The Austerity Delusion - Mark Blyth
2024 ж. 3 Мам.
47 995 Рет қаралды
We apologise for the sound quality on this video. There were problems with the feed at this event.
Political economist and KZhead sensation Mark Blyth argues that austerity policies are downright dangerous: they reward the architects of the crisis, create political instability and income inequality and almost always lead to low growth.
SUBSCRIBE to our channel!
Follow the RSA on Twitter: / rsaevents
Like RSA Events on Facebook: / rsaeventsoff. .
Listen to RSA podcasts: / the_rsa
See RSA Events behind the scenes: / rsa_events
I've just learnt more about life in 22 minutes than I ever have in 53 years...well, economically speaking! I'm very grateful that this was posted. Thanks very much Mark!
"We know where the money is and we're coming for it." Absolutely 👍
Wow I know very little but this has made something complex comprehensible to me !
Occasionally I wish I weren't dumb. I mean, it's all good and fun to be blissfully ignorant, enjoying my TV shows and whatnot. But occasionally I kind of get this urge to understand what people like Blyth are talking about. Just a gut feeling.
bruh same and its alway strangely depressing after figuring it out
will listen again good explanation
Fascinating! Amazing! What a brain! Thank you Mark
This guy does a good job of explaining why "Anarcho-Capitalism," is an inherent contradiction in terms. Capitalism cannot survive without a strong state, because without a strong state, you can't enforce property rights.
Great stuff. Be even better if Prof. Blyth would slow down a bit. He speaks at 78 rpm; I can listen and absorb only at 33
With those I find 2 quick/ slow u can go into yr phone options 2 a) read subtitles b) speed up/slow down speech.... Or - what I am 2 dumb not 2 do esp with tricky bits-stop, take notes, replay every few mins- Or most other Professor Blyth's vids r slower...
He's Scottish, we all talk at that speed. :)
"And that's the next Act" I love it!
No problem, keep on spreading truth =]
Damn this video is such a gem
RSA, if you are listening: Great talk. Fantastic speaker. Crap audio quality.Solution? Invite him back for another talk.
Nice
Immediate backtrack, he tackles Euro a min later, & this is pure gold with regards to how Economics works. The title is a tad misleading, he means Austerity in the Euro, and the Euro is the problem for Europe.
i mean, the euro is the force multiplier for the problem of austerity. all the other cases (uk, usa, japan) who tried it also failed and injured their own economies on it. its just that the euro hemmed in european policy so much that they "squeeze ever harder and pray"
Good talk, the podcast under 'about' is well worth a listen (jump to 22 minutes) :)
Exactly, the important parts to this unlock the non-solutions or uninformative remarks from supports of the modern day "left" and "right".
Slow down the audio speed solution: Click the Cog Wheel in the lower right hand side of the YT Screen. Click Speed. .75 works well but there's audio degradation. You can also turn on Subtitles, slow down to .5 and turn the audio off and just read his commentary slowly. Not perfect, but may be helpful to some. Personally I just re-listen to Blyths many lectures as for me he's pure gold and worth my time.
Ta very much, luv.👍
Get some of your grad students to make a continuous slide show for this talk and it would help. Continuous graphics has been RSA's strong point after all.
I am aware of what happened in Zimbabwe. I didn't choose to elucidate it in my previous comment, but I hold the view that private debt = personal choice (voluntary) and personal risk, but public debt = collective choice or entirely unchosen (force), and a systemic risk. Printed money is also inherently unsound. I would advocate at the very least not allowing public debt, ideally though, abolishing government monopoly on our most important commodity - they always sell us out to banksters.
Given his last comments about Tax Havens I'd say it's more: WE'RE FUCKED!! WE'RE FUCKED!! WE'RE FUCKED!! EAT THE RICH!!
Good talk, but why does nobody ever mention that there would be no burden of debt if we issued sound currency ourselves instead of borrowing it at interest from private interests? A country in debt = a country that is owned by bankers.
gee, thanks.
Oh god yes! Don't get me wrong, I absolutely loved this video. Thank heavens for people smarter than and with more information than me, especially in areas as woefully complicated as this. I was just turning my malaise and feelings of dread over the economy into parody is all.
It is possible to improve the audio as it is just clipping. Normalisation and EQ should make it sound much better.
The substance is not that we're fucked, but how and why.
Not sure what you mean (apart from general human self-interest) but if you mean stopping the practice of lending at interest within a sound money system, the problem with that is you create a situation where nobody wants to invest. So only people who already have capital can start businesses. Other obvious alternatives are fiat money (invisible theft from the poor) and socialism (doing away with price signals and not knowing when you have too many screws and not enough bread. Any other ideas?
So what we basically have is a type of economic warfare. Where in we do not have countries battling we have regions of the planet battling and in the long run whoever holds the most debt at the end loses. And the average person works in economic servitude just to keep him/her self and their family alive.
What will happen faster - we drain the tax havens, or the Boomer generation's pensions and home equity is siphoned off to care firms whose parent companies are based in... tax havens? Do profits simply get hidden somewhere else, like the UK & US property markets, or does a new type of tax haven get invented? And how long does it take for all this money to go round, and where does it end up? Because I can't see it being redistributed equitably, given humanity's past record on that.
Less growth, investment and stability in the economy
That was astoundingly dense in insight. I think I'll do myself a favour and go read the book (Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea) instead of the haemorrhagic crapflood that will inevitably get shat into the comments section.
In that case, I am in complete agreement with you. I apologize for misconstruing your comment.
Gosh
Because what you seem to be referring to as "sound currency" is only endorsed by people who deny or literally do not understand the basic fundamentals of modern economics. A country in debt = a country that owes money to lenders. The degree of debt is what determines the ownership, not the form of currency in which it is held.
If it were simply a case of say, China holding a countries' debt, that would be more legitimate from a monetary standpoint (if not from a libertarian/'social contract' standpoint). Debt between parties is not the problem. The main problem is that when the currency issuance itself is based on debt, the only possible result is collapse.
Maybe we should let it blow up
The view that Mark Blyth puts forward in his statement at 7:15 onward about the cuts in government expenditure having to result in increasing debt but he does not pursue the issue in relation to a balance of government expenditure to income. This balance is required because to do otherwise requires credit expansion which increases the interest payments by the private sector to pay for the increased debt through their taxation which they must do every year. This situation of increased debt also results in a government which is reluctant to allow interest rates to rise to either curb other variables in the economy which may be desirable since the need to keep them low becomes even more desirable. So if government keeps increasing the expansion of debt through money creation to pay for deficits that leads to a path of no return particularly in a fiat money situation. Blyth also ignores the facts of what happened in the 19th century and then the early and mid parts of the 20th century there was a gold backed currency in operation which limited the expansion of the money supply by governments. That is Not the situation now where governments and sovereign currency expanders are not restricted by a gold backing in creating debts. There was also an increase in efficiency of industry in the 19th century as aresult of a number of important wide reaching technical developments. Such things as the use and development of steam engines, the Bessemer steel process, rail transport, textile machines and the expansion of markets were all instrumental in increasing wealth overall. To run a deficit by 'borrowing' is not the same it was in the 19th century. The modern term is applied to monetary creation whereas it was debt by issuance of bonds and other loans. Actual monetary expansion by printing was just made more difficult than it is today (and practiced widely) when this restraint of a backing was in place. Another assumptions he makes which is not correct is that a growing money supply results in increased growth of the economy and that a decrease in government expenditure as a result of a deficit cut results in a decrease in growth. This view is countered by the evidence of what happened in the USA after WW2 where government expenditure was cut by 50% and despite the Keynsian predictions the economy surged. To quote Blyth himself he is "flatly factually Wrong !! " Finally to say that Apple has it's money in Switzerland and infer that others have is plainly stupid since any credits (investments) that people have in other countries supports the value of their own country s' currency. Why - since to repay that money the foreign money holders have to obtain the currency of the country to where it is owed to pay interest on it or return it when called upon. That is why investment overseas strengthens the currency of the lender. That is why the need to obtain a currency such as the US dollar which is the defacto world curency makes it more valuable.
There are no "buts" about the cut. Yes, there were many enetering the workforce after returning from overseas and there was a huge reduction in unemployment at thes ame time time. Th overwhelming facts are there was a reduction in unemployment which was contrary to what Keynesian economists were saying would happen AND an increase in output which happened despite governemnt cuts of 50%. That too was contrary to what Keynsians were saying. Yes, business expanded as it will in the absence of increases in government expenditure.
Still, that was all because of the war. Everybody had learnt something that they wanted to put to good use. Your guys became the greatest generation, and droves of women had learnt what it meant to be self-sufficient when carrying the war economy. I'm from Austria, and I know that in the postwar years, before the end of the occupation, my grandparents were just trying to forget - and rebuild. Using government funds btw. Your government funds, thx to Mr. Marshall. It's all about contruction jobs anyway.
Yes, the Marshall plan was a big boost to the German and Austrian region as far as it lasted. That was an injection of money from outside of the European economy unlike what an internal government of an economy can do by more money cretion. That is simply because a government of an economy is part of the same internal economy. It's just like taking money from one of your pockets and putting it in another does not make you wealthier. It only makes one pocket wealthier and the other poorer. .
@@Rob-fx2dw Wasn't most of that growth do to the fact we exported huge amounts of products to other countries around the world since most of them had lost huge portions of there infrastructure? They had to repair their economies so we had a monopoly on the rest of the world for nearly twenty years. The rest of the world got our goods, we got their money which isn't the way the US runs now. We import other peoples goods and have a mostly service based economy instead of production based one.
parker469a. That was true to an extent but the investments the US made in other countries was also a big part of the reason that growth of the economy occurred. Injections of capital into those economies and the returns made were a huge factor. Economies such as Japan where huge capital inflow was provided and a resultant growth in their own capacity which had been damaged by war meant that they could sell and grow internally and externally. This was external capital inflow and not growth of their money base from their own deficits. The advantages the US had were it's new level of industrial might also resulted from an increased worker participation with far more women in the workplace who had been encouraged to get paying jobs by the lack of males during the loss of 13 million personnel who were located overseas in WW2. Deficits that had been in the tens of percent during WW2 were reduced by up to 100%. The bonus on top of this was the Breton Woods agreement of western countries to make the US dollar the world reserve currency which gave a big boost to US lending institutions . Whatever happened in the late 1940's and 1950's it was not deficits that made growth because deficits only move the capacity to pay for goods from one organisation to another or from one person to another by decreasing the capacity to pay of one party or the other by a corresponding amount.
Since sound ain't that good, subtitles would be welcomed.
ei pal Dundonian in the house
So basically prosperity can only happen as a result of exploitation.
Issuing sound currency is an oxymoron in this context. Governments want to spend more than they take in taxes. They can either borrow it with the existing system, or they can print it. You appear to be advocating that they simply print and avoid the debt. That's exactly what they did in Zimbabwe. Look it up.
Haha ok, completely understandable. The most frustrating thing about this video is the realization that despite their supposed expertise, they don't know what the hell they're doing, but since economics is not my field, all I can do is hope that they get their shit together.
20:30
we do live in a finite planet anyways.
No, that's not what I was suggesting at all. I'm not a Gold Standard advocate but I will say - there's a difference between deflation resulting from falling commodity prices and developing more efficient production techniques, and from a fall in consumer purchasing power. One thing I do believe is we should get government out of money. I've tried to be constructive and add to the conversation, you have tried to lump me into a category and ignored my question of what better ideas you'd support.
Pretty much nailed it, with a gazillion nails (he could've used fewer words, like this: If you lose control of money sovereignty, you're f__ked.) #LearnMMT Read "Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economics": www.moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf
I almost wonder if we have to go to a more radical route when dealing with the parasites of Austrian economics/ libertarianism.
No. There was nothing in this talk, that would suggest that.
At least he's honest about his Generational White Privilege.
I like Blyth, but he needs to quit wearing magician suits to events
Who are you to tell him how to dress?
jerk chicken, I love Blyth and his amazing insight, but your comment was absolutely hilarious. Also reminds me of the wedding singer in “Old School.”
I'd be happier if the audio production on a single one of his vids wasn't a dumpster fire.
How about he gets to dress like a magician, but this obliges him to do some magic tricks as well as the economics lecture?
Im ready to invade Luxembourg, lads.
In one comment you make a statement about the speaker "ignoring nearly infallible logical evidence" and in the other comment you equate decreasing income inequality with all labour being rewarded equally. That's pretty massive logical slip from you and makes one wonder about the quality of what you think is nearly infallible.
Mark needs to speak more slowly so that we have time to follow. We need time to think about what he is saying while he is saying it. That way we can understand. But at the speed he talks most of us don't have the time to process what he is saying and therefore we forget large parts of it and don't understand the rest.
Watch it five more times and it will start to sink in. Also watch his other videos. It will help to fill in some of the gaps. Each one even on the same subject has completely different stuff plus the Q&A sections that are almost more worthwhile (sometimes) then his regular speech.
He also didn't really mention the fact that said growth was attributable to the English rape of India, among other countries. The problem with the neo-colonialist model, is that we've since run out of countries which they can conquer and pillage.
I like a flat tax .. and #socialdemocracy
+ADDAM B A Flat Tax? No way, the road to serfdom for the little people. The US Constitution protects the citizenry, and provides for two classes of taxes only. Tax the financial transactions at the exchange markets, tax the FIRE sector, and the super rentiers who own property and depreciate its value through the prevailing accounting standards and methods, a legalized fiction reporting. The present international, unpayable debt, monetary financial system, centered in the trans-Atlantic, is in disintegration and can only operate the collapse of the population's physical economy, furthering Tax evasion for the 1%, Usury and speculation in every sector , and employing threats of coercion and assassination on the political leadership. A complete overhaul of the financial system is due, a new system of political economy, jettisoning the ideology of 'there's not enough to go around', reviving capital investments for enhancing and expanding the population's physical economy, referencing Alexander Hamilton, Henry Carey, Abraham Lincoln, FDR and JFK.
i feel those two are mutually exclusive.
He’s on Adderall
This. The yo-yoing QE game is untenable.
He still considers himself a capitalism fan?? How?! confusedjackiechan.jpeg
Guy makes so many logical and historical errors it's sickening he's a professor. Nice cherry picking smith and Locke, ignoring the facts of what caused the Great Depression and completely ignore the fact that reducing gov spending, while keeping all else equal will reduce debt. Furthermore ignoring nearly infallible logical evidence showing why monetarism causes bubbles by incentivizing savers to save less thus
Did you even listen to the video, this guy knows a lot about Economic/Social history and how it has had an effect on one another. You cannot condense every aspect of the history of Economics, Socialism, Elitism and Capitalism into a 22 minute talk. Check out other videos and lectures he has done, they cover what you mentioned he missed or glossed over. Mark Blyth stated that as a lecturer and researcher/academic he tries not to personalise or have a bias during research which is difficult being a human being, he is very much data driven but analysis of data is taken into context of who collected it, the study group, who commisioned the study/data set collection, their agenda/scope and how to interpret it meaningfully. All in all everyone has their critics, this is healthy but try and form your opinion from a few lectures by Mr Blyth. Check out the American Economics Professor Michael Hudson, really informative guy who cits through the jingo and double speak.
One of the problems with UK and austerity is that the 'Left' misunderstand living within ones means, and profligate spending that achieves nothing. UK Economy needs balance of payments 'balancing', this requires more manufacturing and services, not more consumer spending, but it is the latter that is always promoted. This merely sucks in more imports and increases trading deficit, which ends up with UK companies being sold overseas. One point would be to re-vamp Town & Country plan act 1947 and allow Cities to grow, not try building houses in the Country as at present, this will increase house building (Government & private sector), relieving the housing shortage but also 'not' sucking in huge amounts of imports.
except, businesses are not going to expand production when people don't have any money to buy their product. That is supply side economics which doesn't work
FirebirdCamaro1220 that has been the problem with economics in general. at least in western capitalist societies... as they look for economics who push the ideas that will get their policies pushed. this is why we still have supply side economics being pushed, just under a different name. ideas that one doesn't agree with can be covered up as they can control who gets hired even at private universities by giving money to them. you end up with economist who lack the tools to solve a crisis that shouldn't happen under their models but happens anyways.
Too much gaiiinnnnn
Anyone who advocates it is not a critical thinker. Decreasing income inequality = increasing labor value inequality. Bottom line is not all work is valued the same and so why should it be rewarded equally?
While his version of austerity might not work, his suggestion that state spending will is based on flawed history. England prospered after the 1700's because she was happily helping herself to the raw materials (including human slaves) of the third world. As there are no more victims to be had on this planet, the corresponding solution would be to venture out to other planets.
I must add that as an American, I totally disapprove of my government doing the same in the Middle East or anywhere else!
+Wendy Tedder You have it wrong about the slavery issue. Africa was a haven for slavery for many years before the European countries traded with them and established trading ports. The wealth of African economies was very low when compared with Europeans for hundreds of years before the period you are talking about. Most had no written language and lived on little other than tribal lands. Evidence of their benefit from europeans trading is their population numbers were not increasing anywhere like they subsequently increased after contact and trade with Europeans. Their knowledge of sciences was very primitive and lacked any continuity since there was a lack of infrastructure. If most of Africa (other than the north) was anything else other than poor then why did the slaves sold by their own people end up in a very much better situation in the US than they did in Africa? Most slaves sold to Europe and the US had a family history of slavery going back many generations. The place was dominated by tribes that stole from and masscred others as a way of life. Have you never heard of the Zulu tribe and others.
+Rob Mews you're completely inaccurate in your description of Africa's history and this is be your comments come directly from the colonial justification of their actions in Africa. Africa had functioning societies, trade and wealth before the French and British arrived. SSA traded with the north and the Arab states. West Africa had metallurgy, which is evidenced in the bronze works of the old Bini Kingdom. Timbuktu, in modern day Mali hosted one of the oldest libraries. Slaves that were brought to the US didn't enjoy a better standard of living than their brothers back home. Even till today, many African Americans grow up disadvantaged because they have to live in a society that never lets them forget the dehumanizing legacy of slavery, whereas Africans in Africa don't suffer from this psychological disadvantage. Poor and savage tribes? Surely you're referring to the continent that gave the world 2 wars in a space of 20 years, brutally tortured and killed their counter because they happened to profess a religion other than Christianity, are unrepentantly fascists and racist. Surely the most savage tribes can be found in Europe. However, even if your claim were true, it doesn't change the fact that the British state grew on the backs of oppressed occupied territories, and they old their wealth to the existence of the empire. Europe is in decline because thankfully, they can no longer rape and pillage foriegn lands to prosperity. The fastest growing economies are in Africa, and they achieved this growth by good, old-fashioned trade, despite inheriting dubiously formed colonial states and all the challenges that come with that. Yes, of course there's tribal differences and some conflict. There's poverty and inequality. Yet, no African state has responded to that by nativism or fascism. I do agree with you on one very important point, Africa is not Europe, and thank God for that.
Did I say Savage tribes ? No. It is your misreading of what I said. Was there a modern Infrastructure like had been built in the European sphere. Were there roads and bridges and Canals like Europe had? No ? Were there ships capable of crossing oceans? No Were ther Libraries ? No Was there great scientific progress like there had been in Europe and China? No. Were there witten records even manuscripts and later the printing press ? No.
+Rob Mews Yes there all the things you mention except for ships. The reason there were no ships was because African sociéties traded with their Northern neighbours and simply didn't build sea faring ships.
Scaw-ish AXE-int. Kewl.
Isn't austerity all about reducing the deficit rather than debt? Even if debt increases, as long as you reduce the deficit you're heading in the right direction, otherwise you will never be in a position to reduce the debt.
No debt means the financial system would collapse. One mans debt is another mans asset in the business and financial world. Debt is only a black hole when financial institutions are over leveraged, which was caused by deregulation pushed by the greedy financial sector to get what it wants. It wants totally free markets with little to no regulation so capital can be moved freely around the world by the super rich. This is why everyone in the west is getting poorer, capital has taken flight to cheap labour poorly regulated countries. These same financiers and super rich also pit puppets in government as they are the ones who fund campaigns, also lobbying interests dont help when nobody lobbies for the common man. The system is rigged, we are heading into a parasitic rentier economy in the west, our politics is run by charlatins and our vorporations run by self jnterested crooks. The common man is too busy looking for work or working to keep his/her head above water to fight these tyrants. The west is trully in trouble if we do not challenge these chancers.
2 mins into vid & he has lost plot, the problem is the Euro & he has failed to say this is the ';core' problem, the Bond market is a side issue.
Speak slower please