An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
I found this presentation difficult to follow. And the intro in the audio kinda freaked me out. If it can be done in a sentence or two, what does he see as the cause of the 70s economic bust if not oil?
Spadijer provides pretty good evidence based on data that the the economic crisis was not inflation-driven by petro prices but rather Ponzi finance that drove up property prices to unsustainable levels, very similar to this crisis. Examining the history of crises, Spadijer finds that they are the result of inflated assets especially real property. The presentation is worth studying. Lots of good stuff in there. from George, Schumpeter, and Schumpeter's student Hyman Minsky, for instance. Spadijer makes the connections and shows similarities of analysis.
Thx Tom, will revisit and put more effort in this time.Another question if you are so inclined: No economic school can deny the economic boom of WWII, but predictably, each interpret it differently.To me, it's always been an obvious vindication of Keynesianism, and the positive impact massive gov spending into a depressed economy can have.Yes, gov spending dropped off significantly after the war. I see that as nothing more than the result of sectoral balances management. But some point to the fact that the success of the US economy after the war had everything to do with the destruction of most developed nations. Ie, last man standing. High-level thoughts on that last point?
Destructive wars fuel an ensuing boom in reconstruction and meeting pent-up demand. Lend lease and the Marshall Plan weren't all just the US being the good guy. There was a lot of national interest involved, too.BTW, the last slide (44 of 44) of Spadijer's presentation is a good summation.
Ps Minor point: His name is spelt "Steven", not Stephen (i.e. Steven Spadijer) - might help those who google his work.
Post a Comment