PLENARY 7 - SHORT-TERM POLITICS VERSUS LONG-TERM RETURNS - LESSONS FROM HISTORY
2024 ж. 23 Мам.
119 573 Рет қаралды
What does political uncertainty mean for long-term investors? Do events like Brexit and the wild card of Trump’s presidential candidacy mean we have to think differently about the way we invest? Leading political economist and international author, Professor Mark Blyth, will share his views on:
- Why understanding the past is an unavoidable part of planning for the future
- How to ‘price’ current politics if you are a long-term investor
- Where to find upside if ‘long and low’ in terms of interest rates and inflation is here to stay
Speaker:
Mark Blyth, Eastman Professor of Political Economy - The Watson Institute for International Affairs, Brown University (USA)
Chair:
Michael Strachan, Investment Specialist
Gary's outsourced life of growing frustration: He goes from $30/hr manufacturing in 1991 to $15/hr call center to $11/hr Walmart employment while reading about the rise of automation and replacement of his job-"that's an incredibly powerful self-understanding and self-narrative" I'd agree.. and you absolutely nailed it.
And absolutely to anyone even just slightly affluent is an self evident, overtly obvious, no shit dip shit explanation, it demonstrates that we already know, we just need someone to talk us out of our denial and Stockholm Syndrome.
@@jmitterii2 That's mostly because they've been indoctrinated to erroneously think, not only that a meritocracy is a good idea, but that we've actually got one in this country and if you're not successful it's because you're a lazy, shiftless loser-- after all, they've gotten their college degrees (mostly before the prices went up). It allows them to feel superior, when in fact, they're the most clueless of all. And they're stuck there, because to buy into reality, they'd have to admit that they got to where they were out of mostly luck, not because they deserved it, and that's just too terrible of a fact to face. But I love the way Blyth puts it here-- "they have no ambition." That's because they're happy with the way things are, and eff anyone who isn't, the only thing they're really interested in #Resisting, is change.
His basic point is correct, but his facts are wrong. They never made cars in Gary, Indiana, they made and still make steel. During the time period he’s talking about USS modernized their steel mills resulting in the closure of steel mills in Pittsburgh and other regions of the country. At one time the steel mills in Gary, Indiana employed over 60,000 people, after they started modernizing them the number of employees steadily dropped to the point that fewer than ten thousand employees work there now. The Gary mills are the most efficient steel mills in the world and they will always make steel there, as your can’t out source the confluence of Great Lakes shipping, Minnesota iron ore and cheap Indiana coal. Anderson, Indiana would have been a better choice of city to illustrate his point, but I agree he’s a brilliant guy.1
@@andygettelfinger438 I think he chose Gary for two reasons: One: It is in FAR worse shape economically than Anderson, which is still a fairly prosperous small city. Two: Gary is well known worldwide for losing half its population and descending into a giant ghetto that had, at once time, the highest murder rate in the United States. Anderson is not a city most people outside Indiana have heard of...and as I mentioned, Anderson does not have Gary's economic or social problems. I'm from Fort Wayne, so I'm pretty knowledgeable about Indiana's economy.
Astonishing clarity - why is this guy not better known in the UK?
"A buncha people sold stuff, a buncha people bought stuff!" Great burn!
Mark Blyth is fking brilliant! I'm really beginning to like this guy.
Jeremy Chase - Agreed, he really is very astute, and I think he makes some very insightful comments. Also, he expresses complex ideas in a very humble way for the lay people.
+
@@debclato5984 And he does it without being partisan about it. He points out just how the middle & working class got left behind thanks to globalism, and that it is a mistake to consider the rise of Trump and Brexit type populism as simply racism (though there certainly is some) the fact is there is populism on the left with Sanders, Corbyn, Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain etc. I look for his talks and articles, he does have a rather irregular podcast (Mark & Carrie).
At 22:06 his Helicopter drop is Andrew Yang's Universal Basic income. 2 years ahead of the time.
@@mr7wi Mark is actually not in favour of a universal basic income (although he may be for Helicopter Drops) -- "In Europe capitalism seems no longer able to guarantee full employment. Can a universal basic income, like the one supported by the Five Star Movement in Italy, represent a credible solution to the problem of guaranteeing everybody a revenue? I think that universal basic income is a bad idea because it presumes that people are redundant. It is like saying that we no longer need the talents that they have. We are buying into a lot of extremely dubious reasoning about the future being populated by robots. It is almost like a science-fiction narrative of a future that will probably never come to pass. And at the end of the day, like many Italians, I am a Catholic and the one thing that we Catholics understand is that the devil gets his chance when the hands of people are idle. I do not see how any country benefits by saying to a third of its population “you are no longer needed”. And we would do this in a world in which the biggest threat that we all face is climate change, which is going to require massive public investment in climate change adaptation and mitigation, which could create literally millions of jobs? I just find absolutely laughable the notion that there is an end of work.'" FROM this interview. ytali.com/2019/01/18/europe-economic-government-interview-mark-blyth/
Mark Blyth is truly the Yoda of Economics. The way he is able to break down "Complex" systems is simply Brilliant. I wish I was at Brown, I would of love to take his class.
Unfortunately, as fantastic as he otherwise is, he is wrong about innovation and turning those "dead assets" into something productive; He himself has recognized - and is more subject to the fact than he thinks - that as a Leftie he has this naíve over-faith in the efficacy of the redistributive system and its capacity for creating productive output (obviously as a result of his class travel story from Dundee to Providence). Thinking of his "So Can We Have It All" talk here for some pointers. The "US vs. Germany" story is only useful as a perspective from a highly contemporaneous and backwards-looking macro investing perspective, i.e. "where do you usefully put the money if you have no brains or understanding of the subject yourself, and you're just playing probabilities into a structured product." It's not wrong per se; but it's useless as any sort of guidance with a view to actual creativity - which is the force that _must_ be focused on somewhere, since it's what actually drives the whole economy. And we're coming up shorter and shorter for it. We're on the second decade of stagnated and/or even _declining_ TFP, under the broad Neoliberal/Left Regime in the West; we're not just paying to keep the wheels turning nowadays, but most of what we're paying is being siphoned at some point to the side to make us _worse_ than what we were. Innovation, and particularly the market-expanding and "leapfrogging" effectivizing kind, basically comes from individuals. And only that. The US only manages to produce those big consolidated leaps because the unis and workshops have all the money, and so they can snap up the creative engineers and aggressively buy them out; It's not that Lockheed Martin is that much better at getting the results. They just have all the CNCs and vacuum chambers. But however much the fine details need specialist knowledge to work out in cases, you need a Whipple, a Tesla, a Faraday, to come up with the original idea in the first place - and then take charge and direct things, since they're the ones who've proven themselves capable of simultaneous creative _and_ systematic thinking. But that is not happening now. And mark my words, "Stakeholder Capitalism" will bring it from a painful and grinding slog, all the way down into an infighting toxic hatefest. And then fail. This is the Domination Problem. Financial domination is in fact lesser and _less_ oppressive or "evil" than sociopolitical domination; because you can vote and move with your wallet to get out from under the former. But the latter, not so much - especially in a globalized and insta-media type of world. It doesn't matter how much you get _back_ from the redistributive system; if the state, the group, the narrative, the Church, have their fingers on a majority of your income stream such that you have to toe the line and right yourself in the fold and pay the dues to the Boomers and their pension funds, the union paper-pushers, and the fatpile chain-smoking balcony-mom social workers or middle-grade teachers who are on housing support and lie to their sons about their fathers and shove them full of pills... Well, then you're screwed. They have their fingers on the money, their hold on the law and the freeze on social mobility, and thus you can put the money you get back to "work" - but only within their constraints, within which it isn't even clear that innovation can happen. And if you want to actually get _results,_ you need to play their social game and carry people who hate and deride and work against you at every turn. Then anyone who is smart enough to do innovation, is also pretty much by definition smart enough to get that equation after a while, and will often decide to quit even before they've started; because not only is the probability of success slim, but you've now even turned the prospect of success against _itself,_ so that it's not even worth it. And so it's no wonder that family formation is down, Millennials are career-shocked and adding to their own apparent misery, and we've got a _second_ generation of slog-workers and resentful video gamers coming up now. Because while the bankers and politicos have _absolutely_ been behaving absolutely idiotically and toxically self-interestedly at the top, they're not the ones who've moralized about it and kept the system stagnant and immobile for the sake of "security" and _then_ rationalized and contrived hateful narratives and misrepresentations and mid-wit social terrorism. It's the putative "Left" who've hated on their own societies and their own sons. Who've corrupted and drained their own institutions and poisoned their own societies with "idealist" narratives because they somehow believe that "social power" can be used to correct our broken setup - as though it weren't in fact _less_ correlated to real results and real productivity than even our busted economical system. While he is a wizard at the economics and specifically accurate on the geopolitics, Blyth also really has idiot opinions on how "the Right" think, and cannot into the mindset or cancel out his prevailing imago and impressions regarding how the thoughts go in the heads of the Scum Class. And largely, he discounts the fact that there's a lot of us who might be precisely those effectivizing inventors - and that we may hate the "caring" Left way, way more than even the slimy, disgusting corpos to the Right. For good reasons.
Love this guy. The accent, the humor, the brilliance. He needs to lead a war, shouting, "FREEDOM!" I'd be right behind him.
Dressed in a kilt.
He freely admits he sounds exactly like shrek. So it would be shrek leading a war haha.
Mark 'Very simple way of thinking about this' Blyth
"40 Million Americans don't pay any taxes. Yes, because they don't have any money!" That's it, the best line of the talk. ROTFLMAO!
indeed.
31:30 He called it.
Trump was the only one talking about the poor and middle class. But he won't do anything about it. He will continue what enriches him and those like him.
Nerdy, while that is true, it still remains he was the only one who talked about it, hence why he won. (Not saying he's going to do anything but people are desperate and knew their lives weren't going to improve with another status quo politician)
The Nerdy Negro no Sanders was but media made sure no one hear him.
Icearchon True , their lives weren't going to improve, but now they will get worse. They kicked the beast in the foot but shot themselves in the face. Trump is their nightmare while they thought it was just a dream...
Suel Koka, I agree with your general statement. I just wish neoliberal/establishment Democrats would recognize they, to a large degree, are the reason Trump won, but they are taking all the wrong conclusions from his victory and doubling down on losing strategies.
He nailed the Trump narrative, that's for sure
Daym this has aged well.
Love this lecturer. Great event. Liked and Subbed,
And Nissan have just recently announced they may have to pull the factory in Sunderland. If I was leader of a country Mark would be the first number I call to be an adviser.
In 2021 Nissan announced they were installing 37000 solar panels on the Sunderland plant. You don’t do that if you are intending to shut the place.
Nissan Sunderland annual production went from 500,000 before Brexit to 238,000 in 2022.
Excellent! Thank you AIST!
Nice, cohesive presentation from Mark.
enlightening
Fast forward to the present; Professor Blyth was right in 2016 and he's still right. The politics is all piss & wind, smoke & mirrors. Money talks, just as it always has and always will. Watch Mark Blyth's latest presentations at McMaster University in Canada; watch and learn. I speak from the perspective of a graduate trained history educator; some background in economic history & geography ... never studied economics formally. Prof. Blyth's presentations are comprehensible to me; ergo Blind Freddie should be able to follow his arguments. This man is on the money, all the way ;).
At 11:50 he hits it right on the head... Best explanation of the current state I have ever heard of.
I need to comb through every Mark Blyth lecture and interview on the Internet and write down all his references. If anyone has already written down this reading list, or at least the references mentioned in this lecture, could you list them? I will do it as soon as I can, but if someone could get to it before I do, thank you.
Guaranteed income, some countries like Finland, Canada etc are proposing this, and it is very popular.
Guaranteed income is important when the robats replaces labor in large amount
On the surface it sounds great, the problem is that it is inflationary. Throwing $ into the GDP without first having the necessary resources is a terrible idea. And since a guaranteed income is paid to the rich as well as the poor, it does nothing for income inequality. Instead we need a guaranteed federal job policy that the economy is pegged to, and this could include free healthcare.
Steve, no, it's not. the poorer people spend it all straight into the economy. It makes jobs. The rich people don't spend it. It does nothing but help them (a tiny amount) to afford that jet or a place to winter in, or to push the stock prices up a little higher (which QE has been doing for years now).
@@dickhamilton3517 I stand by my statement based on the researched opinions of scores of MMT economists. "People" like the Koch brothers only want it so they can then strip away our social safety net. And there would been some UBI in a guaranteed federal job program.
Steve - I understand and sympathize with your concerns, and agree that it's attractive to those creeps just for the reasons you say, and also for the fact it could lower taxes as it's much cheaper to administer than a benefit system which is means-tested, but disagree about whether it unavoidably causes inflationary pressure. That depends on the level it is set at. Sure, if you issued enough currency to give everybody, say, $50,000, you'd see a big spike in inflation which would make the owners richer as houses, rents and fees went up but it would eventually settle down, leaving us in pretty much the same state as we are - except that every price would be higher. That would just be equivalent to a devaluation over time. The key for me, is to set it where it frees the people at the bottom to reconstruct their lives and allows them the chance to do the things they are interested in doing - the lowered price produced for their efforts would be antiinflationary for the better-off people they offer their output to. People _want_ to do something that gives them self-respect. They can't afford to, though. I'm sure the Kochs and the like would be very unhappy to see them come together, pool the money and build a business with it, a business they are in control of.
why didnt Mark just go onto the stage and say "Democrasy is gone your all smart slaves now" and then buggar off.. its the same thing… love his work btw
Ha! Jokes on you! We've been smart slaves all along! ::nods smugly:: ( Just in case it's not clear, that's intended as a Poe - I'm joking. :P )
I love Mark Blyth for his truth-telling (and he's a pretty good teacher, too), but he presents himself as a man whose 'bravery' comes from the knowledge that he's no threat, because it's already too late.
In a scary world and Trump getting scarier every day .. thank god for Mark Blyth.
Just at the beginning and it’s already a unique speech among all his videos
This is some galaxy brain geopolitical economic analysis.
QE is sticking the hose in the mailbox trying to fill the kettle LOL
Blyth for president
Livet skal leves frem. Men skal forstås tilbage. (Life should be lived forwards. But be understood in the previous.)
When a system leads to paradoxical results no matter what is done to it, the problem must lie with the basic assumptions upon which the system is founded.
and, btw, many of the world's problems arise from confusing elective oligarchy with democracy. i have never met a brit who understood this, and damn few outside of helvetia.
51:0 I like what he said about the electoral college.
"This guy might be the next President" (Guy in back ground) "HA" :)
At 22:06 Helicopter drop? or UBI? The man is ahead of his time.He's predicting Andrew Yang.
Helicopter drop for 80% of the population isint universal, and that’s where many have a problem with it. Not everyone want that every income gets UBI, not even everyone in the left.
If anyone knows why a tariff won't work beyond simply saying "it wouldn't work because its mostly US companies" I'd appreciate being enlightened on the topic. If I'm not wrong Tariffs are basically designed with 3 main purposes in mind. To retain domestic industry, to protect domestic industry from foreign industry and third to prevent exactly what apple is doing by outsourcing its manufacturing only to import its goods back thus killing a domestic job market. Yes the price of an Iphone would likely go up around 10-20% but you would also employ a vast # of citizens by making an iphone cost 700 vs 600... I've heard this arguement before and it always just comes down to the price of the goods will increase!.... so what? we have 15% unemployment and I was around for the whole "made in america" campaign... the price difference was not nearly as high as what people lead you to believe.
Warlords Wonderland through the lesser, myopic looking glasses. Australia has probably changed little in administrative arrangements since the Rum Corp. Same Foreign Ownership problem.
22:00 He called the helicopter drops. I knew they were coming, but I didn't think it would be part of the initial crash.
That Garry story sums up america :(
Is Mr. Blyth saying he agrees with Modern Monetary Theory? Aka, Stephanie Kelton, Randall Wray, Warren Mosler, etc.
he mentioned he does not
41:50 - "is he really going to stick up 35% tariffs? No I don't think so".... Oops.
Yap Trump really did that no Republican would have done that would only be done by someone Left leaning like Bernie, was done by Trump. Only shows how crazy inequality has become in the US
It's funny, because I've got Piketty's book too. I read about 100 pages, and it was a slog, so I quit. I am going to get back to it, but it's hard reading.
The world is levelling, just like Europe! Asia gets wealthy, West gets poorer! Western Europe gets poorer, while Eastern Europe gets richer! (Congrats to our politician and economic elites!
I reckon..the inflation is being transferred into property prices. housing costs reflect an inflationary tax on goods and services. in 1990 it took me two days labour to accumulate enough earnings to pay for a months rent. in 2017 iit takes 7 days. the cost of goods has not increased as much...if housing cost are brought down via building/legislative efforts I am positive the price of everything else will sky rocket. flows of QE are pushed through the system producing a bi-flationary economy.
mididoctors yes and the fact is most people psychological struggle more when they find they may not be able to pay mrotgages or rent and make themselves unproductive at work.its probably better if goods got more expensive and housing reduced significantly
"china having a hiccup in the next 5 years and we all go"
We can't go back to an older age. Sadly we can repeat history, but you can't go back to that. So what you must do is build a better future. The past is the past. Sadly Trump is the epitome of trying to live in the past.
It needs to be violently different, violent in that the same elites, in a new system won't be. And in all civilizations in all times, that goes over like bloody murder. Seriously, to end what we have and not duplicate at least in a rhyme sort of way, enterprise must change from a few shareholders with all the say, to co-ops being lent to by Co-Op Fed Reserves ditch the need for capital formation from an aristocracy they've proven over 2,500 years to be mostly worthless parasites anyway. You can still have investment options and even invest in a co-op, but you get one vote in a corporation no matter how many shares you own. All the workers get one vote. And at least 50% of a board of directors must be non-supervisory elected members voted by only the non management/supervisor workers. Democratize the workforce democratizes the economy. You don't have such instability of wealth accumulating to a very few people causing a complete collapse in the economy as we have had in every nation over the past at least 2,500 years. You still would get some millionaires and perhaps some billionaires, but their economic power is forever gone: limited investment options, and even if they do invest they don't have government control anymore to decry their terms of investment as well as they have to do the same or better as far as quality and worker treatment: compensation than the Co-op enterprises that focus tier starts first on workers then second on customers then lastly on lenders and shareholders. Today it's the opposite: first shareholders, then customers, then workers. May say, well customers are important they are the ones buying the stuff! Well, the workers are both customers and workers so their customers or potential customers who are making their stuff... moment you consider workers can never be the customer directly or indirectly, you literally have gone back to if not slavery then to serfdom or some peasantry mercantilism that was frankly weak and incredibly fragile and unbearable even to some of the elites hence why the elites themselves were the very ones who performed the experiments of stock market and open banking of what we consider modern industrial capitalism.
Absolutely brilliant. His description of "helicopter drops" was very prescient, and is the technique used by Kaczyński's populist authoritarian Law and Justice Party in Poland to secure its base support; imagine the effect in the US if the government were to give every family $500 a month for every child beyond the first (unmarried mothers need not apply)? The ostensible goal was to increase the birth rate, since Poland does not want to replace its population by immigration, but the effect was to secure the loyalty of PiS's base (similar to Trump's base in the US).
back home we have this policy for more than 60 years
Breezed over tariffs then. did not see that
Im watching after Trump won, and that little bit made me sit up. and pay attention. Someone who predicted trump winning is someone that needs to be listend to.
Brazil didn't decide to have hyperinflation....
What the jesus fuck happened to Brazil in the 90's... I can't find an explicit explanation for the inflation and can only find vague economic reasons that could be summed up as: The Government were morons therefore economic catastrophe. Nothing that would indicate massive thousand high inflation spikes.
Comando96 Brazil suffered a military coup in 1964 (supported by the US government, as tradition dictates in Latin America) and military dictators remained in power until 1985. From the late 60s, the military governments took advantage of new sources of international financing available at the time , Like eurodolars and petrodolars markets, to promote industrial development in Brazil. The interest rates for those loans were linked to the US interest rates, witch were kept consistently low, and the result was a period called "The Brazilian Economic Miracle" due to the expressive GDP's annual growth rates achieved from 1968 and 1973 (between 10% And 15%). Unfortunately, it was also a period of political and social opression - money went straight to the top and workers' salaries were progressively constrained, worsening the already critical wealth inequality. There was also an intense and disorganized urbanization that resulted in swelled cities with lots of favelas and poor transportation, health and education infra-structure. The US response to the Oil Crisis of the early 1970s was to raise US interest rates to attract resources like the euro and petrodolars. That worked well for the US, but not so much for countries like Brazil, Mexico and Argentina. The interest rates of their outstanding loans, witch were linked to the US interest, soared astronomicaly and the 3 countries had to scramble to keep payments. In Brazil, the military government decided to focus on exports. Since Brazillians were broke and could not buy much, the nation's industrial output would be directed abroad to create a much needed commercial surplus. "We must export" was the government's official motto at the time. During the 80s, Brazil was a global manufacturer, surpassed only by Japan and Germany in industrial exports. We exported everything, from cars, to weapons, toys, shoes and clothes, but it was not enough - even though Brazil payed much more than it innitialy owned, the debt skyrocket. The real burden was placed on the Brazillian people's back, especially the poor. Unemployment rose as well as inflation rates, witch were never really tightly controled before, hurting workers and their wages, witch were already low. Unable to solve the crisis and pressed by street protests, the armed forces ended up handling the power back to civil government in the mid 80s. Instead of alowing free elections, the military promoted an indirect pool in the Brazilian Congress. After some soap opera style drama, Jose Sarney, a politician who was the main force in the Senate (and that is still alive and active in Brazillian politics today!) Was choosen as president. By that time, the country was flat broke and monthly inflation was approaching 20%. Then the real inflation madness began. In February of 1986, Sarney came up with a radical plan to wipe out inflation, the Cruzado Plan. The 1,000 cruzeiros became 1 cruzado - along with many other measuares. The real reasons behind inflatio, though, were not adressed = - mainly, the big public deficit sector. After a few months the plan was crumbling. Factories were closed because the prices could not cover the costs. Used cars were sold for twice the price of new ones, and new cars were nowhere to be found. The black market was booming, trading even the most basic of products, like toilet paper and canned food. Before the year was over, the Cruzado Plan was abandoned and inflation came back with a vengeance. Sarney tried two similar plans before leaving office, with similar results. When Brazil had its first free presidential elections in over 20 years, in 1989, monthly inflation rates were reaching 40%. The election was won by Fernando Collor. Even though he was actualy the heir of a political dynasty from one country's poorest states, Collor was presented as a "modern" politician and backed by "the market" and by Brazil's biggest media conglomerate, Balloon, witch used all dirty tricks you can think of to get him elected. By March of 1990, monthly inflation rates were peaking at over 80%. Then Collor revealed the now infamous "Collor Plan", an even crazier version of the plans attempted before. In addition to freezeing prices and salaries and changing yet again the national currency, Collor highjacked almost all the money Brazillians had in banks. People and bussines could only get a few hundred dolars from their accounts - the rest was seized by the government, witch promissed to return it, with interest, in a year or so. To make matters worse, Collor opened up the economy, allowing cheap imports to flood the market. The plan, of course, failed miserably. People went mad trying to get their money back and Brazzilian companies with access to no money at all were massacred by the cheap imports. Collor tried two more plans, but ended up impeached before the first half of his tenure was over. When Collor's vice-president, Itamar Franco, took office, monthly inflation rates were at around 20% and rising. He tried to contain the neoliberal policies implemented by Collor and assembled a new team to try and tackle inflation. This team was led by Fernando Henrique Cardoso, or FHC, witch ended up being the power behind the throne during Franco's government, but other politicians such as Rubens Ricupero and Ciro Gomes were also leading figures. FHC decide to try one of the few ideias that hadn't been tried yet, suggested by ecconomists Pérsio Arida and André Lara Resende. The ideia was to break free from the schok reforms from previous plans and implement a gradual, well explained and advertised plan to control people's expectations and anxiousness. The plan would also tackle serious issues thar were not adressed before, such as the government's budget and the excessive indexing of the economy. When the Real Plan was implemented, in February of 1994, monthly inflation rates were reaching 50%. The plan involved several phases and used a buffer currency called Real Unit of Value, the URV. That URV existed only on paper - it was a conversion unit meant to be used for a few months before the advent of the new national currency, the Real. For months, the old currency notes and coins (Cruzeiro Novo) were still in place, but all prices were displayed in URV - whose value was corrected every day. In that way, prices in Cruzeiro Novo continued rising , but prices in URV were stable. In July of 1994, the government issue a new currency, the Real, witch was valued at 1,00 R$ per 1,00 URV. The smooth transition from Cruzeiro Novo to URV and from URv to Real, along with the many measures taken by the government to control the deeper causes fro inflation, worked. Check out the annual inflation rates for the early 90s. 1990: 1.699,87% 1991: 458,38% 1992: 1.174,67% 1993: 2.597,34% 1994: first half ot the year - 780% second half of the year - 18% 1995: 22,41% 1996: 9,56% 1997: 5,22% 1998: 1,66% Brazil's annual inflation kept at around 6-8% after that, with rare and brief peaks beyond 10%.
peixe coruja O_O I have in my time on KZhead written a few walls of text, but never to such a small comment. Bloody hell, thank you. _"The US response to the Oil Crisis of the early 1970s was to raise US interest rates to attract resources like the euro and petrodolars"_ The Euro wasn't around then, but I completely understand your meaning if you meant US and European currencies as an asset to back up their own etc. _"The real reasons behind inflation, though, were not addressed - mainly, the big public deficit sector."_ Here is my main question as I was curious as to what the technical reason behind this was. In response to Brazil's deficit, was the value of their currency just so bad that they were incurring massive price increases due to import costs, or was the Brazilian Government increasing money supply? I'm willing to excuse high rates of inflation before this being down to political instability. _"Collor was presented as a "modern" politician and backed by "the market" and by Brazil's biggest media conglomerate, Balloon, witch used all dirty tricks you can think of to get him elected."_ Italy, in 40 years had 40 Governments due to the massive instability of the country's political culture and class, then Berlusconi came along, who owned 80% of the media and ended up ruling for 13 years and was only forced out of power during the economic crisis. During his time in power, he basically did nothing but implement EU directives. - Seriously though, thank you for the explanation. Its far more detailed than the terribly vague information Wikipedia completely lacks on the subject. If you could source what you've said consider updating Wikipedia as you don't get the scale nonsense Brazil went through during this time. btw I saw the information on the trader economics website. Hyperinflation being 50% inflation within the period of a month. If experiencing 50% hyperinflation for every month then in a year the country in question would have had 12974.6% inflation. In one year Brazil managed half of that which is an incredibly bad achievement. I wondered how that compared to Zimbabwe's inflation, but they seem to have issued a new currency and calmed down.
Comando96 Lol! I'm just can't help myself! About your remarks: "The Euro wasn't around then, but I completely understand your meaning if you meant US and European currencies as an asset to back up their own etc." Yes! By eurodolars and petrodolars I'm refering to hard currencies (basicaly dollars) obtained by European and oil-exporting countries as they and the world markets recovered from WWII. Thanks to American help directed to Europe and the rise in oil trade there was suddenly quite a few dolars floating around, and those dolars became available to countries like Brazil, Mexico and Argentina. The conditions attached were not as good as those offered by American government loans, but were better then what the big international banks were offering at the time. The problem were the floating interest rates, but US interest rates were so solid that noone thought that could be a problem... "Here is my main question as I was curious as to what the technical reason behind this was. In response to Brazil's deficit, was the value of their currency just so bad that they were incurring massive price increases due to import costs, or was the Brazilian Government increasing money supply? I'm willing to excuse high rates of inflation before this being down to political instability." At little bit of both and then some more... this is really complicated as there were lots of factors, but the public deficit was certainly one of then. The deficit was specially problematic because it prevented the previous plans to curb inflation from working - the government was trying to hold prices down, but it always ended up printing more money to meet its needs and undermining the plans in the process. There were other factors, though. The beforementioned ultra-indexation of the economy was a real big issue. Every price was linked to something else, and when one of the index was reached, salaries and prices would be automaticaly adjusted, trigering a new round of inflation. That was probably the Real Plan greatest achiement - it was really difficult to know how much products actually cost, and it managed to control people's anxiety regarding the neverending price adjusting race. For a long time, those who could play this game better made large profits. Political instability was a really big factor too. Brazil had some persistent inflation since way before the military took over and from the late 70s onwards there was never a lack of problems. The national currencie was kept undervalued to help exports and imports were really not the issue then, as internal consumption was very low, but after 1994, though, the government kept the Real overvalued for a few yeras to keep imports cheap and internal prices low. "Italy, in 40 years had 40 Governments due to the massive instability of the country's political culture and class, then Berlusconi came along, who owned 80% of the media and ended up ruling for 13 years and was only forced out of power during the economic crisis. During his time in power, he basically did nothing but implement EU directives." Funny that you mentioned that, as Brazil is facing circunstances reminiscent of operation Mani Pulite, the massive inquiry into the mafia that resulted in the ascent of Berlusconi. So far, the script is mostly the same - the investigations into government officials are causing the downfall of major political players and now there's a big effort among the political class towards scraping the whole thing and "stoping the bleeding", as some of then have been recorded saying. If we're close to a Brazillian Berlusconni is something that remain to bee seen. And there was a typo in that part of the text! The name of the big Brazillian media conglomeate is Globo, not Ballon. Your welcome! I'm always thinking about translating some of the material to post in wikipedia, but always come up with some excuse not to do it! Those were crazy times... between 1964 and 1994, total inflation was 1.302.442.989.947.180,00%!!!!! There are some really good books on these issues I can refer you too, but they're all in portuguese...
peixe coruja Thanks for the offer but sadly I cannot do other languages. My school forced me to do a French language course and after the entire ordeal I had the equivalent writing capability of a French 6 year old. I was 16 when I took that, and it ranged from a French 6 year old French child qualification, to 12 year old. I got 6 year old. I did need to re-learn English at one point though. _"the government was trying to hold prices down, but it always ended up printing more money to meet its needs" ... "Every price was linked to something else, and when one of the index was reached, salaries and prices would be automatically adjusted, triggering a new round of inflation."_ I... just... how... Maybe its just hindsight but that's a hilarious level of incompetence... since I wasn't living there. That sounds completely believable purely in bumbling Government terms though. Aim for a target and then follow none of the methods to get there but keep implementing the more negative aspects. And the shunting of wages and prices on a regular interval really doesn't help because that causes panic and anyone trying to ensure their own business may over compensate rather than be accurate. _"That was probably the Real Plan greatest achievement."_ Didn't comment on that much, but that was honestly genius. Issue a new currency and do it in parallel with the old currency That's doing a transition well.
A REGIME is a governmental grouping or system; A REGIMEN is a program of diet/exercise/whatever. Yes, I know that this is trivial compared to the fate of neoliberal capitalism as we know it, but it still drives me nuts.
I actually thought this was Arthur Scargill with a Scots accent.
Lol. Arthur Scargill was as educated as some some of his opponents in the Conservative Party.
Ill meet u
makes ya think doesnt it?
brilliantly, i will just add i think the europe crisis is by design. would you think US would permit a market double of their size, with really independente CB, stable currency and low taxes? america would not have a chance, so they will never permit that
sorry what, china is 4 times the size of us market on population base. if u think that population isn't the problem, then wtf do u think the nafta was for lol.
How is all this stuff about Kalecki and Kynes not in school books?
They don't want to teach you the stuff that shows the system is based on a dead dream.
there are in the right schools. the issue is that the usual textbook is wrote based on secondary literatures
The Derivatives Market??? Bubble? Humm!
Although socialists reforms are welcome and nessisary their will be no permanent change until the banking system is democracised
Random doesn't meant no pattern... O_0. Even uniformly random has pattern over time... Even chaos can exhibit pattern....
A proper pattern would be 'informed predictability' 99% predictability is the best we could hope for but we're nowhere near that so maybe 'pattern' should be replaced with 'trend',a less exacting term.
Mr. Blyth makes sense. He clearly outlines how we all got to where we are today. So, using those lessons, what does Mr. Blyth suggest we do from today going forward? A perfect world scenario if you will, assuming politics doesn't do what it usually does. Such a macroeconimic outline for the future would let us more clearly see how politics, and human nature I guess, impedes a logical path to a better world.
He stripped away the cladding to show you how the whole thing's constructed,all the nuts and bolts,but why would he wade into a minefield by creating his own fiscal strategy and making himself a target besides, he already gave a tip to investors,'invest in 'Big Pharma'and U.S. healthcare,aging population and 'all that'.He also thinks that austerity is a stupid and damaging policy and if people and corporations paid their proper taxes it would eventually sort itself out,what more do you want ? the winner of the Kentucky derby?
Omg 22:00 this man just predicted Andrew Yang
If you listen to Yang himself for more than a few minutes he tells you that he didn't invent UBI, it's an idea that's over a century old.
This is great fun but Climate scientists are starting to say its already too late some are beginning to say we may have ten years before the feedback loops are unstoppable even Elon Musk thinks he may have been too late with his transport fed by sunshine loop and he may not have time to bugger of to Mars.
I ruined the 666 likes and 66 comments because this is good... my bad
31:36 who thinks Trump’s gonna win?
36:00 maybe Trump is going to take care of that.
This audience is a bit dead or i cannot hear them....
reminds me of herman kahn & buckminster fuller. use some clever examples, talk real fast. but at the end, what do you come away with.
You need to bring something to it to come away with something.
@@marvintpandroid2213 and what did you learn that you didn't already know?
@@bobbest1611 Yes and no, hearing thinks that you already know being explained in new ways can help you make new connections and sparks new ideas Learning things is not all about a list of facts, its putting those facts together.
You come away with a better understanding of how the current form of capitalism will work for investors in a low inflation, low interest future. Now the audience can more realistically judge where and when to invest, and what pitfalls to avoid.
I believe that history repeats itself , perhaps not exactly the same, but pretty close. Almost every great leader that ever existed was a student of history. Churchill said "‘The longer you can look back, the farther you can look forward’.”
you imply churchill was a great leader. many disagree.
@@alloomis1635 You'll never get 100% agreement on ANYTHING!
Churchill was wrong about a lot, history does not repeat itself. I am so tired of that view of history because it is so lazy, and is an exceptionally poor view of history. History does not obey any form, it just happens, and for some reason people who especially support this theory seem to have a hero-like conception of history where the good times and bad times, and view history from great man point of view.
i quit respecting people who deal with economic problems by suggesting economic solutions. mankind's problem is politics. the rich hate politics, because that is the arena in which the many can win, over the rich. which is why the american constitution establishes an oligarchy, not a democracy. madison was frank that democracy would lead to his taxes being spent on the poor, and he wanted to spend his money on himself. if you don't start with getting democracy, all talk of reform is empty noise.
I really like Mark, but, damn, his accent makes him hard to follow sometimes!
Just watch some Limmy's Show until you start understanding half of what's said, then come back.
12:21 Disinflation is not the same thing as deflation. Disinflation refers to a declining inflation rate, i.e., prices that are rising less quickly over time. Deflation is negative inflation, i.e., falling prices.
As an economist, he gets "it" as a sociologist he doesn't. Yes the world has changed but it's the same old cow dung in the U S.
He's a trained economist, speaking to a small cross section of the insurance industry. What did you expect? Yes, the citizens in developed countries will have to make do with less but as birth rates in those economies are falling, once the demographic mountain of the Baby Boomers has been traversed, there will be less people around to share what's left. Political and social policies will adapt to those conditions accordingly. It's not the world as we know it right now, but something much different ahead of us.
We cannot relive the 1930s, however little we may wish to do so, particularly in Europe. The geo-political balance of power has changed, and more particularly the balance and structures of economies and trade. Nevertheless, the peoples of Europe face a hard choice. EITHER they force the legislative helm Hard Left, or Hard Right, OR, the Liberal ascendancy will take down Europe to a level where they find their goody shoes are plodging in the rising tide of excrement. Austerity doesn’t have to mean inequality. (With due allowance for high political rank having certain priveledges.)
So... Is this actor? It takes a lot of time and practice to pull off a speech like that. He is doing a good job trying to sell the audience something.
Laserkid An actor? No, he speaks professionally, and has been doing so as an economist and university and public lecturer for more than enough years for it to be second nature to do so. As far as “rehearsal”, the only sense that’s likely is regarding that when lecturers and/or public speakers give the same general type of speech multiple times over the course of a few months, or even more than a year (for example, if they’re on a speaking tour for a new book, etc), they tend to perfect their speech over time, and even aside from that, people used to public speaking just tend to do very well, and most don’t need to put hours of practice into speeches. I’m really not sure why that’s odd to you, if that is the case (if not, excuse my misunderstanding of your point). Anyway, to call this acting, let alone “selling” people something, are rather odd choices of words, and I have to ask: *did you actually watch the speech?* If you did, and you have a generally oppositional stance towards the content of his speech, then my guess would be that you simply don’t agree with some of the political implications, or something along those lines, bc the speech, and what Mark Blyth has generally been saying for a few years now, has been pretty accurate and has had a good deal of predictive accuracy. If you didn’t watch the speech, and subsequent Q&A, or only watched some of it, I’d really love to know what issues you actually have with it’s actual content, if you’d be willing to share. Granted, I may have not understood your comment, which could be sarcasm or irony or something like that... As I said above, if that’s the case, then excuse me.. My guess is, given KZhead, that you simply don’t agree with him, or think he’s being dishonest in some way, and if that’s the case I’d just like to know why.
He just is just confirming that osbourne new nothing about economics...cutting incomes for the blind and severely disabled by 62% was just bad economics...which we new..so the base problem this problem is about the failure of our political system which failed
"the base problem this problem is about the failure of our political system which failed" Don't drink and comment, kids.
I’m not digging the arrogance.