by Summary:
To tackle economic instability, many believe that simply tightening regulations on banks and financial institutions will do the trick. This belief is fundamentally flawed. Regulations alone won't address the root cause of instability, which is excessive private debt. When people are drowning in debt, they can't spend. This leads to a vicious cycle of reduced consumption and economic stagnation. In fact, during the Great Depression, the more debtors paid, the more they owed. This paradox illustrates how debt can spiral out of control, suffocating economic growth【6:11†source】. Instead, we need to focus on reducing private debt levels. By doing so, we can free up consumer spending, which is the lifeblood of any economy. Imagine a garden choked with weeds. Pulling out the
Topics:
Steve Keen considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
To tackle economic instability, many believe that simply tightening regulations on banks and financial institutions will do the trick. This belief is fundamentally flawed. Regulations alone won't address the root cause of instability, which is excessive private debt. When people are drowning in debt, they can't spend. This leads to a vicious cycle of reduced consumption and economic stagnation. In fact, during the Great Depression, the more debtors paid, the more they owed. This paradox illustrates how debt can spiral out of control, suffocating economic growth【6:11†source】. Instead, we need to focus on reducing private debt levels. By doing so, we can free up consumer spending, which is the lifeblood of any economy. Imagine a garden choked with weeds. Pulling out the
Topics:
Steve Keen considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Michael Hudson writes Beyond Surface Economics: The Case for Structural Reform
Mike Norman writes Oh no…Eva Langoria leaving the U.S.!!!
Merijn T. Knibbe writes Argentina bucks the trend. Vitamin A deficiencies are increasing
Mike Norman writes Wishful Thinking
| To tackle economic instability, many believe that simply tightening regulations on banks and financial institutions will do the trick. This belief is fundamentally flawed. Regulations alone won't address the root cause of instability, which is excessive private debt. When people are drowning in debt, they can't spend. This leads to a vicious cycle of reduced consumption and economic stagnation. In fact, during the Great Depression, the more debtors paid, the more they owed. This paradox illustrates how debt can spiral out of control, suffocating economic growth【6:11†source】. Instead, we need to focus on reducing private debt levels. By doing so, we can free up consumer spending, which is the lifeblood of any economy. Imagine a garden choked with weeds. Pulling out the weeds allows the flowers to bloom. Similarly, reducing debt allows the economy to flourish. Next, there’s the common belief that government spending is a burden on the economy. This is a misconception. Government spending can stabilize employment and stimulate growth. During World War II, government spending financed the war effort, demonstrating that strategic spending can revitalize an economy【6:2†source】. Instead of viewing government spending as a burden, we should see it as a necessary tool for economic stability. Lastly, many think that share ownership should remain concentrated among the wealthy. This is a dangerous belief. Democratizing share ownership can distribute wealth more evenly. When more people own a piece of the pie, they invest in its success. This creates a more resilient economy. In conclusion, tackling economic instability requires a paradigm shift. We must reduce private debt, embrace government spending, and democratize ownership. Ignoring these steps will lead to repeated financial crises. And that’s a reality we can’t afford to ignore. |
Increase public debt levels. That just a label on the debt the peasants are forced to pay.
1.6 million non working migrants in the UK. Abolish welfare, implement a minimum tax code. That solves lots.
Share ownership? Invest all pension contributions. Oh wait, they are being spent on the debts.
What the fed gov spends and doesn't tax defines the money supply. It makes absolutely no sense to either call it debt or assert that people are forced to pay for that money supply. Without the money supply there would be no money to earn, or pay for the far far larger private debt that people do need to pay back. This is why private debt is particularly odious. Without a careful dance of unending (private+public) debt expansion, any fall off of debt increase crashes the economy. And private debt's primary function is wealth transfer from poor to rich.
ESOP was passed in 1974, was subverted and failed. The other two issues are the product of the same forces that made ESOP a failure. Python level, "How to do it" policy won't fix one thing.
But rich people want us in debt. And if we have money we start thinking, criticizing- yeah no sorry mr. Keen this just will not do. 😂
These are both simplistic and dumb. The first point is somewhat reasonable, although you still have the problem that baby boomers generally have no private savings and are reliant upon Social Security and the equity in their homes as their retirement account. To reduce the debt loads, which would include private mortgages, would mean the value of these properties would have to fall,meaning the Baby Boomers would be more reliant on public spending. The second point of course is absurd you need less government spending, or at least less government subsidy of consumption, and to balance the budget. Now you can argue that the government can make key Investments and productivity-enhancing infrastructure that will increase GDP over the long term, You could argue that. However it's highly unlikely to happen. Ask California how High-Speed Rail is going. Had California built the high-speed rail Network it would have greatly improved the livability and affordability in the state as it would have allowed easier access to job centers for people living in cheaper metros across the state. Of course it never got built. I don't know what democratic share ownership is supposed to achieve. The only reason American equities have had such a ridiculous High run-up has to do with the quantitative easing of the central bank. It is pretty easy for people to own shares if they wish to own them.
Democratize share ownership?
Yeah he's probably talking cooperatives where they give shares to the employees or employee owned businesses
Socialism starting at the corporate level
Don't more people than ever own shares??