physical price paid for security in a less stable world.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Phil and Steve analyze the 2026 return of double-digit inflation, characterizing it as a structural cost-push crisis rather than the result of excess consumer demand. Keen argues that with Brent crude hitting $100 a barrel due to the Strait of Hormuz blockade, energy costs have become a fundamental driver of prices that central bank interest rate hikes are fundamentally powerless to resolve. He delivers a scathing critique of current monetary policy, suggesting that raising rates acts as a "debt tax" that exacerbates the real income shock for households while failing to address the underlying energy supply bottlenecks. To truly "beat" this inflation, he advocates for moving beyond interest rate orthodoxy toward direct energy price interventions and an accelerated transition to energy sovereignty to decouple the economy from global fossil fuel volatility.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Phil Dobbie and Steve Keen dissect Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey’s push for greater central bank independence, a move Bailey claims is necessary to shield price stability from politically motivated meddling. Steve Keen, however, isn't buying the mainstream narrative, arguing that central banks are operating on a "fantasy" model that ignores the actual mechanics of money creation and the volatile role of private debt. The discussion ranges from the "policy ineffectiveness" of interest rate hikes to the historic failures of central banks to act as anything more than a "Greenspan put" for a fragile banking system. Ultimately, they suggest that instead of doubling down on flawed independence, central banks should stop pretending they can micromanage GDP and start acting as a realistic police force for financial stability—before the next "unforeseen" crisis hits.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Debunking Economics podcast, Phil Dobbie and Professor Steve Keen explore the precarious intersection of the ongoing global energy crisis and the massive resource demands of the AI revolution. The conversation traverses a landscape of geopolitical instability—from Iranian influence in the Strait of Hormuz to the vulnerabilities of Western microchip manufacturing—while questioning whether the "AI promise" can survive a world of dwindling energy supplies and extreme inequality. Professor Keen offers a provocative comparison between the disruptive force of political volatility and the impending reality of global warming, arguing that without a fundamental shift toward collective economic stability and energy self-sufficiency, the high-tech future envisioned by "Tech Bros" may be sidelined by the urgent requirements of human survival.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Phil and Steve discuss the escalating global energy crisis and Australia’s precarious response. They critique the government’s move to lower fuel prices by cutting excise taxes and GST, arguing that while it offers short-term relief to the working class, it fails to address the critical issue of supply and consumption. The conversation highlights a significant vulnerability: Australia maintains only a 30-day onshore reserve of petroleum, far below the International Energy Association's 90-day requirement. Steve warns that a total depletion of diesel reserves could lead to a domestic famine, as the nation's food distribution rely almost entirely on trucking. To mitigate future shocks, they explore the necessity of strategic rationing, the potential for a "carbon coupon" parallel currency, and the urgent need for a massive, publicly funded shift toward electrification.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Debunking Economics podcast, Phil Dobbie and Steve Keen explore the core of economic theory: the definition of value. They contrast the classical cost of production theory with the neoclassical focus on subjective utility, arguing that while neoclassical models often fail mathematical rigor, the cost-plus approach reflects how real firms operate. The pair discusses the critical role of innovation and market segmentation, noting that while competition typically forces margins back toward production costs over time, elite brands like Ferrari can maintain high markups by intentionally limiting supply and occupying unique segments where value is tied to exclusivity. Ultimately, they conclude that while short-term utility and innovation drive initial pricing, the long-term evolutionary dynamic of capitalism is anchored by the actual costs of production.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week Phil and Steve examine the concept of compound interest and its inextricable link to exponential growth in a world with finite resources. They discuss how interest was historically viewed as a sin—the crime of usury—across major religions until the industrial revolution provided the physical growth and energy consumption necessary to support such financial claims. The duo highlights the systemic risk posed by the expectation of permanent improvement in living standards, noting that while interest rates may not have an inherent limit, the biosphere certainly does.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Phil points out that the US is likely to spend $1.5 trilion on defense/offense spending this year. Acknowledging that sovereign currencies can essentially create money to fund defense, doesn’t there get a point where too much is just too much? A significant portion of this expenditure flows to major defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, often resulting in "corporate welfare" where increased military budgets are prioritized over social welfare. Steve says that while money creation is theoretically limitless for the US, the real-world constraint lies in physical production capabilities and the availability of essential materials like rare earth elements, which are largely refined in China. This strategic dependence on foreign resources, combined with the inflationary pressures that can arise from massive government spending, suggests that a nation's ability to sustain a war is ultimately determined more by its domestic manufacturing capacity and resource security than by its purely financial reserves.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week Phil and Steve dive into the mechanics, ethics, and economic consequences of a Windfall Tax.

The discussion starts with the UK’s energy levy on North Sea oil and gas producers, questioning why these taxes are often temporary "clunky" fixes rather than permanent structural policies. They explore the fundamental disconnect between international corporate profits and the national resources they exploit, comparing the UK's approach to the nationalized success of nations like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Norway.

The conversation expands beyond fossil fuels to ask: Should the same logic apply to the "tech bros" of Silicon Valley or the banking sector, both of which benefit from network effects and central bank policies that create massive profit "windfalls" without a corresponding increase in production costs?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Debunking Economics podcast, Phil and Steve Keen explore the shifting value of higher education, questioning whether the move toward commercialization and high student debt is fundamentally undermining the learning experience. Steve reflects on the decay of academic standards over the last thirty years, arguing that universities have transformed from centers of scholarship into profit-driven credential mills that prioritize enrollment numbers over depth of thought. They discuss the rising financial burden on graduates—averaging £53,000 in the UK—and compare the declining real-term starting salaries of academics and white-collar professionals with the robust earnings of skilled tradespeople like plumbers. The conversation also tackles the looming threat of AI, which Steve fears will amplify the trend of superficial learning by replacing critical thinking and clerical skills, ultimately risking the creation of an "uneducated community" more focused on paying off debt than engaging in meaningful discovery.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Phil and Steve Keen discuss Steve’s recent experience at the World Forum in Berlin, which he frames as a progressive "antidote" to the World Economic Forum. Their conversation touches on a wide range of global issues, including the conflicted leadership in the Palestinian Authority and Israel, the necessity of a two-state solution in Gaza, and the controversial role of figures like Hillary Clinton and Bob Geldof. A significant portion of the dialogue focuses on Steve’s proposal to expand the legal definition of ecocide to include criminal negligence, arguing that economists and corporations should face personal liability for their role in climate change. Phil remains sceptical of the practical enforceability of such laws given the entrenched interests of powerful nations, but both agree that current international agreements like COP are largely ineffective, serving more as a venue for fossil fuel lobbying than real environmental progress.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week Phil and Steve dissect Elon Musk’s futuristic vision of a moneyless society driven by AI and ubiquitous robotics. Drawing parallels to Marxist ideals and ancient "slave" societies (reimagined with robots), they explore the logistical impossibilities of such a world—from the staggering mineral requirements for billions of droids to the complex social dynamics of status and resource allocation in the absence of a pricing mechanism. Ultimately, they argue that while our current monetary system is flawed, the move toward a post-scarcity world requires a "better" multi-dimensional currency rather than the complete abolition of money, which serves as a vital tool for managing scarcity and human competition.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode we ask whether monetary policy actually works, as the RBA lifts rates to 3.85%—well above other advanced economies—despite inflation being driven by capacity constraints rather than excess demand. We explore why higher rates may worsen the problem by choking investment and productivity, why the quantity‑of‑money story doesn’t hold when spending velocity rises, and how fiscal tools could target inflation far more precisely. Steve argues that Australia’s deeper issue is its housing‑debt machine: high house prices, bank‑driven mortgage lending, and a credit‑fuelled economy that rate hikes can’t fix and may even reinforce.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Phil Dobbie talks to Prof Steve Keen about the one modern economy that actually let its banks fail — Iceland — and what the rest of the world should have learned from it. They unpack how a tiny country ended up with banks eleven times the size of its GDP, fuelled by high interest rates, foreign borrowing, and a carry‑trade frenzy that made Iceland look less like a nation and more like a hedge fund with a flag. When the krona collapsed, imports doubled in price, inflation exploded, and the banking system imploded — yet Iceland refused to socialise the losses, letting foreign creditors take the hit while rebuilding with new domestic banks, capital controls, and a currency so cheap it sparked a tourism boom. Phil and Steve contrast that with Ireland, Greece, and Cyprus, where governments guaranteed bank debts, couldn’t devalue, and ended up trapped in austerity. The episode asks the big question: what’s the real lesson from Iceland’s crash — and why did so few countries follow it?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week Phil and Steve explore who would be hit hardest by a full‑blown US–EU trade war, and how the escalating Greenland dispute exposes Europe’s dependence on American defence and technology. They examine whether Europe could credibly build its own security architecture — from a eurozone‑funded army to a rapidly expanding domestic arms industry — and how tariff retaliation, energy costs, and the dominance of US big tech complicate the picture. With studies suggesting EU exports to the US could halve under 25% tariffs, and with Europe still buying billions in American weaponry each year, the discussion asks whether a strategic reset is inevitable, and what it would take for Europe to stand on its own economically, militarily, and digitally.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of Debunking Economics, Phil Dobbie and Professor Steve Keen dive into the thorny world of “sovereign money” and “100% money” — two reform proposals that aim to radically reshape how modern banking works. Prompted by a listener email, the conversation unpacks why today’s system of bank‑created money, reserves, and government deficits is so convoluted, and whether a simpler, more transparent architecture is even possible. Phil sketches the appeal of a world where everyone holds an account directly at the central bank, bypassing the private banking system for everyday payments, while Steve explores what such a shift would mean for money creation, government spending, and the role of commercial banks.

As the discussion deepens, they examine the historical roots of these ideas, from Irving Fisher’s 1930s push for 100% reserve banking to modern proposals emerging from Switzerland and Germany. Steve highlights the technical and political challenges: how to separate the payment system from the credit system, whether banks could remain profitable without the ability to create money, and why double‑entry bookkeeping is essential to understanding any reform. Phil presses on the potential benefits — stability, simplicity, and a more direct way for governments to manage the money supply — while Steve warns that poorly designed reforms could unintentionally collapse the very financial system they aim to fix.

The result is a lively, accessible exploration of one of the most misunderstood corners of economics. Whether you’re curious about sovereign money, sceptical of private bank power, or simply trying to make sense of how money actually moves around the economy, this episode offers a clear and provocative guide through the debate

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Phil and Steve take listeners on a guided tour through the mechanics of government bond markets — stripping away the myths, misunderstandings and textbook clichés that usually cloud the topic. Starting from a listener question, they explore why governments issue bonds in the first place, how deficits translate into reserves within the banking system, and why double‑entry bookkeeping is the only reliable way to understand what’s really happening behind the scenes.

Steve explains that when governments spend more than they tax, they create deposits in private bank accounts and matching reserves for the banking sector. Bond issuance doesn’t “fund” this spending — it simply prevents the Treasury’s account at the central bank from going into overdraft, because most governments have imposed legal restrictions on doing so. Phil pushes on the role of banks, reserves and the idea of “bond vigilantes”, while Steve clarifies the difference between the primary and secondary bond markets, and why private banks are never constrained by reserves when issuing loans.

The conversation also tackles common misconceptions: that banks lend out deposits, that reserves are part of the money supply, or that bond sales create new money. Instead, Steve shows how reserves move around the system, why they can only be used for interbank settlement or buying bonds, and how government deficits are the true source of reserve creation. The result is a clear, engaging walkthrough of a system that’s often presented as mysterious — but becomes surprisingly logical once the accounting is laid bare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of Debunking Economics, Phil Dobbie and Professor Steve Keen tackle the global obsession with interest rates. From Australia’s Reserve Bank to the UK’s faltering economy, they explore how central banks use rate changes as a blunt tool to manage inflation and growth. Phil highlights the real‑world pressures on households—mortgages, rents, and tax thresholds—while Steve dismantles the neoclassical models that underpin mainstream policy, exposing their unrealistic assumptions about consumption, altruism, and infinite planning horizons.

Together they reveal how rate hikes often enrich bondholders while squeezing ordinary borrowers, skewing income distribution and destabilising financial systems. The conversation ranges from Keynesian misinterpretations to modern monetary theory, questioning whether interest rates can ever be the fine‑tuned instrument economists claim. It’s a lively, critical look at the myths of monetary policy and the urgent need for alternatives that address capacity, inequality, and democratic accountability.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this week’s Debunking Economics podcast, Phil Dobbie and Prof. Steve Keen dive into the global water crisis under the banner “Trouble on the Waterfront.” They explore the paradox of Earth’s abundant water supply versus the tiny fraction that is actually accessible, highlighting UN figures that show billions still lack safe drinking water and sanitation. From the UK’s tight margins between renewable supply and consumption, to Australia’s surplus constrained by geography, and Iran’s alarming shortages that threaten the viability of Tehran itself, the discussion underscores how climate change and poor management amplify the risks. Along the way, they touch on desalination’s energy intensity, the embedded water footprint in consumer goods, and the stark reality that water scarcity is as much about distribution and governance as it is about absolute supply.

The conversation then pivots to the UK, where privatisation of the water industry has left infrastructure lagging. Keen points out that while the public sector once invested in long‑term projects like Kielder Reservoir, the private sector has built virtually no new dams since the 1990s, preferring short‑term profit over resilience. Together, they argue that essential resources like water and power require excess capacity and long‑term planning—something markets alone cannot deliver. With wit and urgency, the episode makes clear that water is the ultimate recyclable resource, but without effective stewardship, even countries famed for rainfall could face scarcity.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Foreign aid is shrinking fast. The UK has cut its commitment from 0.7% of national income to 0.3%, the US has scrapped USAID and axed 80% of its projects, and overall global aid is down by more than a quarter in just five years. That’s less than 0.2% of the world economy — smaller than Walmart’s turnover — even as the Gates Foundation warns that cuts have already reversed decades of progress in child survival. In 2025 alone, 200,000 extra children under five are expected to die from preventable causes. And in places like Afghanistan, Somalia, and the Central African Republic, one in ten infants won’t make it to their first birthday.

Economist Steve Keen argues that aid is often designed with the assumption that chunks of it will flow back to donor countries through trade and contracts, reinforcing global imbalances rather than fixing them. He suggests revisiting Keynes’s old idea of a Bancor — a global currency to balance trade — so aid isn’t just a disguised subsidy for rich economies. Without structural reform, we’re left with the paradox of trying to support countries where GDP per capita is $150–$200, while the same amount is a single day’s salary in Luxembourg. Rethinking aid means asking whether we’re propping up conflicts and fragile states, or building a fairer system where resources actually stick and help people survive.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

So, what does it mean to be Austrian? And we are not talking about wearing Lederhosen every weekend, going on long hikes through the mountains and eating schnitzel. Instead, the focus in this podcast is on the Austrian school of economics. They are two very different things, The country has moved on, but the theory remains. This week Phil and Steve look at the principles of Austrian economics – what they got right (partially) and what they got wrong. They contrast it with neoclassical economics, exploring the significance of equilibrium and innovation in capitalism. The discussion also touches on the concept of praxeology, the limitations of introspection in understanding economic systems, and Schumpeter's contributions to the evolution of economic thought. 

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The early days of Bitcoin its proponents argued that this could be the global currency to replace fiat money. Governments the world over were issuing too much currency, leading to inflation, whilst imposing arbitrary regulations that would be impossible once authorities lost control of money.

Steve says for that to work Bitcoin would need to be capable of the instantaneous transactions we are used to with the billions of banking transactions that happen every day. What’s more, the limited supply of Bitcoin means increases in productivity are likely to result in deflation p- a bigger enemy to the economy than rising prices.

Instead Bitcoin has become just another asset class. The initial argyument that it served as a useful hedge against a downturn, in the same way gold does. Except now Bitcoin has started to mirror movements of other assets, like shares. And speculators are buying into it, often in highly leveraged positions. Risky?

Still the argument remains that Bitcoin could be a workable currency. One that consumes a lot of energy in the process. When energy becomes really scarce, says Steve, Bitcoin will be the first thing to be turned off.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

How far are we willing to go in accepting the corporate takeover of just about everything. In Britain public utilities were sold off, so companies could profit from selling resources whilst minimising maintenance of facilities. Phil asks the question how Britain’s water infrastructure is in such a state of repair in an industry that makes £13 billion per year. Then there’s the moves to strangle publicly funded media and privatise the funding of health. But it gets worse. Britain’s freeports are local areas run jointly by local authorities of local business. Democracy has become just another seat at the table. And there’s a proposal from, one consortium for a new town in Britain that is run by a corporation where residents sign a contract for services. No local democracy. Such towns already exist in many parts of the world. Is that the conclusion - we privatise everything and we are all at the whim of big business. Elon Musk is already working on how to create your artificial best friend.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Several listeners have written in to get Steve’s views on the path being taken by Mark Carney to rescue the Canadian economy. Initially it looked like the country was rebounding strongly from the pandemic, but in the last couple of years the growth has slowed and then declined. That was before President Trump hit them hard with tariffs and then said he’d like them to become part of the US. 

In some ways he is trying the same approach as the UK – to balance the operational side of government spending but inventing in infrastructure beyond that balanced operational budget. That would be fine if a large chunk of that investment wasn’t going to defence. There’s also very little attention to the most fundamental issue for Canada unaffordable housing. Proudly the most unaffordable in the world. Hard to get people to spend when a huge chunk of their income is disappearing into mortgage payments.

There’s another fundamental problem with Carney’s approach. As Steve points out, it almost every policy it relies on outside influence, rather than domestic resolutions.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week Phil and Steve look at cost-plus inflation, driven by rising wages. Right now its being given as the reason that services inflation is remaining sticky and that’s why many central banks are reluctant to reduce interest rates. Steve says it’s a far more sensible assumption than the neoclassical belief, promulgated by Milton Friedman, that inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.

It's not just workers who can put prices up, of course. Companies can increase their margins, and we saw a fair bit of that post-COVID. Burt what of the tech-driven future, where wage negotiations will be harder. Basically, we’ll be lucky if we have a job. Does that mean the tech bros call the shots and wage driven inflation will be a thing of the past?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Is it fair enough to totally write off Ricardo’s theory of competitive advantage? Certainly, President Trump isn’t an advocate, using tariffs to protect America’s domestic industries from those countries that produce stuff cheaper. A broad economy, producing a range of products and services, is preferably to a narrow one, reliant on one or two key exports, which is what Ricardo advocated. But in support of Ricardo, some of the narrowest economies, like Australia, have some of the highest levels of GDP per capita. It seems to work for resource-based economies, so far. But could they be even richer? Phil and Steve discuss Ricardo and economic complexity in the age of Trump’s tariff agenda. 

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The UK Labour party has struggled to forge a recovery for the beleaguered economy. Rachel Reeves is intent on reducing the government deficit. Her first attempt involved increasing the National Insurance contributions made by businesses – in effect, raising a payrolls tax. In short, a reason for companies unsure about recruiting in a slow growth economy to err on the side of caution. Now, there’s talk of tax rises. Steve and phil talk about the impact on growth of added more to the consumer’s tax burden, and the impact it’ll have on money in circulation. Then there’s the confusing idea of increasing savings as though that’ll drive investment which will add to economic growth. That might be the case if the money was invested in new businesses, rather than inflating share prices and other financial instruments, which all deflect money from the real economy.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Before he was the UK Prime Minister at war with the Nazis, Winston Churchill ws the UK’s Chancellor. He played it very straight, with a preoccupation with balancing the budget. He also took the Uk back onto the Gold Exchange, despite warnings from Keynes that the move would be deflationary.

In 1928 he reinforced his neoclassical credentials, saying very little additional employment and no permanent employment can be created by state borrowing and state expenditure. That is, of course, the exact opposite of the idea of a job guarantee, but is Churchill partially right? Can a job guarantee ever create jobs that will enhance productivity?

This week Phil and Steve look into job creation and Churchill’s fear of using government spending to protect the labour market. It was a time when even Joh Maynard Keynes didn’t get everything right. For example, he argued that the multiplier effect would add new money and new employment from government cash injections. But how can you multiple the injection if no new money is created? And it ignores the real benefits jobs can create, behind the money gained from those directly employed, whether by the government or the private sector. 

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In UK politicians of all persuasions agree that foreign investment I s important to add to the growth of the UK economy. Steve says you have to have foreigners buying into the UK to counter the currency losses from a sizeable balance of trade deficit. But a lot of that investment will see profits being repatriated back overseas. And then there’d the overseas investment in UK bonds and shares. Andy Burnham, the Manchester Mayor who seems to be positioning himself to replace Keir Starmer, has said we need to limit the ownership of UK nbonds to foreign investors, and not be ‘in hock’ to bond markets. Has he got his thinking right?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

recent spoke at a meeting of Jeremy Corbyn’s new venture – Your Party. Steve gave a presentation on how governments can spend more without worrying about the deficit, provided it was done sensibly. The argument that the private sector buying up government bonds will crowd out investment in other initiatives is bunkum. The private sector can still borrow for investment, perhaps benefiting from the enhanced infrastructure and trading environment government spending has created. But Phil argues there’s a big education job to be done – the politicians, the electorate and, more significantly, the bond vigilantes, who will see high government spending as a reason to push up bond yields, which will flow through to borrowing costs for everyone. Meanwhile, what chance as Corbyn’s new party got? Is the left divided itself between Corbyn, Galloway, the Greens, Labour and thew LibDems? Is this division creating a pathway for Reform to offer an agenda of low tax, fewer government services and heavily controlled immigration. In other words, Project 2025 transferred to British soil.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

During the pandemic central banks had no choice but to buy up government bonds. There were just so many of them being issued. That’s why the UK’s quantitative easing program totalled more than £900 billion during 2020-1. Recently, the bank – like other central banks the world over – are trying to unwind these huge additions to their balance sheet. Recently the Bank of England slowed down the pace at which they sold-off these assets. Why? In part because this process of ‘quantitative tightening’ can reduce the amount of money in circulation. That could slow what little economic growth we have right now. But, Steve says, if these bonds are bought up by banks, it’ll simply mean they replace reserves with zero impact on the economy, except for the interest the banks will earn from those holdings. All this raises the question, why sell now? Or ever? And how much does QE and QT sit alongside or in contrast with government fiscal policy? Don’t they need to be coordinated and, if that’s the case, is there any case for an independent central bank?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

You would assume that government spending is largely designed to help those on lower incomes. The NHS was designed to ensure free healthcare for all. The same for public education. And for welfare payments. So, I theory, the more the government spends, the more wealth is transferred to lower incomes.

This week Phil and Steve explore the idea that rising government deficits actually help the rich. That’s because the so-called debt is financed by the issuance of bonds, much of which is nought on the secondary market to add to the wealth funds of the richer end of society. They receive dividend payments funded from the government. That’s a case of government money supporting the wealthy.

So, is there a way of government money being used to support the less well-off, without helping the rich to get richer?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

After the war the European economy was humming along, with growth rates of 5 percent or more. Now Germany’s forecast to grow by just 0.1 percent. Allowing for population growth and inflation and it’s an economy in decline. Steve says part of the problem is the assumption that rising government debt is bad for the economy – the old neoclassical belief that if the government spends, it crowds out the private sector. They’ve been testing that theory in Europe for a while now, and it isn’t working for them. Yet, politicians have convinced enough people of the principle such that populist right-wing governments are taking more political control across the continent. All the while, Europe has lost its innovation, and its manufacturing capability is in decline. Hence, Phil asks, how can it get its mojo back?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Copyright and IP rights has always been notoriously difficult to protect. Does it become impossible with the rise of AI? The ideas presented to you through your favourite AI engine come from somewhere whose ideas are being used to support an argument. Or, if you create an artwork that is analysed and used to create other artworks, has copyright been infringed, or is what we would have traditionally called inspiration? Phil asks, is it time to just admit defeat and accept that copyright is an outdated notion and find other ways of compensating the artist and creator?

Then there’s the social cost of intellectual property rights. A question that existed before. If Statins had been available as cheaply as they are now before their patent lapsed thousands - possibly hundreds of thousands -of lives would have been saved. Does the same apply to Mounjaro? How do you balance the commercial imperative from big pharma against the social benefits?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We keep hearing about the productivity gains from AI. This week Phil asks Steve about the difference between productivity for a company versus the societal benefits. For example, AI and robots might do a job more efficiently than a human, but it’ll chew up energy in the process, and the human will still be consuming energy as well, unless robots start killing us off. So, this revolution might make some companies more efficient, but as a society as a whole what is the price we are paying? Or is Phil just an old-fashioned laggard?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The small number of technologists who increasingly control the planet’s wealth and political and social agenda are, it seems, big supporters of UBI. Elon Musk is at the forefront of this push. And why wouldn’t he be? His vision is a future of unbounding economic growth, in which the work of humans is almost completely replaced by robots, leaving us all plenty of time to pursue interests, engage in deep philosophical thought or, more likely, get fat watching daytime TV with no sense of purpose.

This week Phil and Steve look at the consequences of Musk’s vision and discuss the one factor Musk has yet to answer – where does the money come from? Steve says the tech bros don’t seem to grasp the workings of fiat money creation, which h might be part of the answer. But Phil is more concern ed about the power that Musk and his brethren wield. Do we need to redefine capitalism, so the power of these feudal tech lords is diluted by working cooperatives, to ensure technology is used for the betterment of society and not leading to a hunger games future?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

18th century economist Richard Cantillon theorised that new money added to the economy always reaches the wealthiest people first. If there’s a lot of it, the extra supply will push up prices, but the rich won’t feel it, they’ll just create it. The impact down the track is that the poor, surviving with the same money as before, get hit with the higher prices. 

Phil suggests that wouldn’t be the case if extra money was created through government spending. It would be the workers and those on welfare getting the first touch of the new money. But, as Steve explains, most money created through government deficits is counteracted by the private sector buying up the government’s bonds. Most of the new money is created through private debt - bank loans, for example. So Cantillon was right.

The way to fix the problem s to put in place policies that would see more of a balance between public and private sector money creation.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Phil and Steve pick up from last week’s discussion about the merits of central planning. Last time they talked about how big companies, like Walmart in the US, plan centrally, yet free marketeers have a problem with that sort of coordination being applied to the free market. This week Phil asks how you can ensure that government planning can ensure resources are allocated effectively. For example, isn’t there a risk that you’ll use raw materials and labour to satisfy the wants of the very rich, before you have met the needs of the very poor? How do we arrive at a hybrid approach that works?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In one of his many walks around his neighbourhood Phil has been listening to a book, The People's Republic of Walmart, by Leigh Phillips & Michal Rozworski. Basically, a contrarian economist and a journalist teaming up together. Could such a combination ever really work?

The book highlights how part of Walmart’s success story was its meticulous central planning, in contrast to Sears, a business decimated by an adherence to a market based internal structure. 30 internal division competed for resources, including shelf space.

Clearly, Walmart’s focus on delivery helped it succeed. So, shouldn’t the same approach be used in the broader economy? When should we choose planning over open market competition?  

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Lesotho (pronounced ,li-su-tu0 is a small African nature that President Trump  threatened with 50% tariffs, describing as a country nobody had ever heard of. Maybe that’s enough for his disciples to dismiss the hardship tariffs will place on the country, where youth unemployment is rife and the minimum wage is US$100 per month. Phil says twenty years ago America was trying to help countries like Lesotho, with tariff free trade to help the economy grow. Why? Because as Steve points out, if developing countries grow, they will buy more American goods. Cut their trade off at source and people suffer. Or Lesotho, and other developing nations, develop closer ties with China and expedites its path to being the largest economy in the world.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There is a huge reliance on data to aid decision making – whether it’s Investors wanting to know where to move money, central banks pretending to understand the economy, governments making policy decisions or companies planning for their future. Sadly, data collection faces two challenges. One is a lack of sufficient government spending. As Steve points out, perhaps Texas would be more prepared for the horrendous flooding of the last few weeks, if they hadn’t sacked so many meteorologists. The other problem is the increasing unwillingness of the public and businesses to complete surveys. Fortunately, as Phil points out, data is now being collective more from primary sources -like bank records or store transactions.

That’s a big step forward, but a lot of data is based on answering traditional questions, like what’s our GDP? It’s base don conventional thinking. Phil asks whether we should be paying more attention to money supply whilst Steve says understanding company mark-ups would also be a good predictive indicator. What data sets do you think are missing?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In real terms the amount the UK spends on healthcare has risen from £500 in 1970 to £3,000 per person today. That’s a massive increase, but the payback has been that we are living 10 years longer. Ask people if they would be prepared to spend 10% of their income to live ten years longer, most would say yes. Yet we have a real problem in having the government spending more on healthcare.

As always, it gets back to the question of where is the money coming from? A government provided healthcare system is funded with government created money. A privatised system is vying for a share of your pay packet, using money that is already in circulation.

Phil and Steve discuss how our approach to healthcare is based on the standard question of, ‘where does the money come from?’, rather than ‘what can we be doing to make everyone’s life that much better?’

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Financial markets don’t like it when governments announce plans to spend more money. That’s why there’s concern over Donald Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill, which will add, by some accounts, $4 trillion to the US budget deficit over the next decade. Steve Keen says it’s not a problem. Banks buy up the bonds and the central bank ensures they have the liquidity to do so.  In which case, why are people ditching US bonds in favour of other sovereign debt elsewhere? And isn’t there a risk that higher treasury yields will reduce the differential with corporate bonds, which could discourage investment in the real economy? As Phil and Steve nut it out, they both agree, Trump’s bill is a bad one when it comes to income distribution. It assumes trickle down economics. When has that ever worked?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There’s been a lot of talk lately about de-dollarisation. In other words, global investors are parking less of their money in US dollars (in the form of US treasuries/bonds). What was once considered a safe choice, is now seen as having more risk, and that’s being accentuated right now by the falling value of the US dollar. If, as an overseas investor, you bought US government bonds a t the start of the year, they’d be worth 10 percent less now, simply because that’s how much the dollar has fallen by. Steve says it’s not a big issue for the US government, because the Fed will always ensure there’s enough liquidity for primary dealers to buy up what the government is selling. But it’s the falling interest in the secondary market, particularly from overseas investors, which is contributing to the fall in the dollar.

But the other part of the equation is, does the dollar losing its dominance as the world’s trading currency. It used to offer stability. Not any more it seems. So, want replaces it?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There was an article in The Economist last week, shared widely in press around the globe, about the apparent fixation with manufacturing. Aussie economist Saul Eslake calls it Manufacturing Fetishism, with government support focused more on that sector than anything else. President Trump wants to bring home everything from steelmaking to drug production and is putting up tariff barriers to do so. Britain is considering subsidising manufacturers’ energy bills; Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, is offering incentives for electric-vehicle-makers. But of everyone subsidises the same products, does anyone come out ahead? And isn’t the manufacturing focus based on the simple notion that they are better paying jobs than hospitality and retail?

Steve thinks manufacturing is important for a while variety of reasons, including building the skillset to make economies more self-sufficient. That requires well-funded education, which is not one of the central pillars for Trump’s strategy of bringing jobs back home. Perhaps he hasn’t thought it through enough.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There’s an irony that the UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves has imposed an inheritance tax on farmers, whilst a trade agreement with the US could see Britain selling-the-farm on a farm grander scale.

Phil argues that some sort of tax on the inheritance of farms makes sense kif its only used as a tax dodge. Jeremy Clarkson bought his farm (reportedly for £6 million) and had a farm manager run it for 10 years before he started making his TV series. If we he died before the new tax rules the £6 million would have been passed on exempt from the rules of inheritance tax. A nice little tax dodge. So, surely, the government was right to close a loophole.

The broader question, though, is what the government does about farm productivity more generally. As Steve points out, 40 percent of UK food is imported. Just over the channel France is 80% self-sufficient. Rather than talking about buying stuff from over the Atlantic shouldn’t the UK be working out how to be more reliant on its own food sources, in the same way it is pushing to be more self-reliance on energy and defence?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Bill Gates has predicted that within 10 years we’ll be working a two-day week, thanks to advances in AI. He says it’ll mean a vast rethinking of the workplace. It’s not too dissimilar to Keynes's prediction in the 1930s that wed al be working 15-hour weeks, with more time to enjoy the good things in life.

Of course, Keynes was wrong. We are working longer hours with loads more stress. Tools to aid productivity have freed up time for us to take new jobs and add to the economic output. Steve says a lot of this extra income has been used to increase the price of assets, particularly housing. 

This time, though, who is to say the replacement jobs will exist. AI and robots could replace us in almost every job. So then what do we do? A universal basic income, perhaps, which Phil says will not be too dissimilar to unemployment benefit. But that’s going to take more government money. If we ignore the MMT arguments about governments’ ability to create money the only way to pay for the unemployed is through higher taxes on those businesses doing the work. But the focus today is on less regulation, so these companies can complete their cycle of job destruction unhindered. As a society have we really thought this through?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There are challenges that the insurance industry faces, even though it can look like a licence to print money, Since the Big Bang of the nineties, when deregulation allowed the industry to flourish, insurance now accounts for 2.5% of UK GDP. Not bad money for an industry that is a cost to society, rather than a benefit.

Until now the business model has been simple; charge a premium based on the risk profile of the customer, avoid high risk customers altogether and invest the payments you receive in the markets to make even more money. And, unfortunately, payout when someone makes a claim, but keep the legal profession gainfully employed to ensure that doesn’t happen too often.

If you find claims are rising, imply put up th premiums next year. Which is why we’ve had several years were premiums have grown significantly faster than inflation. The consequence of that is people from lower- and middle-income households simply can’t afford the insurance, so they avoid it altogether or under-insure.

Phil and Steve discuss the merits of government-run insurance. We already have it in health, of course. The problem with having it applied more broadly is that it won’t alert us to the impact of climate change. As insurance moves from covering us for episodic events, to systematic change, the business model folds. Steve’s hope is that, as this happens, the industry starts to squeal and wakes us all up to the profound impact of climate change. It acts as the canary in the coal mine and becomes the first industry to lobby for us to take it seriously. Although, with them still enjoying healthy profit margins, it’s not happening yet.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The pandemic killed 200 thousand people in the UK. Are we ready for the next time? Experts reckon will be even less prepared should we see another pandemic in the near future. Prof Tom Koch from the University of British Columbia reckons we don’t have long to wait - the next one could strike in the next five to eight years.

If you were a virus with an understanding of how economics is taught, this is exactly how you would have planned it. Yet governments to spend a fortune on the first blow, knowing they would spend the intervening years trying to pay back the debt, rather than spending new money on the preventative measures to dampen the impact of the second blow.

If we had a clearer understanding of how fiat currencies function, maybe we would be better prepared. Meanwhile Steve has a mask he can sell you.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Economists seem conditioned to think that we need to suffer before an economy can get back on track. They argue an economy can’t grow if there is a large amount of accrued government debt. That the economy needs confidence to grow, and the confidence won’t exist the government owes a lot of money.

Phil suggests to Steve that confidence and the private sector’s a willingness to invest are two staple requirements for economic growth. A government deficit will also help, but does it really help in terms of the growth in the money supply as much as private borrowing? And isn’t a growth in the money supply essential to growth?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s clear to just about everyone that we won’t reach the climate targets set out in the Paris agreement. It was a pipe dream even before President Trump  v2.0 came along. The various COP summits, which rely on agreement from everyone, are nothing more than gabfests. They are a COP-out. This was recognised in a paper this month from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, entitled ‘The Climate Paradox: Why We Need to Reset Action on Climate Change’.

There are some sound observations, says Steve, but it doesn’t go far enough. It doesn’t recognise is the mismatch between climate scientists and economists. Climate scientists believe global warming could ultimately be an extinction level event, he says, whereas economics see it having a relatively minor impact on GDP.  The more we listen to the economists the more likely the climate scientists will be right.

There’s one positive takeout from the paper though. It recognises that we need breakthrough solutions. But that’s likely to come from high cost, high risk investment. Who is going to pay for that?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A key policy area of Modern Monetary Theory is the idea of a job guarantee. There might be a limit to available resources, but the labour force should always be employed. It helps the economy and it’s good for the individuals and for society. But Phil wonders how practical it is. If there’s an economic downturn can the government miraculously conjure up worthwhile jobs? Steve says it was less of an issue in the 50s and 60s when a higher proportion of the population worked for the government. Perhaps a return to those days would mean less extremes in the ups and downs of the economy and less need for a job guarantee.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Why is it, that whilst there are an increasing number of billionaires on the planet, the rest of us are no better than we were decades ago? Young people can’t get on the housing ladder, there’s an increasing waiting list for health services, schools are short of money and tertiary education, once free, leaves students with a lifetime of debt. Except for the very rich, of course. Cahal Moran says more economics students are questioning what they are being taught in lectures and examines what’s really happening in his Unlearning Economics You Tube channel. He joins Steve and Phil to talk about his new book ‘Why We’re Getting Poorer’.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The standard excuse for why states fail is the rampant printing of money. That certainly doesn’t help, but it’s often the symptom not the cause. In most cases states fail simply because the government isn’t in control. Take, for example, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, South Sudan. Burt Phil asks Steve whether recent warnings on bond markets show that government debt can place the economy in a precarious position. Take the Liz Truss disaster budget. Or Trump’s swift reversal on tariffs in response to a rising cost of government debt driven by fears of a severe economic slowdown. Are there warning signs of states that are close to economic collapse? And is Trump creating many more of them in small dollar-dependent nations who relied on a trade surplus they can no longer achieve without starving the population?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In 1944, at Bretton Woods, 44 countries agreed to make the US dollar the world's reserve currency. This decision inflated the dollar's value, making American exports expensive and imports cheaper. Donald Trump is now addressing this imbalance with tariffs on countries with high trade surpluses. Steve suggests that adopting Keynes's proposal for a neutral Bancor currency might have been better, while Phil wonders if it's time to reintroduce it, perhaps calling it “Trump” to appeal to the President’s ego.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s clear that President Trump lied to the American people about his reciprocal tariffs. Many of the countries he is imposing tariffs do not impose anywhere near those numbers on imports from America. As Phil points out, some countries, like Cambodia, that sell cheap goods to the US don’t buy from the US because they can’t afford to on their low wages. You can only have trade equalisation if you have similar income levels.

Steve takes us through the formula that was sued to calculate these ‘reciprocal’ tariffs. The only resolution to the issue, says Steve, is a new currency for international trade. An idea the Americans knocked back at Bretton Woods.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s often the easy excuse on how to fix the problems of wealth inequality - just tax the rich more. Former trader turned YouTuber economist Gary Stevenson argues regularly that it’ll fix a lot of the problem. He’s right that the wealthy own assets and the richer they become the more the price of those assets increases. Take land as an example. The government is on a push to build more houses to benefit lower income earners. But who owns the land those houses will be built on? The rich? So, who wins from the demand for more land? Gary’s argument is if you tax hard enough the rich  will be forced to sell assets which will bring the price down. Steve’s less convinced, simply because the uber-wealthy have always found a way to avoid taxation. But he thinks the argument also ignores (or isn’t aware of) the fact that government deficits create money. Perhaps the focus should be ore on where that deficit spending ends up. Maybe we should get Gary on the podcast.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s likely that many countries around the world will face import tariffs in retaliation for imposing a value-added-tax on American goods sold in their own country -  alongside other goods, taxed equally, that are not from America. As Steve outs it this week, “What tortured brain cells have communicated to other tortured brain cells to make a proposition that VAT on imports from America is discriminatory”.

Still, it looks like it might happen. And how do you resolve that situation. Do you get rid of a value added tax? Phil asks whether that could be a good thing. It’s unfair, complicated, bureaucratic and easily avoided. Would we all be better off with a transaction tax?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Are we kidding ourselves when we talk about an energy transition? Sure, we are using more renewables than ever before, but the planet is also using more fossil fuels than ever before. Phil asks Steve whether part of the problem is that we pout faith in incumbent energy companies managing that transition. The way BP and others have switched focus back on fossil fuel exploration shows how ill-conceived that expectation was. But, irrespective of who drives the transition, is it too much to expect that we will leave energy untapped. If renewables provide a new source of energy, won’t we just use up more energy, because the more there is the greater the productivity, the better off we are.

Watch the video of the podcast here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArfsehlKMo8&t=2s

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Donald Trump is doing everything he can think off to improve the US economy. Tariffs, cutting government spending, bringing manufacturing back home, accessing more resources and lowering the cost of energy. Will it work? And, if it does, Phil wonders whether there’s a ceiling to how far the US economy can grow. Or does it grow at the expense of other countries/ In other words, Phil wants Steve Keen to explain what happens as the US, the world’s leading economy, tries to heighten its supremacy.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In a recent podcast Phil suggested that bringing manufacturing home to America won’t necessarily create jobs, because most factories will be automated. They just need one man and a dog, he said. The man to turn the machine on, and the dog to make sure he doesn’t touch anything else.

That touched a nerve with Brian Hanley has spent his life refining manufacturing processes. The key ingredient suggests, is people. Elon Musk was the latest to try the lights out approach and realised it didn’t work.

Instead, if the US wants to succeed with a competitive manufacturing sector, it needs to look to post-war Japan. Workers were an integral part of the refinement and adaptive nature of manufacturing processes, in part  because of the company-based (rather than industry-speciifc) union structure. Listen in to find out how Japan’s adaptive approach is what’s needed if the US is to develop a successful manufacturing sector.

Two books related to this, that Brian says should be required reading or every economist:

-         Kanban Just-in Time at Toyota by Japan Management Association

-         The Sayings of Shigeo Shingo by Shigeo Shingo

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Donald Trump, as the world’s highest profile climate change denier, has famously said, repeatedly, that he wants to drill baby drill, to make US energy even cheaper. It’s already half the price of Europe, and all the productivity benefits that provides. Phil and Steve talk about whether this the final nail in the coffin in a world which is paying lip service to the changes required. Is nuclear our only way to fast track a workable solution?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Reciprocal tariffs could be coming to every OECD country if we believe everything Donald Trump says. He sees VAT as a tariff imposed on US imports, which means he wants to impose the same amount on those countries for goods they export to America. That would apply to every OECD country and, supposedly, the President has said there will be no exceptions. Does this mean a global trade war is just about to happen? Steve has been a supporter of protectionism as a way to aid growth, and understands the need for America to bring jobs back home, but not with the “bull in the China shop approach” that Trump is taking. But Phil asks whether the horse has already bolted. The web of international supply chains is well established and difficult to break. Haven’t we all benefited from lower cost goods? And even if you brought back production functions would automation mean few new jobs would be produced? In short, is Trump too late to make a difference. Will he just create chaos?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The new US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently re-iterated the US desire to remain as the world’s reserve currency, because they like a strong dollar that’s in demand worldwide. Burt he also says he doesn’t want other currencies weak, because that gives thema trade advantage. That sounds like a “cake and eat it” philosophy.   This week Phil asks Steve whether the US would be better off if it wasn’t the reserve currency, and whether,  in these days of electric transfers, do we actually need a reserve currency? 

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Phil asked Steve a lot last week about how bank create money through the loans they issue. But he has been, it’s fair to say, a little less convinced about how government deficits create money. So prepare for a light bulb moment as Steve breaks down the process that sees the government spending more, with more money moved to the private sector, and people buying bonds, effectively with new money.  

They also answer a couple of listeners questions -one on the impact of Donald Trump’s tax cuts, another on crypto and another on a Worgel-like supplementary currency. Which of those creates new money?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Steve and Phil have described the island of Coinucopia in previous editions of the podcast. It started as a place where only coins were legal tender, and the supply of coins didn’t increase. They explained how that created deflation and inhibited growth, so the government started adding more coins. Then they let banks issue loans.  Now, what happens when the island allows banks to issue electronic loans. Actually, life becomes much simpler. Much simpler than most conventional economists would have you believe. Listen in to understand how banking now works, not just in Coinucopia, but in the real world. 

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Rachel Reeves, the UK Chancellor, has fallen into the debt-trap argument. She says she is focused on growth, but she is also determined to balance the budget. Cuts to government spending is part of the picture, but her biggest attack has been on business, increasing tax on employment. You could argue that if you are going to tax anywhere, taxing business is better than taxing personal income, but Steve argues that anything that drives money out of the real economy will slow growth, evidenced by the latest numbers showing GDP has flat lined.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There are, its estimated, 8.2 billion people on the planet. The UN projects that the world's population will reach 9.7 billion by 2050 and 11.2 billion by 2100. We won’t reach that, says Steve Keen. Even if we ignore climate change, we’ll exceed our capacity to support the population, and the as countries become richer their fertility rate will decline. The hope is that the natural decline happens before more extreme declines brought about by war, climate change and starvation.  But, even intis best case scenario, we need to address the issue that the population is not always close to the food it needs, and economics naturally concentrates capital.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Last week Phil introduced us to the island of Coinucopia, where only a limited supply of gold coins could be used to keep the economy functioning. But the island is suffering from very slow economic growth. Steve explains how any innovation, that sees new products come to market, will see the same money chasing more goods, so prices will necessarily come down. That’s until the island decides to allow bank loans. At first, they only allow banks to loan out coins that have been deposited with them, but eventually they realise the potential of introducing bank notes. Now they have growth, but how do they curtail inflation? They’ve read Milton Friedman and believe an increase in money automatically creates inflation. But maybe he was wrong!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week Phil introduces Steve Keen to the fictional island of Cornucopia. It’s a simple place, where the only trade takes place with gold coins. Banks are not allowed to give loans, and the money supply remains constant, unless the Chancellor decides to mint new ones. In such circumstances, how many basic economic principles work? Most of them, it seems. Sadly, this is not the real world, and economists who practice double entry book-keeping are imprisoned. Until the Chancellor realises there’s no growth and seeks help. To be continued.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Elon Musk has been moaning that he pays too much tax. He wants to keep more of the $14 billion or so that he earns each year. But has he got a point? Do we need to the opportunity to become incredibly wealthy to drive innovation. If we had more equal levels of income, would we actually suffer from lower growth, so everyone would end up worse off.? Phi puts the question to Steve Keen on this Christmas edition of the Debunking Economics podcast. 

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

When central banks declare a new interest rate, how does that magic into existence? Steve explains how they trade in bonds, to drive yields close to their target rate. If they are buying up bonds held by pension funds and the like, are they also adding to the money supply? Could that have more impact on the health of the economy than playing with interest rates? But the problem is, the money created is circulating in the financial sector. If the central bank really wanted to boost the economy, it should find ways of pushing new money to those less well off.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There’s a common myth around banks. That banks are the intermediaries who collect deposits from customers, keep a bit in reserve, then lend out the rest at a higher interest rate. That argument then extends to a multiplier effect, where the money loaned out is deposited in banks, freeing up more money for further loans. The multiplier is how textbooks argue that banks create new money for the economy. This week Steve argues that the multiplier doesn’t exist. Not in that way anyway. And banks create money, not by lending out deposits, but by creating new money to lend out, which appears as deposits in the bank’s balance sheet. This week Phil brings the textbook arguments to the table for Steve to shout them down.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Does government debt expand the supply of money? According to Modern Monetary theory, yes it does. It’s all down to simple double-entry book-keeping and an understanding of the role of financial equity.   As Steve explains, in this step-by-step guide, for the private sector to experience positive equity, the government sector has to have negative equity. In other words, without the government sector spending more than it’s earning, there’s no new money being added to the private sector. As Stephanie Kelton puts it, their red ink is our black ink. This is one episode to share with your friends.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

You’ll know the name Mario Draghi. He was the President of the European Central Bank and, for a short while, Prime Minister of Italy. Earlier this year he produced a report EU Competitiveness. It called on the need for more Europe-wide investment, particularly for innovation, emerging industries and the transition to green energy. Phil and Steve talk through the ideas and the challenges they present to the structure of the EU. Are the challenges insurmountable? Is that why Draghi’s plan already seems to have been lost at the back of the bookshelf. There is one competitive edge of Europe though. Steve says if the US successful cuts government spending by the touted $2 trillion, that’s money pulled out of their economy. If Europe was to take the opposite tack, it could tip th balance in its favour Particularly, suggests Phil, if the extra public money is spent building Europe-based AI data centres to challenge the US dominance in this rapidly growing sector.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

At least half of America is elated with its new choice of President.  Money is already flowing into the country, with early gains on the NYSE and the dollar shooting higher in value. Tariffs will be front and centre early in the new Presidency, with Trump describing Tariffs as “a beautiful word” recently. But will it have the intended effect. Could the strength in the dollar wipe out any of the benefits from domestic production? Will higher tariffs add to the cost and drive inflation? Does America have the skills base to manage the onshoring of so much productive capacity? Phil Dobbie and Steve Keen discuss what will happen next in America.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The UK Labour party seems top have scored another own goal, with their inheritance tax on family farms. Previously farms were exe pt from inheritance, but that meant wealthy landowners, with massive stately homes set in sprawling estates could buy a few sheep and claim they were a farm. Hence, the government limited the exemption to properties worth less than £1 million, a threshold which Steve Keen suggests is well below a realistic level. Thresholds should only be there for th every rich, which is the US approach to inheritance. This week Phil and Steve look at ways of managing inheritance and ask whether there are better ways of ensuring we don’t see intergenerational wealth getting out of control. 

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The classical economic assumption, from the days of Adam Smith, is that we all have free will and this freedom ensures the best possible outcomes for the economy, provided those decisions are based on greed and self-interest. This week’s episode opens with a student questioning Milton Friedman about the freedom of a man who couldn’t afford to pay his electric bill, so the power company cut him off and he died. Friedman says the fault lies with friends and neighbours who didn’t step in to support him. Perhaps they were too busy acting in their own self-interest. In a far-reaching discussion Phil asks Steve whether this is a failing of economics – and, if decisions can’t be made by free-will, who makes them?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ever wondered why Britain’s roads are riddled with potholes, why the trains keep breaking down and why there aren’t enough hospital beds? Simple. Britain is not making enough capital investments. Taking the public and private sector together, it amounts to about 6 percent of GDP, well below the 22% in the US - which has its own infrastructure problems. China can spend as much as 40% of GDP on capex projects.

Steve says there are two reasons why Berit5ian’s infrastructure is failing. First, not enough engineers. There needs to be more teaching of STEM subjects in schools. But more importantly the adherence to the notion that governments need to balance budgets means capex investment is often pushed aside by more pressing short-term spending. Phil asks whether the sensible way forward is to allocate an amount of money for capex investment that sits outside the budget that the government tries to balance each year.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Steve Keen says he builds his economic model based on the motivation of three types of actors. First, the worker, who wants to maximise his or her wage. Then there’s the capitalist who wants to maximise profits. And the financiers who wants to lend out as much money as possible with the best possible returns.

How does Steve’s model change if most businesses became cooperatives. Workers would also become shareholders, also wanting to see strong profits. They might also have other considerations, such as working conditions, which will impinge on the returns won by the capitalists. Financiers might lose out as the cooperatives seek to reinvest their funds in new lines of business.

This week Phil and Steve examine how co=operatives change the model of the capitalist system and ask why we don’t see more of them.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What causes an economy to fall from a peak? Many economists will argue it’s exogenous shocks but, as Phil and Steve discuss, there’s not too many of those around. Maybe COVID was one, but even that came about because our economic system has drawn us closer to wildlife habitats.

Or is it a lack of resources? We run out of capacity to produce more, whether it’s factories, people or natural resources, like fossil fuels. Does the shortage relative to demand force prices up and its inflation that ultimately kills growth.

No, says Steve. Karl Marx had it right when he postulated that the rising pressure on wages will cut the profit that capitalists thought they would be earning, which would mean they cut investment. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

So, if that’s how economies peak, what is it that pulls hem out of a trough? And is there anything we can do to minimise the impact of business cycles, or are they simply the natural order of things?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s a sad fact that war can pay. The US arms industry is one major beneficiary. The UK is a long way behind, but it also a big supplier of armaments to the world. If governments of the world upped their defence pending to 3 percent of GDP that would see a massive increase in demand for weaponry. In Britian’s case it could re-engage the manufacturing sector and maybe even lead Britain back to a trade surplus. Phil asks Steve why we seem happy to see government spending on defence, supporting growth in the private sector. What a shame we don’t apply the same logic to helping other sectors grow – sectors that don’t involve killing people. 

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Phil tells Steve that he’s always struggled with Karl Marx’s idea of surplus value. The idea that workers work for themselves, then a bit more to create the profit for a business. Phil says, that seems like a cost-plus approach, whereas in his marketing days, it was all about creating a brand that people would pay more for. The extra value was created by the goodwill associated with the brand. How do you apply Marx’s theory of surplus value to a $1,000 Gucci handbag, for example. Steve says it still applies and explains why in this week’s episode.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Europe and the US are both recovering from the same problem – COVID and the inflation that followed. But last week the Fed in the US dropped interest rates by half a percent, with markets expecting a soft-landing for the US economy. Europe, meanwhile, is struggling, with Germany’s economy heading backwards for more than a year. So, when the big difference when both economies are coming from the same place? Steve Keen tells Phil Dobbie that the US would be struggling just as much if it restricted itself to the Maastricht rules on fiscal policy and government debt. Instead, Joe Biden spent big on the Inflation Reduction Act.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.