Late December 2021at 36 billion. So today it would be ??

A 36 billion account sitting on just interest would be on today?

The debate confuses changes in relative prices, caused by scarcity, and inflation which is caused by excess money growth

Superb presentation!

As a landlord when interest rates climbed on the mortgage I hold on the rental property I am buying, I started to raise rents on my tenants. My equity started to decline. But the higher rents show up in the inflation numbers. The underlying problem is that these things are not linear but are non-linear. It is also about silly notions of equilibrium.

Let’s start with a description of inflation. It is the imposition of liabilities on society by those with the power to set and raise prices. That forces members of society to transfer assets - money - to those price setters. It is also a form of increasing austerity. Profit push is a term for increasing liabilities in order to extract more assets from society. The the Bank of Canada signals the private banks to increase liabilities on society in an effort to suppress inflation. Then again members of society are forced to transfer further assets to the banks and other money-lenders. I have pointed out for more than 40 years that raising interest rates fuels inflation. See the problem? We increase liabilities on people without increasing their assets. Now look at balance sheets. Assets minus liabilities equal equity. So while the price setters balance sheets may be exposed to the same liabilities they have more of society’s assets to maintain or even increase their equity. The balance sheets of those transferring assets to cover the higher liabilities experience a reduction in their equity. It does not take a rocket scientist to see how inequality grows. And how both wealth and income disparity is increased by BOTH inflation and the methods to fight inflation. Some members of society have to borrow to enable the transfer of assets to meet their liabilities. That increases the money supply and the price of money or increased liabilities. Mainstream economists then blame the increased money supply for inflation when it is a response to higher prices. They have the cart before the horse. Clara is correct about the social relationships of money transfers. For a problem to be solved, it is necessary to address the variables that produce the problem. So reducing the ability of price setters to impose liabilities by raising prices and interest rates seems to be a logical solution. Related is increasing the assets of society if we are going to accept inflation which means stronger unions and wage rates based on inflation rates. When David talks about supply chain costs that is the imposition of higher prices because speculators also believe that shortages will interfere with profits. So they contribute to the imposed liabilities. The GDP deflator was very interesting. He talks about conflict which is better described as those with power imposing liabilities on those with a reduced power to transfer assets to meet those liabilities. As a labour organizer and negotiator, we were always trying to negotiate agreements to keep up with inflation. My construct describes the price puzzle and if you look at it from the balance sheet perspective the answer starts to reveal the answer to the price puzzle. Higher interest rates are the imposition of higher liabilities. In other words we wanted to increase the assets of members to meet the imposed liabilities. Since profit is the biggest factor in inflation, employers fought to prevent workers from having the assets needed to meet the liabilities imposed by the price setters’ inflation decisions.The supply chain is also made up of those with power to set and increase prices. Nobody ever asks why prices need to rise because of shortages It is the so-called law of supply and demand. But that too is a faulty construct.

To understand these phenomena it is useful to look at these things from a balance sheet perspective and power dynamics. The formulae are a waste of time and this presentation makes it all more complicated than necessary. Causes of inflation are from the ability of those able to set/increase prices as described in the graph of the blue lines and thus their power to extract more assets from society. Most of what is described in the first 12 minutes or so is a cover story. Assets minus liabilities equal equity. If my liabilities are higher and my assets do not change, my equity declines. This presentation and most analyses assume that a decline of supply or an increase in demand combine to cause inflation. That is profiteering. Very few people experienced an increase in assets they received from their employment but inflation and higher interest rates force more of those assets they do have to be transferred to the price setters. It is a myth to describe it in terms of of supply and demand. Economists love to do that but it is nonsense.

Inflation is the imposition of liabilities -prices - on us by those with the power to impose prices. The purpose is to extract or transfer more assets for the benefit of those with the power to set prices. Mythical supply and demand curves do not actually apply but demand-pull explanations are preferred to cost-push ones as the cover story. When central banks raise interest rates to allegedly fight inflation they signal the financial markets to impose more liabilities in order to transfer more assets to those financial operatives. Purely and simply, inflation is price gouging by those with the power to do so when there are or may be some shortages in supplies. They may not be real but expectations of shortages also justifies raising prices and imposing liabilities just in case shortages occur. Demand usually remains the same but the pretense is that it must be suppressed. That covers the real issue which is the facilitation of more transfers of assets to those with power to set prices. In conclusion, inflation is yet another cover story for asset transfers to the wealthy as is raising interest rates to fight inflation. By focusing on price increases or liabilities, emotions are aroused stirring up more animal spirits to justify austerity measures. The outcome of more liabilities and more asset transfers is more wealth and income inequality.

Professor Richard Werner designed Quantitative Easing as a result of an experiment following money creation,and recived criticism for the idea in spite of the achievement of maintaining flow/velocity that helps economies continue to operate and not size up.(?) The other thing a Central Bank might do is Monetary Tightening and raise interest rates, which is far from being a constructive reversal of QE. Professor Werner's suggestion for breaking up the misused bank power, to have multiple smaller Lenders may not solve the inherent problem of value in the Medium of Exchange being forever volatile, but it is simply more manageable and observable by Moderators and Regulators.. MMT Provisioning concept is similar, (design of balancing strategies from watching the behavioral policy results), and operates, when the orientation-observation resonance of perceived value is in tune with the functional value of money. Critics say what they say because the market forces are inherently volatile and forever unpredictable, a fact about which, no one is happy. (?)

I miss MPI; I lost my Twitter account after its transition to X. Soon, I will get in touch with my previous contacts.

Congratulation, Malcolm!!!!

Great debate! By the way, I cannot hear Sawyer's English. Without subtitles I cannot understand what he is saying. British English!

So, "investment" = private sector investment = profit of enterprise- and interest-seeking advance of money capital, in Marx's terms.

Under capital order, fiscal and monetary "mistakes" are, in fact, intentional class warfare through the imposition of austerity policies. Neoclassical economic policy continues to pave the way for fascism. The financialization of the economy implemented by the FIRE sector prioritizes rent-seeking to the detriment of the real economy, normalizing technofeudalism.

You are all, host, guest, questioners, so very generous to speak in this way here--to whatever audience you may gather. I wish there were a group of "you" who would let vulnerable elders like me--recently lost my late partner's SS and VA and will be competing in the "job market" and "invading capital"...point is, I don't think the advisor at my local bank will have a clue what you are talking about, so how can I use his guidance. I'll keep studying.

The book is insanely expensive. $121.67 for the paperback. You can buy used one for around $40.

Excellent 👌

The answers to Grasseli's question were simply *terrible*.

Dr. Mattei is a genius.

Dear Speakers, thanks for your wonderful talks. The details of Silvergate and FTX were much appreciated! I'd like to help reinterpret to the discussion on climate change from having a Physics background; and being on the radical left. Physicists have long brushed off "climate science" - as I can say first hand. Also, they are likely hoarding papers away from the main stream about how the IPCC can be shown to be falsifying it's findings - which is hardly the first problem with the "findings". I'll add a couple to examples to begin; and am sorry I don't have a better reference for the discussion for listeners. Firstly, the entire environment in which Physics is conducted is not available for "climate science". Papers, peer reviews, data, error analysis, (statistical error bars), conferences with the American Physical Society aren't happening in any meaningful way - which is being avoided in any dissident media (very strange! probably taking it easy on the left). Some of the basic assumptions about the IPCC temperature "data" are just plain false. I don't see their model for how a tiny air bubble trapped inside an ice sample can be used as data to generalize the entire global temperature profile with a single degree of accuracy. And, with that model, they claim to SHOW a temperature gradient dating back to the 1840's; and how it will burn the world alive with that single degree by 2100. Any seriousness taken by the gov't about climate change would BEGIN with real time atmospheric data taken by satellite, from sea level to the outer atmosphere, to calculate a running average, with the weather model (which is difficult to calculate on super computers), and probes of the solar spectrum, an analysis of atmospheric absorption, gas samples in the atmosphere at each individual radius point, for each latitude and longitude, etc.. etc.. To show that the military could have a grasp on things enough to ensure they're "doing it" safely... NOT something they take lightly. As for the money discussion, the FEAR of it all is the cheap part. Everything else is now under a nice warm blanket of military dominance. I don't claim to understand what the oil companies will do with the next IPCC, G7, etc.. but it would seem that the dissident forums really could use some "ways of helping out." The best I can offer for reading is probably about scandals around the Physics world (which are few); but there was one dissenter for the media control over Physics Today. I believe he wrote with Noam Chomsky's support. Funny part was - the CEO was also made head of the APS at some point afterwards; but this guy's book looks very good. Best, R

Thank you Louis- Phillippe on providing us with such interesting subjects and speakers. Please continue these talks we need more of them. I will be also going to your blog to gain knowledge and information.

As always, thank you LP for this wonderful session ❤

Good insights into the topic and clarity provided clearance to many of my confusions........Samra Subhani

¡Larga vida a Alain Parguez!

Nice🎉

Next time, please arrange this type of event during summer time.

😭😭

Thanks Louis, your videos are grossly underrated. Gotta get an algorithm team up and running to get this info to the masses. We require education

Kalecki is underestimated, but he is more far apart from neoclassical economics than Keynes.

Lavoie has made major contributions to post-Keynesian thought.

great video!

The audio quality of De Liso is poor enough that it gets in the way. Something to consider if you are doing a number of these to be used by undergrads. Substance is good.

Dear Professor Rochon, Thank you so much for providing the opportunity to hear from Professor Bhaduri. His reference to Ohlin’s concept of social democracy is quite remarkable. This KZbin channel is, without a doubt, the one who provides the greatest content for up and coming political economists. Is this webinar based on any specific paper from Professor Bhaduri? Cannot seem to find it online. Thanks for your help.

Thanks for organizing this awesome webinar and for uploading the recording!

In relation to 34:00 I encourage to call Bitcoin and other cryptos an 'anti-inflationary hedge'. The issue with crypros is that their existence stems from neat idea but their rise to prominence is deeply rooted in a fundamental distrust towards the mainstream financial system. Paradoxically this distrust is heightened by the neo-liberal agenda itself. E.g. some bitcoin users buy into the narrative that supporting central bank 'independence' (or to put it the other way: limiting government fiscal sovereignty) is crucial to prevent ""printing money"" and ""hyperinflation"". In short: cryptos are fueled by the misunderstanding and myths of how money works - and those myths are proliferated by neoliberal ideologues for the exactly opposite reason - to maintain the monetary status quo. So if we want to ban Bitcoin (which we eventually should), we have to also address the elephant in the room which is: "How the hyperinflation myth fueled the popularity of "government-free" cryptocurrencies".

Can you share the papers that the researchers are talkin about. Thanks.

I like your videos 😊

In trying to understand the PK notion of endogenous money, I initially read among other things a book by S. Weintraub that advocated an idea based on political economy, in which the Fed would be forced to "accommodate" money demand in part to avoid high unemployment! A couple of years later, a friend at graduate school recommended two papers by Marc Lavoie, which outlined the views of some continental schools of thought on endogeneity, some of which were the evolutionary variety. As L-P points out, the latter views are not accurate. I was still a bit confused. One key virtue of Basil's 1988 book was that he was able to use the concept of horizontalists and verticalists to quickly make clear an idea of what the argument was about and how money could be endogenous. The "true" post-Keynesian view became much less conceptually murky for me with this book and Randy Wray's roughly contemporaneous book. I wound up meeting Moore at a conference after I received my Ph.D.. He offered enthusiastic and supportive comments on a paper I had presented that took a horizontalist position. Of course, the horizontal-supply-curve idea was developed by earlier scholars, including Le Bourva and Kaldor. Yet it did not hurt to have an accessible book-length argument in English. Moore did not waver by the way about this view when he addressed the topic in a subsequent book in the mid-1990s, which the presentation does not mention. This presentation by L-P helpfully puts the horizontalist work in the context of a whole career.

Is only the first slide?

awesome

I recommend also watching prof Steve Keen on this matter.

Amazing webinar

Memorable Seminar on Michael Kalecki! 🌹🙏

What a truly brilliant lecture: succinctly clarifying so many points, raising questions that require deeper thought and suggesting valuable future directions for research. This lecture alone would make the entire conference worth it; even among so many other fascinating presentations, this really stands out. Jayati Ghosh, Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi

It was really a Grand Conference remembering Great Marxist Economist Michael Kalecki. I feel proud be the part of this webinar conference from Kathmandu. Heartily Thanks Organizers for this Grand Occasion!🌹🙏

hello nice video