Money, Banking, & Public Finance - Intro to Political Economy, Lecture8

[@wycliffeamba1279]

I very much like the lecture, the professor is rich in knowledge and expression of fact.

[@iarpit]

Professor Michael Munger's voice captivating.

[@SusanSt.James-33]

Valuable explanations.

[@user-us5gl4xj3z]

Can anyone share the lecture powerpoint if possible

[@chetanasin9150]

Thanks

[@simonsays3391]

19:00

[@amirkhan3175]

The readings are not available

[@odisiusX5]

I suddenly miss Michael Munger !

[@jackymarcel4108]

Martinez Jason Rodriguez Jason Perez Eric

[@jlwdeuce8536]

Graeber says schools don't teach about how money developed as credit and debits. This professor is saying that concept or the concept of promissory notes was developed in Italy? Is Milton Friedman the only author/economist that talks about how early societies used credits and debts? I guess my point is how can so many experts including this professor and Graeber ignore Milton Friedman's work. Makes me sad

[@dsmonington]

The first bit is ok, but he's wheezing and reading definitions - hardly what you would expect Duke tuition money would buy. By itself I guess that's fine. But most of the rest he's just reasoning from price changes or assuming causation from overly simplistic correlations. This lecture is kind of embarrassing tbh and it wouldn't pass the sniff test in university economics departments. Don't take my word for it: literally go look at Mishkin OR Cecchetti's "Economics of Money & Banking" textbooks, Mankiw's (intermediate) "Macroeconomics" textbook, or any number of substitute textbooks.

[@MultiThucydides]

I fail to see the relevance of 'wheezing'. Leaving aside this weird ad hominem remark, you mistake a broad descriptive account for a technical one. But your idea of technical excellence shows the usual dogmatic arrogance of the economics tribe. All of whom dress up maths as rigour, peddle uncritical ideology and repeat shared delusions. All the while affecting a superior attitude as if you are possessors of the only smart views. The entire machinery of financial economics, as theory or as the basis of price modelling, was proven both unrigorous, wrong and ideologically dogmatically biased by 2008. By Mankiw do you refer to that man guilty of ideological worshipping of free-market delusions, whose own students rebelled against his dogmatism and lack of pluralism? By Cecchetti do you mean the author of one of the most naive and uncritical books on finance I've seen (as someone who has used it to teach a course on the subject)? By Mishkin do you refer to a member of the Fed board who conveniently left on the eve of the crash to "revise his textbook", having repeatedly ignored the insistence of people worried about the corruption and risk-taking of the credit, financial and mortgage system? Do you mean the man who sneakily changed the title of his fawning positive 'report' on Iceland's banking system whose deregulated risky excesses blew up the entire economy? A report that Mishkin later retitled to imply it had the opposite import, on his own CV!? A report for which he was paid. And the man who when interviewed was embarrassed by that and refused to admit how much he had been paid to write this sort of puff piece, as did many other economists, to their infinite shame? You refer to textbooks which ignore the 'financialisation thesis' although it is the most powerful account of how finance has changed and became more toxic leading up to 2008, and who give virtually no attention to crucial theories of financial instability, whether its Minsky or Hayek. And they do this in favour of deluded bland accounts of the sector as if it was merely a neutral useful service to the real economy. I teach economics but with a critical independent mind because too many colleagues have the same lack of rigour and lack of rigour, of independent and critical mind, and cover it up maths in the hope people won't notice how bad the underlying theory is and be scared off from criticising them. The world is full of smug economists and ex- economics students who mistake the content of their textbooks and the smugness of their tribe for rigorous social science and are fooled by the arrogance of the most overrated, scientifically weak and ideologically distorted of all academic fields.

[@dsmonington]

@@MultiThucydides >whine about weird ad hominem >respond with tldr screed full of weird ad hominems In any case you say he's descriptive, not technical. Description of simplistic correlations doesn't merit Duke tuition.

[@MultiThucydides]

@@dsmonington Hey look man, my comments were not ad hominem, I criticized a collective position I believe you represent. Nothing about your person at all. I know nothing about you or you about me. But you seem to have nothing to say about my criticism of how mainstream economics poses as rigorous but plies us with banal idealized delusions about how business and markets are always socially good. I was provoked by YOUR personal criticism of this guy...and the pose as rigorous superior thinker...merely because you read some textbooks...all which I know and find weak. Why not just tell me why they are so good? I am not particularly interested in having a personal clash, merely dislike hearing people who've just read the odd textbook pose as if they now know how markets work when they so often don't work as the textbook says. It's time for a reckoning for economics textbook-writers and for some new thinking, and I say that as an Econ teacher, not some political hack. Feel free to debate and I will reply...I have passionate views but also listen and respect rational intelligence...or you could merely make some other rhetorical flourish...and I can sign off. I hope you dont...hell we might even have a decent discussion. Whichever way it goes...I wish you well ...I am sorry if you feel insulted by my views, they were made in certain anger but not intended to slight you personally...as a teacher I feel we need to stop the smugness of our Econ profession and learn to have more pluralism in our ideas.

[@michaellewis7861]

@@MultiThucydides the relevance of the wheezing is that it is distracting and very noticeable. He seems continuously at the edge of his breath (which it seems because he actually is). Very likely he suffers from hypertension.

[@MikaJarvi86]

No more burgers.

[@maxr1826]

"originally there was barter" source? i thought this was an ivy league school. bartering is a biproduct of a monetary policy and does not exist in nature where humans give freely to one another. a failure to study basic anthropology, a failure to understand the human, is a failire to understand economics.

[@maxr1826]

@A. Marx That's not how economics works at all. Before currency, you have gifting not bartering.

[@tamaskakabadze7898]

I do not understand how people traded before money if barter followed the invention of money.What was the system before money was invented?Can you please explain this to me?I googled it and now I am more confused.

[@maxr1826]

@@tamaskakabadze7898 How about pick up an anthropology book and have an expert tell you instead. There was no system. It was about debt and unwritten social contracts. Even physical currency is a representation of debt.

[@tamaskakabadze7898]

@@maxr1826 Thank you for the reply.I have one more question.Next year I shall be attending my local university and will be taking economics courses as well.Do you have any advice as to how I decide which sources are reputable and what to trust during my courses of economics study?Maybe some economist in particular I ought to read or some research papers I need to follow?Please if you can advise me something,I will be very glad.

[@ИринаКим-ъ5ч]

Thomas Matthew Wilson Donna Thompson Jason

[@apextamang2009]

RIP . THE subject ecomomics being religion . If u dont belive in one religion then u start offending people. I found his lecture good and ok. But people here offending other i really rude . I bet the people who are offending the lecturere are way worst who has litte knowledge Note little knowledge are dangerous

[@kadeqian9391]

this is so bad, please don't take this seriously. Assuming that industrial output is 1:1 correlated to price stability is insanity, he should not present his bias toward gold standard and linking to economic growth as factual, gold standard is inherently deflationary, growth of the gold reserve will cap growth of the real economy else you get price deflation, which discourages investment and consumption, and subsequently causes economy into stagnation or deflationary sprial. Also most money in circulation is bank credit money, only 3% is state money (bank of England study), therefore the expansion and contraction of the money has more to do with household and corporate borrowing than government spending, since US government is spending so little. Inflation is the outcome of demand hitting or exceeding productive capacity, and no, FED printing money does not and could not contribute to inflation if households don't borrow to fuel consumption (this is demand pulled inflation), and given in US unions are decimated and non-existent, wage spiral won't occur either, and that solves the cost pushed inflation. So Nein! disappointing level of lecture quality from Duke.

[@abdelrahmansalah4388]

You have reached the height of ignorance, John Maynard Keynes is very proud of you, he's teachings have spread to bring the people to the level of your ignorance.

[@teddyj.3198]

About as good as an Austrian apologist could be in terms of quality

[@odisiusX5]

Can’t follow this guy’s lectures…he speaks too fast…he seems too in a hurry to end the lecture…This sounds like a fast text reading rather than a lecture…it lacks some pedagogical skills…

[@chetanasin9150]

Thanks