Professor L. Randall Wray lecture on the post-Keynesian critique of neo-classical economics

[@trixn4285]

Great Videos. I've seen Warren in the other Video as well as this one and both are really valuable free education about economy. Thank you very much for uploading it.

[@ChannelMath]

I suspect that some "classical" economists were incentivized to create a theory assuming and explaining how the servant is in fact equal to the employer, despite appearances.

[@mreconomics1125]

Very clear, excellent stuff, very important In particular part on effective demand, and the affect of wage changes

[@j.brightlee3314]

There's some noisy sound like door keeps opening and closing, and it ruins this lecture.

[@brodyalden]

Interesting, compelling lecture. Thanks for sharing it.

[@Achrononmaster]

@1:25:00 "...empirical observation never changes an economists theory..." is true-ish for many academic economists. But I would not criticize Keynes for failing to appreciate this, he probably did appreciate it. Keynes was attempting a General Theory after all, and that does rely on empirical observations, as does MMT --- you have to look at the legal and institutional reality of monetary operations and production organization. So I do not see it as a criticism of Keynes' GT, it is a criticism of the politics of academia that Keynes might have better exploited to make sure the GT was not bastardized. To use an analogy, if Einstein had written GR without using the empirical observation the speed of light in vacuum is a universal constant, but instead written GR to allow for a variable speed of light, he'd still have a correct theory (since a user of the theory could always fix the speed of light later), but it'd be horribly awkward. In any case, Keynes was assuming fixed exchange rates, so his was _not_ a General Theory of employment. MMT fixes that and is the _proper general theory_ of monetary macroeconomics.

[@ChannelMath]

Even if the government deficit - crowding out theory at 41:00 were correct, the judgement of it being "bad" rests at least on the assumption that the government is worse at investing than the private sector. Which is obviously not necessarily the case. It can't break the whole theory if we just call the government a "security corporation" and pretend it's in the private sector, right? but people just assume there must be a loss in the gov sector, even when there is a demonstrably more efficient government program.

[@giovannirizzo8890]

Great video

[@ChannelMath]

"supply creates its own demand"? Am I the only one to whom every version of Say's Law sounds like a Zen Koan?

[@haveaseatplease]

The artifact noises in the background ruin this interesting lecture.