Debunking Economics - the podcast

By Steve Keen & Phil DobbieBusiness Science Social Sciences Education

Debunking Economics - the podcast episodes

September 30 Should Britain rejoin the EU?
Phil and Steve unpack the case for a renewed relationship with Europe, from trade and supply chains to freedom of movement and political sovereignty. They debate whether the euro still makes sense in an era of low-cost digital payments, why a shared currency can leave national economies exposed, and what European cooperation should actually look like.

Along the way, they explore the legacy of Brexit, the future of the EU as a trading bloc, and whether Europe’s strength lies in deeper integration or greater flexibility.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
38 min
September 23 Are bond vigilantes in charge?
Bond yields are not “warning” governments to behave—they’re exposing a system where central banks and treasuries can backstop the entire market whenever they choose. Steve says the panic around government debt is mostly an economic fairy tale, and the real danger is what happens when policymakers let that fiction dictate spending.

Phil presses him on the recent surge in 10-year and 30-year yields, the role of bond vigilantes, and the idea that higher rates are supposedly needed to fight inflation. Keen argues the opposite: bond sales often cancel out government money creation, while fear of the bond market can choke off the spending needed for jobs, infrastructure, and real growth.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
33 min
September 16 The always moving equilibrium
Equilibrium is a fantasy—and this conversation explains why. Phil and teve explore how the belief that markets naturally self-correct has shaped economic policy, contributed to the failure to anticipate the Global Financial Crisis, and continues to distort debates about bond yields, government intervention, debt, and inflation. From Irving Fisher’s original models to today’s financial markets, AI bubbles, and rising government bond yields, Keen shows why capitalism is better understood as an “always moving equilibrium” than as a system that ever truly settles. The discussion also looks ahead to his forthcoming book, How Economists Will Destroy Capitalism, and the urgent consequences of treating elegant economic theories as if they describe the real world.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
37 min
September 09 What did Keating do for Australia?
Paul Keating is often sold as the man who modernized Australia - but what if the reforms that made him legendary also helped create the financialized, boom-and-bust economy we live with today? Steve argues the real story is far more unsettling. From the "recession we had to have" to the housing bubble, tariff cuts, bank deregulation, and the superannuation system, he breaks down how Keating's policies reshaped Australia in ways most people still misunderstand. If you think Keating was simply a brilliant reformer, this conversation will challenge that view. Keating was an extraordinary parliamentary orator but a dangerous believer in textbook economics. Discover how the 1987 crash and first home buyers grant helped set up the 1992 recession, and why the push toward finance over manufacturing left Australia weaker, not stronger. He also explains how Keating’s attacks on the GST, the rise of neoliberal thinking inside Labor, and the long fallout from deindustrialization still shape Australian politics today.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
43 min
September 02 The risks of hedging
In this episode, Prof Steve Keen and host Phil explore the complexities of hedging, its applications, pitfalls, and its impact on markets and the economy.
Hedging, rife in the financial and commercial world, is designed to protect our investments. If prices of our investments go down, or the cost of our business inputs go up, hedging is the insurance that stops things getting too bad. But does it work? Steve argues it doesn’t work when there’s financial crisis - when all prices go the same way. The example is people who have bought gold to hedge against equity investments, if they are forced to sell leveraged shares, they might recover their position by selling the gold, forcing that down in price too. Phil also asks whether hedging creates a distortionary impact. For example, stable companies might see higher share prices because they are seen as safe, rather than having any growth potential.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
29 min
August 25 Burnham on Buying British
The UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham has said he wants government departments to focus on buying British, The UK state spends roughly £300bn to £400bn a year on public procurement—and currently treats it merely as a bureaucratic exercise to secure the absolute cheapest upfront contract, rather than using it as an economic driver. Steve says it’s a step in the right direction, but Phl asks what is it that Britain makes that the government would want to buy? And how long before the usual argument that its costing more and who’s going to pay for it?
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
41 min
August 18 Ways to foster innovation
Unless you are one of the tech bros, it is difficult for anyone to push on with innovative ideas, probably why the world seems reliant on the US for the next big thing. If you not running a Megacap getting money for a new idea is virtually impossible, particularly in the early stages. Even government schemes are focused on reducing risk, to the pint that they offer little more than is available from the commercial finance sector. Steve says China has a better idea, but for those countries that don’t want such centralised economy is there a way to fund start-ups that uses a mix of private funding and government assistance. Phil and Steve both have ideas on this.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
40 min
August 13 Do we actually need bonds?
There’s only one reason a government issues bonds. It’s so their account with the central bank is not overdrawn. It’s only regulation that stops the central bank from saying a rapidly expanding deficit is fine. After all, it’s an indicator of how much government money has gone into supporting the private sector. But economists and finances see that as monetising finanacing, and it’s a no no. Instead, regulations insist bonds are issued to the value of the government’s spending deficit. But what purpose do they serve, other than allowing investors to influence their price and yield, often as a response to government spending. In short, they seem to think their market pricing can influence government policy. So, why do we pay so much attention to an artificial process that only happen because we can’t trust governments to regulate their spending and keep inflation in check.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
41 min
August 04 A reality check on bonds and government spending
A listener (Doug) left a comment on YouTube saying I assume Phil intends to play "devil's advocate" when he speaks as though taxes are necessary for money issuance by governments with sovereign currencies. He’s worried that it might confuse new listeners to the podcast. So this week, Phil and Steve get stuck into the more contentious side of MMT – how government spending creates money, and bond issuance has limited impact on that. It depends on who is buying them. They discuss how government spending differs from household spending funded by a bank loan. Consider it a catch-up for new listeners and viewers.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
54 min
July 29 AI, inequality and basic income
Phil happened upon a book to Australian economist Joshua Gans (and Andrew Leigh) called Innovation & Inequality – how to create a future that is more Star Trek than Terminator. He discusses some of the concepts with Steve, including whether companies responsible for the creative destruction of other industries should be made to pay. As Phil puts it, if I burnt down a shop, I would possibly go to prison. But if I make that shop go out of business -and all the shops around it – because I happen to run Amazon, I face no consequences. It’s progress. But I the next chapter, the progress of AI will see more destruction, as more of us lose jobs. Then the only way we will be kept alive is by a basic income, provided by the state or possibly by people like Elon Musk. If it’s the latter, imagine the political control we would hold. So, how do we balance wealth whilst still providing incentives for innovation. And how much of that innovation is destroyed by the momentum of existing big tech players?
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
45 min