Debunking Economics - the podcast

Foreign aid is shrinking fast. The UK has cut its commitment from 0.7% of national income to 0.3%, the US has scrapped USAID and axed 80% of its projects, and overall global aid is down by more than a quarter in just five years. That’s less than 0.2% of the world economy — smaller than Walmart’s turnover — even as the Gates Foundation warns that cuts have already reversed decades of progress in child survival. In 2025 alone, 200,000 extra children under five are expected to die from preventable causes. And in places like Afghanistan, Somalia, and the Central African Republic, one in ten infants won’t make it to their first birthday.Economist Steve Keen argues that aid is often designed with the assumption that chunks of it will flow back to donor countries through trade and contracts, reinforcing global imbalances rather than fixing them. He suggests revisiting Keynes’s old idea of a Bancor — a global currency to balance trade — so aid isn’t just a disguised subsidy for rich economies. Without structural reform, we’re left with the paradox of trying to support countries where GDP per capita is $150–$200, while the same amount is a single day’s salary in Luxembourg. Rethinking aid means asking whether we’re propping up conflicts and fragile states, or building a fairer system where resources actually stick and help people survive. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

So, what does it mean to be Austrian? And we are not talking about wearing Lederhosen every weekend, going on long hikes through the mountains and eating schnitzel. Instead, the focus in this podcast is on the Austrian school of economics. They are two very different things, The country has moved on, but the theory remains. This week Phil and Steve look at the principles of Austrian economics – what they got right (partially) and what they got wrong. They contrast it with neoclassical economics, exploring the significance of equilibrium and innovation in capitalism. The discussion also touches on the concept of praxeology, the limitations of introspection in understanding economic systems, and Schumpeter's contributions to the evolution of economic thought.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The early days of Bitcoin its proponents argued that this could be the global currency to replace fiat money. Governments the world over were issuing too much currency, leading to inflation, whilst imposing arbitrary regulations that would be impossible once authorities lost control of money.Steve says for that to work Bitcoin would need to be capable of the instantaneous transactions we are used to with the billions of banking transactions that happen every day. What’s more, the limited supply of Bitcoin means increases in productivity are likely to result in deflation p- a bigger enemy to the economy than rising prices.Instead Bitcoin has become just another asset class. The initial argyument that it served as a useful hedge against a downturn, in the same way gold does. Except now Bitcoin has started to mirror movements of other assets, like shares. And speculators are buying into it, often in highly leveraged positions. Risky?Still the argument remains that Bitcoin could be a workable currency. One that consumes a lot of energy in the process. When energy becomes really scarce, says Steve, Bitcoin will be the first thing to be turned off. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

How far are we willing to go in accepting the corporate takeover of just about everything. In Britain public utilities were sold off, so companies could profit from selling resources whilst minimising maintenance of facilities. Phil asks the question how Britain’s water infrastructure is in such a state of repair in an industry that makes £13 billion per year. Then there’s the moves to strangle publicly funded media and privatise the funding of health. But it gets worse. Britain’s freeports are local areas run jointly by local authorities of local business. Democracy has become just another seat at the table. And there’s a proposal from, one consortium for a new town in Britain that is run by a corporation where residents sign a contract for services. No local democracy. Such towns already exist in many parts of the world. Is that the conclusion - we privatise everything and we are all at the whim of big business. Elon Musk is already working on how to create your artificial best friend. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Several listeners have written in to get Steve’s views on the path being taken by Mark Carney to rescue the Canadian economy. Initially it looked like the country was rebounding strongly from the pandemic, but in the last couple of years the growth has slowed and then declined. That was before President Trump hit them hard with tariffs and then said he’d like them to become part of the US. In some ways he is trying the same approach as the UK – to balance the operational side of government spending but inventing in infrastructure beyond that balanced operational budget. That would be fine if a large chunk of that investment wasn’t going to defence. There’s also very little attention to the most fundamental issue for Canada unaffordable housing. Proudly the most unaffordable in the world. Hard to get people to spend when a huge chunk of their income is disappearing into mortgage payments.There’s another fundamental problem with Carney’s approach. As Steve points out, it almost every policy it relies on outside influence, rather than domestic resolutions. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week Phil and Steve look at cost-plus inflation, driven by rising wages. Right now its being given as the reason that services inflation is remaining sticky and that’s why many central banks are reluctant to reduce interest rates. Steve says it’s a far more sensible assumption than the neoclassical belief, promulgated by Milton Friedman, that inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.It's not just workers who can put prices up, of course. Companies can increase their margins, and we saw a fair bit of that post-COVID. Burt what of the tech-driven future, where wage negotiations will be harder. Basically, we’ll be lucky if we have a job. Does that mean the tech bros call the shots and wage driven inflation will be a thing of the past? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Is it fair enough to totally write off Ricardo’s theory of competitive advantage? Certainly, President Trump isn’t an advocate, using tariffs to protect America’s domestic industries from those countries that produce stuff cheaper. A broad economy, producing a range of products and services, is preferably to a narrow one, reliant on one or two key exports, which is what Ricardo advocated. But in support of Ricardo, some of the narrowest economies, like Australia, have some of the highest levels of GDP per capita. It seems to work for resource-based economies, so far. But could they be even richer? Phil and Steve discuss Ricardo and economic complexity in the age of Trump’s tariff agenda.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The UK Labour party has struggled to forge a recovery for the beleaguered economy. Rachel Reeves is intent on reducing the government deficit. Her first attempt involved increasing the National Insurance contributions made by businesses – in effect, raising a payrolls tax. In short, a reason for companies unsure about recruiting in a slow growth economy to err on the side of caution. Now, there’s talk of tax rises. Steve and phil talk about the impact on growth of added more to the consumer’s tax burden, and the impact it’ll have on money in circulation. Then there’s the confusing idea of increasing savings as though that’ll drive investment which will add to economic growth. That might be the case if the money was invested in new businesses, rather than inflating share prices and other financial instruments, which all deflect money from the real economy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Before he was the UK Prime Minister at war with the Nazis, Winston Churchill ws the UK’s Chancellor. He played it very straight, with a preoccupation with balancing the budget. He also took the Uk back onto the Gold Exchange, despite warnings from Keynes that the move would be deflationary. In 1928 he reinforced his neoclassical credentials, saying very little additional employment and no permanent employment can be created by state borrowing and state expenditure. That is, of course, the exact opposite of the idea of a job guarantee, but is Churchill partially right? Can a job guarantee ever create jobs that will enhance productivity?This week Phil and Steve look into job creation and Churchill’s fear of using government spending to protect the labour market. It was a time when even Joh Maynard Keynes didn’t get everything right. For example, he argued that the multiplier effect would add new money and new employment from government cash injections. But how can you multiple the injection if no new money is created? And it ignores the real benefits jobs can create, behind the money gained from those directly employed, whether by the government or the private sector.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In UK politicians of all persuasions agree that foreign investment I s important to add to the growth of the UK economy. Steve says you have to have foreigners buying into the UK to counter the currency losses from a sizeable balance of trade deficit. But a lot of that investment will see profits being repatriated back overseas. And then there’d the overseas investment in UK bonds and shares. Andy Burnham, the Manchester Mayor who seems to be positioning himself to replace Keir Starmer, has said we need to limit the ownership of UK nbonds to foreign investors, and not be ‘in hock’ to bond markets. Has he got his thinking right? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

recent spoke at a meeting of Jeremy Corbyn’s new venture – Your Party. Steve gave a presentation on how governments can spend more without worrying about the deficit, provided it was done sensibly. The argument that the private sector buying up government bonds will crowd out investment in other initiatives is bunkum. The private sector can still borrow for investment, perhaps benefiting from the enhanced infrastructure and trading environment government spending has created. But Phil argues there’s a big education job to be done – the politicians, the electorate and, more significantly, the bond vigilantes, who will see high government spending as a reason to push up bond yields, which will flow through to borrowing costs for everyone. Meanwhile, what chance as Corbyn’s new party got? Is the left divided itself between Corbyn, Galloway, the Greens, Labour and thew LibDems? Is this division creating a pathway for Reform to offer an agenda of low tax, fewer government services and heavily controlled immigration. In other words, Project 2025 transferred to British soil. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

During the pandemic central banks had no choice but to buy up government bonds. There were just so many of them being issued. That’s why the UK’s quantitative easing program totalled more than £900 billion during 2020-1. Recently, the bank – like other central banks the world over – are trying to unwind these huge additions to their balance sheet. Recently the Bank of England slowed down the pace at which they sold-off these assets. Why? In part because this process of ‘quantitative tightening’ can reduce the amount of money in circulation. That could slow what little economic growth we have right now. But, Steve says, if these bonds are bought up by banks, it’ll simply mean they replace reserves with zero impact on the economy, except for the interest the banks will earn from those holdings. All this raises the question, why sell now? Or ever? And how much does QE and QT sit alongside or in contrast with government fiscal policy? Don’t they need to be coordinated and, if that’s the case, is there any case for an independent central bank? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

You would assume that government spending is largely designed to help those on lower incomes. The NHS was designed to ensure free healthcare for all. The same for public education. And for welfare payments. So, I theory, the more the government spends, the more wealth is transferred to lower incomes.This week Phil and Steve explore the idea that rising government deficits actually help the rich. That’s because the so-called debt is financed by the issuance of bonds, much of which is nought on the secondary market to add to the wealth funds of the richer end of society. They receive dividend payments funded from the government. That’s a case of government money supporting the wealthy.So, is there a way of government money being used to support the less well-off, without helping the rich to get richer? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

After the war the European economy was humming along, with growth rates of 5 percent or more. Now Germany’s forecast to grow by just 0.1 percent. Allowing for population growth and inflation and it’s an economy in decline. Steve says part of the problem is the assumption that rising government debt is bad for the economy – the old neoclassical belief that if the government spends, it crowds out the private sector. They’ve been testing that theory in Europe for a while now, and it isn’t working for them. Yet, politicians have convinced enough people of the principle such that populist right-wing governments are taking more political control across the continent. All the while, Europe has lost its innovation, and its manufacturing capability is in decline. Hence, Phil asks, how can it get its mojo back? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Copyright and IP rights has always been notoriously difficult to protect. Does it become impossible with the rise of AI? The ideas presented to you through your favourite AI engine come from somewhere whose ideas are being used to support an argument. Or, if you create an artwork that is analysed and used to create other artworks, has copyright been infringed, or is what we would have traditionally called inspiration? Phil asks, is it time to just admit defeat and accept that copyright is an outdated notion and find other ways of compensating the artist and creator? Then there’s the social cost of intellectual property rights. A question that existed before. If Statins had been available as cheaply as they are now before their patent lapsed thousands - possibly hundreds of thousands -of lives would have been saved. Does the same apply to Mounjaro? How do you balance the commercial imperative from big pharma against the social benefits? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We keep hearing about the productivity gains from AI. This week Phil asks Steve about the difference between productivity for a company versus the societal benefits. For example, AI and robots might do a job more efficiently than a human, but it’ll chew up energy in the process, and the human will still be consuming energy as well, unless robots start killing us off. So, this revolution might make some companies more efficient, but as a society as a whole what is the price we are paying? Or is Phil just an old-fashioned laggard? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The small number of technologists who increasingly control the planet’s wealth and political and social agenda are, it seems, big supporters of UBI. Elon Musk is at the forefront of this push. And why wouldn’t he be? His vision is a future of unbounding economic growth, in which the work of humans is almost completely replaced by robots, leaving us all plenty of time to pursue interests, engage in deep philosophical thought or, more likely, get fat watching daytime TV with no sense of purpose. This week Phil and Steve look at the consequences of Musk’s vision and discuss the one factor Musk has yet to answer – where does the money come from? Steve says the tech bros don’t seem to grasp the workings of fiat money creation, which h might be part of the answer. But Phil is more concern ed about the power that Musk and his brethren wield. Do we need to redefine capitalism, so the power of these feudal tech lords is diluted by working cooperatives, to ensure technology is used for the betterment of society and not leading to a hunger games future? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

18th century economist Richard Cantillon theorised that new money added to the economy always reaches the wealthiest people first. If there’s a lot of it, the extra supply will push up prices, but the rich won’t feel it, they’ll just create it. The impact down the track is that the poor, surviving with the same money as before, get hit with the higher prices. Phil suggests that wouldn’t be the case if extra money was created through government spending. It would be the workers and those on welfare getting the first touch of the new money. But, as Steve explains, most money created through government deficits is counteracted by the private sector buying up the government’s bonds. Most of the new money is created through private debt - bank loans, for example. So Cantillon was right.The way to fix the problem s to put in place policies that would see more of a balance between public and private sector money creation. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Phil and Steve pick up from last week’s discussion about the merits of central planning. Last time they talked about how big companies, like Walmart in the US, plan centrally, yet free marketeers have a problem with that sort of coordination being applied to the free market. This week Phil asks how you can ensure that government planning can ensure resources are allocated effectively. For example, isn’t there a risk that you’ll use raw materials and labour to satisfy the wants of the very rich, before you have met the needs of the very poor? How do we arrive at a hybrid approach that works? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In one of his many walks around his neighbourhood Phil has been listening to a book, The People's Republic of Walmart, by Leigh Phillips & Michal Rozworski. Basically, a contrarian economist and a journalist teaming up together. Could such a combination ever really work?The book highlights how part of Walmart’s success story was its meticulous central planning, in contrast to Sears, a business decimated by an adherence to a market based internal structure. 30 internal division competed for resources, including shelf space.Clearly, Walmart’s focus on delivery helped it succeed. So, shouldn’t the same approach be used in the broader economy? When should we choose planning over open market competition?   Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.