ガルブレイスとバルファキス

 

ガルブレイス

https://youtu.be/BAj76BFguCM

 

2020/05/26

 

https://youtu.be/tMURR7WSZvE

 

ガルブレイスとバルファキス2020 限定公開 6 回視聴•2021/05/11 0 0 共有 保存 me com チャンネル登録者数 82人 2020/05/26 https://youtu.be/tMURR7WSZvE​ 

 文字起こし someone has to win in the human race if it isn't you then it has to be me that song was written in the 70s by alan price it was a soundtrack of a great movie oh lucky man i got to know this just as margaret thatcher was about to storm 10 downing street and change the world with you know the myth of neoliberalism which was precisely that somebody has to win so it's going to be me and um you know poor people are just poor people because they don't get to see they make a bad choice this in life um that was then this is now and this is another now the tv's program that tries to find silver linings in this complete catastrophe and it is a complete catastrophe if you look at the hundreds of millions of people who are going hungry tonight that wouldn't have gone hungry had uh financialized capitalism not been in the in in in the fragile state it was before government 19 hit one of the silver linings that we've been talking about this program and which i have been hanging on for hope is the fact that politics has now been revealed as it is because before this crisis it seemed did not or at least they portrayed it to be a kind of football game where you know different teams called parties um scored goals and seated goals and went up and down the league table and then you know at the end of the particular term in office they got the price of forming a government uh that was not in power and politicians were always hiding behind their powerlessness but now we see that government is immensely powerful and in the end that lenin was always right when he said that politics is about who does what to whom tonight i have the great joy and privilege to be joined by an economist a professor an activist but above all else and this is what i want to emphasize a great friend um you know a brother a member of the family and the comrade comrade in arms jamie galbraith welcome to another now uh thank you for joining us all the way from sunny austin i suspect it must be sunny by now or if not it's

 

文字起こし 人間は誰かに勝たなければならない もしあなたでなければ、それは私でなければならない この曲は70年代にアラン・プライスによって書かれたもので、素晴らしい映画のサウンドトラックでした 私がこの曲を知ったのは、ちょうどマーガレット・サッチャーがダウニング街10番地を襲撃し、新自由主義の神話で世界を変えようとしていたときでした。マーガレット・サッチャーがダウニング・ストリート10番地を襲撃して世界を変えようとしていたとき、私はこの曲を知りました。新自由主義の神話とは、まさに「誰かが勝たなければならない、だから私になる」というもので、貧しい人々は、人生で間違った選択をするのを見ることができないから貧しいだけなのです。人生において......それは昔のことであり、今のことであり、これはもう一つの今のテレビ番組であり、この完全な大惨事の中に光明を見出そうとするものであり、それは完全な大惨事である。もし、今晩、何億もの人々が飢えていることを見れば、もし、金融化された資本主義が、政府が19世紀に突入する前の脆弱な状態でなければ、飢えることはなかっただろう。我々がこの番組で話してきた光明の一つであり、私が希望にかけていたものは というのも、この危機以前は、政治は、政党という異なるチームがゴールを決めたり、ゴールを阻止したりして、リーグテーブルを上下するような、一種のサッカーゲームのようには見えなかったし、少なくとも彼らはそう描いていました。政治とは誰が誰に何をするかということだ」と言ったレーニンは常に正しかったのです。今夜は、経済学者、教授、活動家、そして何よりも私が強調したいことは、偉大な友人、つまり兄弟、家族の一員、そして戦友であるジェイミー・ガルブレイスさんにお越しいただき、ありがとうございます。

 or if not it's actually quite cloudy and cool here it's great to be with you welcome and welcome welcome so how is life in austin these days uh well quieter than normal uh the uh the student population was dispersed in march uh and uh this has been quite far from being one of the worst affected communities uh although it obviously uh has been devastating for the uh for the local uh you know the local commerce and the local business community and the local working community uh but uh compared to a lot of other places it has been relatively calm here in the last several months well universities are fantastic when the students are not there aren't they i mean i always like the idea of a university for without students oh i spent the first or month or six weeks in the 800 square feet of my third floor here in the space that you can see and since then i've been going out as far as the little park at the base of my uh base of my street and walking around it for an hour or so each day so i've seen a lot of my neighbors and i've seen a lot of the local flowering plants uh and for the rest i've been watching it as everybody else has over electronic medium indeed it is as if we do occupy exactly the same spot in the universe whatever our screen shows us and i suspect we read and watched more or less the same stuff um but before we start the usual fair of an another now um let me let me just jump in to american politics very briefly and then jump right straight out again because it's very devastatingly boring these days um is joe biden going to be the nominee in the end who takes on donald trump is the democratic party going to to commit this this crime against logic well he's the only candidate uh and so long as that's the case it's likely that when the convention comes around they will cast their votes for him uh they but the frankly the fate of the democratic party doesn't rest on the electors it doesn't rest on the convention delegates uh this is a candidate who's supported by uh who came into the race uh with the support of the establishment in order to defeat bernie sanders others he wasn't the only one but he was the one who was who became the designated survivor if you like and uh you know what the establishment decides is what will happen uh at the moment they appear to be backing him and that what appears to be the most likely outcome now they're thinking sorry go ahead no just you know the standard questions it depends on whether you believe the polls my my belief is that the polls will converge toward the uh close to the election as they always do that they're not meaningful now

 

 そうでなくても、ここは曇っていて涼しいので、皆さんとご一緒できて嬉しいです。最近のオースティンの生活はどうですか？まあ、普段よりは静かですね。しかし、他の多くの場所に比べて、ここ数ヶ月は比較的落ち着いています。私は最初の1ヶ月か6週間をここの3階の800平方フィートのスペースで過ごしましたが、それ以来、私の通りのふもとにある小さな公園まで出かけて、毎日1時間ほど歩いています。それ以来、私は毎日1時間ほど、私の住む通りの根元にある小さな公園まで出かけて、その周りを歩いています。そうすると、近所の人たちをたくさん見かけましたし、地元の花木をたくさん見かけました。それ以外は、他の人たちが電子媒体で見ているのと同じように見ています。しかし、その前に、いつものように "もう一つのフェア "を始めようと思います。アメリカの政治の話を簡単にしますが、最近は非常に壊滅的につまらないので、すぐに元に戻します。彼は唯一の候補者です......そしてそれが事実である限り、大会が近づくと彼らは彼に投票するでしょう......しかし、率直に言って、民主党の運命は選挙人に委ねられているわけではありません......大会代議員に委ねられているわけでもありません......この候補者は、私たちの支持を受けています。この候補者は支持されている......バーニー・サンダースを負かすために体制側の支持を受けて参戦した......彼だけではないが......彼が生存者として指名された......言ってみれば体制側の判断でどうなるか......現時点では 世論調査を信じるかどうかにかかっています 私の考えでは、世論調査はいつものように選挙近くになると収束すると思いますが、今は意味がありません。

 and they you know we're many months away from the election uh if indeed a proper election is held um and uh and all in previous elections this tends to come to a comes down to a narrow decision in a handful of states and i expect that will be the case again but we don't know okay let's jump straight out again from contemporary american politics and do that which we always do here in another now um go back to your formative years um you know growing up uh under the very large shadow of another galbraith that some people may remember um tell us about it oh you know i was uh in the second cohort of my parents children that's born in 1952 uh and at that point my father was really at the in the ascendant phase of his career uh so they uh i spent of course very interesting couple of years in india but i was uh just i escaped home at the age of 14 when off the boarding school didn't like it escaped from there went to france uh on a program and then escaped from there and went to berkeley uh and so uh you know my formative years passed relatively quickly and i would say that the my relationship with my father was became most intense during the vietnam war period as a teenager you know i had the opposite trajectory of most people of my generation who rebelled against their parents and myself my father was from the beginning the leading voice in opposition to that war there was a degree of family harmony that was unheard of in the country in those days uh you know that persisted right through uh yeah largely to the to the end i became an economist in the belief that uh that i would not be competing with him contemporaneously and i misestimated that for about third by about 30 years and and your father was remarkable in the sense that not only was he uh erudite and progressive but he actually became more progressive and slightly more erudite as he go on oh i think if you go back uh to as early certainly as i can remember but even before that uh he came into politics from a farming background he's a very practical person he did not have an academic formation because he had a degree in animal husbandry and a phd in agricultural economics uh and uh they uh his his approach to things was always that of of a very politically hard-headed person i mean when he was in his early 30s he was in charge of every price in the united states uh for a year uh and that gave him a let's just say a comfortable view of the exercise of power which he never relinquished

  私は、1952年に生まれた両親の子供たちの第二集団に属していました。私は、1952年に生まれた両親の子供たちの第二世代に属しています。その時点で、父はキャリアの頂点に立っていましたので、私はインドで非常に興味深い数年間を過ごしましたが、私は14歳のときに寄宿学校を卒業して家を出ました。私は14歳で家を出ましたが、寄宿学校が気に入らず、そこからフランスに留学し、そこから抜け出してバークレーに行きました。私は、親や自分自身に反抗する同世代の多くの人々とは逆の軌道を辿りました。私の父は、最初から戦争に反対する主要な声を発していましたし、当時の国では前代未聞の家族の調和がありました。あなたのお父様は、博識で進歩的だっただけでなく、年を重ねるごとに進歩的で少しずつ博識になっていったという意味で、驚くべき方でした。私が記憶している限りでは、確かに早い時期に政治の世界に入ったと思いますが、その前から、彼は農業のバックグラウンドから政治の世界に入りました。 彼が30代前半のとき、1年間にわたってアメリカのすべての価格を担当したことがありますが、そのことで彼は権力の行使について余裕のある見方ができるようになりました。

 

 he was always you can go through his letters which are now available and enormously voluminous and he was he was intervening sharply and with a good deal of perception all the way through he was one of the first people to suggest the marshall plan for example and one can go through an enormous list of things it just never ends i did uh as you know i even did you know as i did some research in economic history i kept finding traces of his influence on all kinds of things you would heart find it find it hard to imagine the location of ammunition factories for the mobilization for the second world war just for example but but what you what what you're portraying as a kind of um yeah the merit that he didn't have a very solid theoretical background in economics no on the contrary it was a great merit exactly that's important no no he will approach approach these questions without any uh you know academic preconceived beliefs and so he was entirely free of the dogmas of classical and neoclassical economics that's what david that plus the ability to write in english gave him his power can you imagine if you try to be the prize are you know the the fixer of every prize in the american economy during the war during the war economy uh if you believed in in the general equilibrium models of prices it would just be impossible to do it of course of course i mean what the way the way to do this was you you started with a with what had been done in the first world war and you improved on it and then you adjusted very quickly when you realized the things you were doing wasn't working and they did that repeatedly over the course of the life of that agency now that was long before that was years before i was born but still as i said it gives you a feel for for for the flexibility and the uh that he had uh flexibility willingness to trust his judgment yeah and of course it helped fixing places the fact that they were already fixed by the cartels uh unlike economic theory that was the first discovery was that that you could fix prices when the when the big corporations had already fixed them uh that it was not it was not that difficult a thing to do.

  彼は常に鋭く介入していましたし、かなりの認識を持っていました。例えば、マーシャル計画を提案した最初の人物の一人でもありましたし、数え上げればきりがありません。私は、ご存じのように、経済史の研究をしているうちに、あらゆる種類のものに彼が影響を与えた痕跡を見つけ出しました。しかし、あなたが描いているのは、彼が経済学の確固たる理論的背景を持っていなかったことを、ある種の......そう、メリットとして描いているのですが、それどころか、まさに大きなメリットなのです。戦時中のアメリカ経済の賞品のフィクサーになろうとしたら......価格の一般均衡モデルを信じていたら、それは不可能でしょう。私が生まれる何年も前のことですが、それでも私が言ったように、彼が持っていた柔軟性や、自分の判断を信頼しようとする意志を感じ取ることができます。そしてもちろん、カルテルによってすでに固定されていた場所を修正するのにも役立ちました。

 and then you just had to make exceptions uh and i asked him where do you find 17 000 people to run prices the united states so lion grant colleges i hired all the economists all the institutional economists who were a little too old to fight wanted to do something that we just you know brought in people all kinds of very interesting people lots of lots of people who went on to to uh to shape the post-war world went through that agency in those years well let's make a segue directly from the 1940s to the here and now because you know i've been reading your stuff and we've been chatting for a while now during this lockdown and it seems to me that you are calling for similar measures as those practiced during the war economy uh for the lockdown economy or the coronavirus economy yes uh well that was my first instinct was that this was a mobilization problem and i think that instinct was correct uh there are two aspects to it one was assuring you have the appropriate supplies medical supplies protective equipment uh hospital beds and uh and food and medicines the other the basics that people needed while everybody else was hunkered down and the other was the mobilization of the population to ensure that you got you broke the chain of transmission of the disease and you had to hold those things in place long enough uh to um to do the trick and it turns out that now we've now come through that experience and some societies were capable of doing it and others were not and the ones that were not were the neoliberal uh uh societies the ones that were for or and you mentioned this earlier when you just start speaking the ones that were based upon uh basically a credit and debt economy that had become extremely fragile and they run up to this uh they were hit at a moment of extreme fragility and they broke uh and they were not able politically and socially to withstand the uh the pressure to um to to to get the job done.

 

 私は彼に、17,000人もの人を集めて米国の価格を決めるにはどうすればいいのかと尋ねました。そこでライオン・グラント・カレッジは、すべての経済学者を雇いました。戦うには少々年を取りすぎていた機関経済学者たちが、何かをやりたいと思っていたので、私たちはただ、あらゆる種類の非常に興味深い人々を招き入れました。 さて、1940年代から今に話を移しましょう。私はあなたの記事を読んでいて、このロックダウンの間もしばらくチャットをしていましたが、あなたは戦争経済やロックダウン経済、コロナウイルス経済の間に実践されたような対策を求めているように思えます。そうですね......最初の直感では、これは動員の問題だと思いましたし、その直感は正しかったと思います......そこには2つの側面があります。1つは、適切な物資を確保すること。医療用品、保護具、病院のベッド、食料、医薬品など、他の人が身を潜めている間に人々が必要とする基本的なものです。そしてもう一つは、病気の感染の連鎖を断ち切るために住民を動員することです。そして、これらの物資を十分な時間維持しなければなりません。先ほどあなたがおっしゃったように、基本的に信用と負債の経済に基づいていて、非常に脆弱になっていました。そして、このような状況になったのは、非常に脆弱になった瞬間に襲われ、壊れてしまったのです。

 

 and and now they are in the in this kind of uh extremely boggy situation of trying to resume economic activity which will not resume uh and they're going to find that they that they're falling short on both on both uh uh well we don't know quite what's going to happen to the epidemic but it doesn't look good well let's just say that it's that they have not got the job done um and at the same time on the economic front they're not going to be able to achieve what they think they can achieve precisely because they believe in this general equilibrium model everything's going to go back to a previous normal without any uh consequences for having been interrupted for a period of months but that isn't going to happen and it's obvious to anybody who can look around and see it then it isn't i believe they can see it too they they talk about a v-shaped discovery anybody anybody who has a business under understanding of this has seen this from the beginning uh and they've been positioning themselves but you have uh you know that you have the political people and the economists surrounding them who say oh yeah they desperately want to win the election and so they've been talking themselves into the belief that they'll be a fast recovery um it's an illusion obviously but any business person will tell you that nobody who makes it you know is in the in any let's say this the supply of aircraft parts thinks that there's a business there half the planes are on the ground i mean it's it's but not only are they on the ground but they cease to function as a store of value because most i mean lufthansa was assuming that because it owned its airplanes he could use them as collateral to borrow money now that the collateral has gone down the toilet so it can't even borrow money so it's it's knocking on they're not commercially they they they the government will lend money in the united states to a large corporation we see that uh that doesn't get they have that they've got 500 or 500 billion right out of the out of the starting gate so they can be kept up they can be propped up for a while and have been uh but they and the planes are you know the planes remain airworthy if they were could they simply be scrapped.

 

 そして今、彼らは、再開されない経済活動を再開しようとするという、非常に泥沼のような状況に置かれています。そして、彼らは、両方の面で不足していることに気づくでしょう。なぜなら、この一般均衡モデルでは、数ヶ月間中断しても何の影響もなく、すべてが以前の正常な状態に戻ると信じているからですが、そんなことは起こらないし、周囲を見渡せば誰の目にも明らかです。 でも、彼らの周りには政治家や経済学者がいて、彼らはどうしても選挙に勝ちたいと思っていて、そのために自分たちを説得しているんです。これは明らかに幻想ですが、ビジネスマンなら誰でも言うことですが、例えば航空機部品の供給に携わっている人で、飛行機の半分が地上に落ちている状態でビジネスが成り立つと思っている人はいないでしょう。ルフトハンザは飛行機を所有していたので、それを担保にお金を借りることができると考えていましたが、その担保がなくなってしまったので、お金を借りることもできなくなりました。アメリカでは、政府が大企業にお金を貸すことがありますが、それができないのです。彼らは、スタートゲートからすぐに5,000億、5,000億のお金を手にしているので、しばらくは維持することができますし、そうしてきました。

 you'd have a better chance of restarting uh the whole industrial process but they're they're not going to be that's where the difference lies with the war economy that's where the difference lies with the war economy during the war economy capital store was destroyed right exactly you you made it and then you blew it up but that's uh doesn't happen so much in the civilian economy well let's take the three major economic blocks one at a time in brief let's begin with china because unbeknownst to most of our viewers yeah you have a very strong connection with china whether you like it or not it lives in your home yeah well okay she's not like she's called ying she's a sport for almost 30 years now she's a formidable member of the household as well as a citizen of the people's republic of china your wife uh so you know china very well how do i mean beyond all the uh the noise regarding the you know the what what the president of china knew what he didn't know what happened in and so on what's your assessment of the way china handled the kobe 19 crisis well one thing that's clear that china met the two criteria i just mentioned before they had the the production base and they were able to sustain the population through the the the what was required to break the transmission uh in a very very severe lockdown in all the whole country but especially in in hubei province with 60 million people um so they achieved that um and the second thing that they achieved was the ability to to resume afterwards uh and that meant that is fundamentally because the chinese economy is not rooted uh in the same levels of of of debt uh of of land rent uh and uh that that the western economies are uh so uh and this has been true i i did some economic work in china 25 years ago it was true then it's probably somewhat less true now but it's it's uh it's still a big difference between china and the rest so you can have uh they were also able uh to essentially mobilize the whole population so it was extremely uh socially unified response to this crisis and i don't want to minimize how unified it was in parts of the west .

 戦争経済との違いはそこにあります 戦争経済では資本貯蔵庫が破壊されました まさにあなたが作って爆発させたのです しかし、これは民間経済ではあまり起こりません さて、3つの主要な経済ブロックを1つずつ簡単に説明しましょう まず、中国から始めましょう ほとんどの視聴者は知らないかもしれませんが、あなたは中国と非常に強いつながりがあります。好むと好まざるとにかかわらず、中国とは非常に強い結びつきがあり、あなたの家にも住んでいます。まあ、彼女はインと呼ばれるような人ではなく、30年近くスポーツをしていて、家の中では手強い存在であり、中国人民共和国の国民でもあります。あなたの奥さんは、中国のことをよく知っています。つまり、中国の大統領が何を知っていたか、何を知らなかったか、何が起こったかなどの雑音を超えて、中国が神戸19区の危機に対処したことについて、あなたはどのように評価しているのでしょうか？ひとつ明らかなことは、中国は先ほど述べた2つの基準を満たしていたということです。中国には生産基盤があり、国中、特に6,000万人の人口を抱える湖北省での非常に厳しいロックダウンの中で、通信を遮断するために必要な人口を維持することができました。私は25年前に中国で経済活動をしたことがありますが、そのときもそうでしたし、今もそうかもしれませんが、中国と他の国との間には大きな違いがあります。

 i think that even in the united states there was a great deal of community response uh even though the national government had fell apart on this issue uh but in china it was really really beyond remarkable how how effective it was and and if and and also you know the the role of the state in in fostering it was also very strong uh but the essential thing is that the economy was proved to be much more resilient uh and ability able to uh to begin to resume activity uh that will be true in in in the in the us to the uk or i think in continental europe as well uh and that uh that's all that's showing up right now uh there's a major major distinction between the two regions would you also agree that within china while there is a large credit bubble it is contained within the confines of china and the fact that capital controls remain in place and the central government can effectively write off that private or problem uh controls were under discussion when i was there in the 1990s and they did not relax them then uh and they have been they maintained them they maintained an infrastructure uh that comes back uh you know many many years now uh that provides they were able to mobilize in the public health domain as well but the fact that they had uh capital controls and they had means that the and china does have credit bubbles as real estate bubbles and stock bubbles and so forth but they are contained and the capacity to write down those debts or simply to ignore them is there as necessary uh and that's because the banking sector is essentially under the it's a state controlled sector it's a policy sector and this has always been the case and since the beginning of the reform period when they started you know having a banking sector that meant something um and for i remember 25 30 years ago western economist saying oh the non-performing loans.

  米国では、この問題で政府が崩壊していたにもかかわらず、コミュニティの反応が非常に大きかったと思いますが、中国では、その効果は本当に驚くべきものでしたし、それを促進する国家の役割も非常に強かったと思います。このことは、米国や英国、あるいはヨーロッパ大陸でも同じことが言えると思います。私が中国にいた1990年代には、資本規制が議論されていましたが、彼らはそれを緩和せず、今も維持しています。彼らはインフラを維持しており、それはもう何年も前にさかのぼります。これは、銀行セクターが本質的に国の管理下にあり、政策的なセクターであるためで、これは常にそうであり、改革期の初めから、銀行セクターを持つことには意味があるとされてきました。 と言っていました。

 and the chinese banks are going to bring the system down and it hasn't happened uh and so long as they're retained and then there's no national autonomy it doesn't need to happen because as i say it's a it's the same reason that the us government can run a public but budget deficit is that they uh these these things are uh under national control the u.s has also its flexibility in there and in the public sector but it doesn't extend to a banking sector is is something which is periodically has to be bailed out in the united states but that doesn't save the the borrowers uh whereas the chinese have the capacity to uh to do what they like in that respect they have the capacity for symmetric bailouts or symmetric um united states doesn't want to happen no the united states federal government um the the the you know the beauty of course of the united states is the the exorbitant uh power of the dollar that um affords this degree of flexibility to the federal government but when it comes for instance to public health systems even in even transportation systems the federal government has nothing like the chinese capacity to mobilize health services transportation in a manner that is coherent and um responsive to the to to to a need like you know the pandemic is uh introducing well the federal government the united states has a lot of potential power in that respect and uh it does have legislative uh uh enactment statutes that are already on the books the defense production act which is used by the pentagon hundreds of thousands of times a year to preempt private contractors on military matters uh so uh those powers are there um that congress is there it can enact new statutes as required it just didn't do it i didn't use those powers it would refuse to uh invoke them uh and when it when congress did act it acted on a paradigm of basically pumping money through the system uh which was first of all very uneven in its effect and secondly uh doesn't address the supply issues and doesn't address the the uh the long-term sustainability doesn't address the debt question uh so uh you end up with essentially approaching this with a very defective vision of what you're facing.

  中国の銀行がシステムを崩壊させようとしていますが、実際にはそうなっていません。中国の銀行が維持されている限り、そして国の自治がない限り、そうなる必要はありません。 米国は、公共部門には柔軟性がありますが、銀行部門には及ばないのです。米国では定期的に救済しなければなりませんが、それでは借り手を救えません。米国連邦政府は......もちろん、米国の美点は、ドルの法外な......力で、連邦政府にある程度の柔軟性を与えていることですが、例えば公衆衛生システムや交通システムに関しては、連邦政府には、中国のように、首尾一貫した方法で医療サービス輸送を動員する能力はありません。パンデミックのようなニーズに首尾一貫して対応できるような方法で保健サービス輸送を動員する能力は、中国のようなものではありません。議会は必要に応じて新しい法律を制定することができますが、私はそのような権限を使わなかったので、議会はその発動を拒否しました。 長期的な持続可能性にも対応していませんし、債務問題にも対応していません。そのため、結局、自分が直面していることについて、非常に欠陥のあるビジョンでアプローチすることになってしまいます。

 uh it was approached in many respects as though it was a characteristic financial crisis like the last one um and that you could find a new set of of credit instruments to essentially put the economy back on on a growth path as though the interruption was could be symmetrically uh reversed um and what's what's happened of course is that again we have a lot of capital assets that are on the ground that that are now in excess supply nobody's going to build new ones uh we have massive changes in consumer behavior uh which is going to affect their willingness to go out and purchase and then you have the public health constraints on a great many things which slows the return of economic activity so yes people can come out of their houses they may go to the beaches and so forth where they have them uh whether that's safe or not is another thing but we're seeing that over the last few days but are they going to go back get back on airplanes and are they going to purchase new automobiles are they going to build new commercial office buildings are they going to build new retail outlets the answer to those questions is almost surely not and not for quite some time uh and so a lot of what has been driving the american economy not to mention you know sporting events and anything that involves uh bringing people together in large numbers that is a part of a commercial activity conventions um uh resorts all of these things are are are flat on their backs um and we didn't we didn't the government didn't see that this was going to be the case or at least if it did it didn't act as though uh it needed to restructure the economy from the beginning and of course we now now we we have this caught up in this rhetoric of reopening uh reopening what uh i mean are there people there the millions of people or hundreds of thousands that we need for for contact tracing and symptom monitoring and generally making sure that the environments people go into are reasonably safe and secure.

  多くの点で、前回のような特徴的な金融危機であるかのようにアプローチされ、中断が対称的に......逆転するかのように、基本的に経済を成長軌道に戻すための新しい信用手段を見つけることができると考えられていました。消費者の行動に大きな変化があり、それが消費者の購買意欲に影響を与えています。また、公衆衛生上の制約が多くのものに及び、それが経済活動の回復を遅らせています。新しいオフィスビルを建てようとしているのか 小売店を建てようとしているのか これらの質問への答えはほぼ確実にありません そしてしばらくの間はありません アメリカ経済を牽引してきたものの多くは あなたが知っているスポーツイベントや 商業活動の一環として大勢の人が集まるようなもの コンベンションやリゾートなどに関わるものは すべて裏目に出ています 政府はこのような状況になるとは考えていませんでしたし、少なくとも考えていたとしても、最初から経済を再構築する必要があるとは考えていませんでした。そしてもちろん、今、私たちは再開のレトリックに巻き込まれています。再開とはつまり、何百万人、何十万人もの人々が、接触者の追跡や症状の監視、そして一般的に人々が入る環境が適度に安全でセキュアであることを確認するために必要なのです。

 they're not there we haven't done it uh those things the federal government could have done those that just didn't didn't get its act together to do them those outside the united states find one one unfathomable aspect of the place and that is healthcare the emphasis on private healthcare which is clearly failing in that context do you think that this crisis may have edged public opinion closer to bernie sanders idea of medicare for all do you see the movement given by joe biden to adopt medicare for all because he hasn't yet he's been a steadfast opponent there's no question is overwhelmingly uh move public opinion uh it's very obvious that the health care system doesn't work health insurance system doesn't work uh people who are many millions now approaching i guess roughly 40 million people who've lost their their jobs will get their insured through their employer they lost they have to go on to another health insurance uh option at that point if they can afford it uh and this is this is changing that they uh i mean there is a sort of grudging recognition uh but the fact remains that the uh health insurance industry is a large powerful well-funded industry with a lot of political leverage uh and uh basically replacing it as you would need to do it's not it's still not going it's not something going to happen easily even if uh there were a you know a new presidency decided that that was the what you had to do i did it's you you haven't got the uh i mean it's still going to take a big fight to make something like that happen but at the same time it's clear that this is um the fun the the dysfunction of the system is very very apparent uh in the um and will become more so i have to say is it was it as bad as it might have been the answer to that is no and the reason for that is that during the lockdown uh people stayed home there were no very few traffic accidents there were very few work accidents there were very few other infectious diseases so hospitals actually were empty uh because they did all their other clients and this caused in the american system a financial problem for the hospitals to get reimbursed on a fee-for-service basis uh and so with the empty beds they're saying where are all the sick people who we rely on to stay afloat uh and then you know you say you can't make this up nobody nobody would have invented this system uh in which uh you know but effectively.

  アメリカ以外の国では、この国の不可解な点として、医療が挙げられます。この危機が世論をバーニー・サンダーズの「すべての人のための医療」という考えに近づけたと思いますか？ジョー・バイデンが「すべての人のための医療」を採用しようとする動きを見ましたか？世論は圧倒的に......医療制度が機能していないことは非常に明白です 医療保険制度が機能していないのは......何百万人もの人々が失業し、およそ4000万人になろうとしています 失業した人々は雇用主を通して保険に加入しなければなりません 失業した人々は余裕があれば別の医療保険に加入しなければなりません そして、これが彼らを変えていくのです......つまり、ある種の不承不承の認識があるということです......しかし、医療保険業界は大きな力を持ち、潤沢な資金を持つ業界であり、政治的にも大きな影響力を持っているという事実は変わりません......。 政治的な影響力を持った、資金力のある大規模な業界であり、基本的にはそれを置き換える必要があるのですが、そうはいきません。たとえ新しい大統領が誕生して、「私がやるべきこと」と決めたとしても、簡単には起こらないでしょう。その理由は、ロックダウンの間、人々は家にいて、交通事故はほとんどなく、労働災害もほとんどなく、他の感染症もほとんどなかったので、病院は実際には他のすべての顧客に対応したために空になっていました。 ベッドが空になると、我々が生活を維持するために頼っている病人たちはどこにいるのかということになります。

 there's a in many respects except for the epidemic uh a decline in in health problems actually produces financial problem difficulties for the health care system well there is a similar system called the the privatized prison system that would go completely robust if uh crime was not committed um you know the the whole yeah needs problems in order to keep surviving but yes but the private prison system isn't as big a thing of the bigger piece of the thing i don't think it's the private health care system private and non-profit before we move to europe and we shall move to europe in a minute um i've got a i've got a question for you you can answer it and we will ask our viewers not to reveal your answer to keep it between us um you know four years ago um when we were discussing the hillary versus donald question you know we all said you know what can you do if we were voters i mean you are a voter but if we were voters in a swing state you you were not a vote in the swing state you're in texas for god's for god's sakes um but if we were in a swing state we will you know hold our nose like that and vote for hillary to keep donald out um in november are you going to vote for biden i am a religious uh democrat which is to say you know it's a kind of the relationship that many people feel toward their church uh however ambivalent about it it's succeedingly hard to leave um they uh so the answer to that is yes i will vote for biden of course i will um the uh is this what you would hope have happened in this country uh no obviously uh but at the same time uh the uh you know i i'm i'm not a sort to think that these problems are and the kind of crisis that we're facing is the work of you know a late arriving individual and i think it's important as a professional to understand uh that the reason the us economy has crumbled under the uh you know the impact of the coronavirus is not simply that it had uh a federal government in the hands of of of this particular uh gang uh it is it really has to do with the way in which the economy has been engineered over the last 40 years .

  疫病以外の多くの点では......健康問題の減少は、実際に医療制度の財政問題を生み出しています 似たような制度に民営化された刑務所制度がありますが、犯罪が起きなければ完全に崩壊してしまいます......ええと、全体としては、生き延びるためには問題が必要なのですが、ええ、しかし、民営化された刑務所制度はそれほど大きな問題ではありません......それは民営化された医療制度ではないと思います......民営化された非営利団体です......ヨーロッパに移動する前に、私は質問があります。 ヨーロッパの話に移る前に、1分後にヨーロッパの話に移りますが、私はあなたに質問があります。あなたはそれに答えればいいのですが、私たちは視聴者にあなたの答えを明かさないようにお願いします。しかし、もし私たちがスイングステートにいたら、鼻をつまんでヒラリーに投票し、ドナルドを締め出すでしょう。しかし、同時に、私は、これらの問題や私たちが直面している危機が、遅れてきた個人の仕業であると考えるようなタイプではありません。コロナウイルスの影響でアメリカ経済が崩壊したのは、単に連邦政府がこの特定のギャングの手中にあったからではなく、過去40年間に経済がどのように設計されてきたかに関係しているということを、専門家として理解することが重要だと思います。

um and in particular in the in the uh return from the financial crisis of 13 years ago and what happened was that rather than constru reconstructing the financial sector and pursuing a balanced recovery and rather than rebuilding a balance between the public and the private sector uh was that we we had this we had an economic expansion that was predicated on uh on a great deal it's particularly on on on capital asset valuations on the stock market driven by uh the corporate sector which issued debt to buy back its own stocks uh and became very highly leveraged and then securitized that debt so it was this is a process uh in a different channel that that led to the last financial crisis that was mortgages this was corporate debt and you could tell uh that once the once the base of profitability ran out you're going to run into systemic problems very big systemic problems uh it happened much it happened very fast as a result of the epidemic uh but uh that this was this was not the invention of of this administration and it was and it wasn't the invention of the previous administration's the invention of a whole set of ideas about how you run um you run the economy and that's where we have to begin now obviously the political sector is not thinking along those lines and my view is one has to continue to work to change to change this perception because until you do until you really have a serious change in the way we think about how the system is structured uh we're going to stumble along and we're going to stumble along under the impact both of the of the biological event of the epidemic and of the failure to recognize uh what's what what the source of the difficulties is um and that happened in the 30s that happened from 1929 to 30 to the end of 32 at the start of 1933. uh it took four years uh four years of deepening disaster basically investment went to nothing in 1932 and that finally brought in uh a change that defined my father's life and really defined the whole era that certainly brackets my life as well uh and one had a a a a period of of of dramatic experimentation.

特に13年前の金融危機からの立ち直りにおいて、何が起こったかというと、金融セクターを再建し、バランスのとれた回復を追求し、官民のバランスを再構築するのではなく、このような景気拡大が行われたのですが、これは特に株式市場における資本資産の評価に基づいていました。企業は自社株を買い戻すために負債を発行し、非常に高いレバレッジをかけ、その負債を証券化しました。これが、前回の金融危機につながった、異なる経路のプロセスです。しかし、これは今の政権の発明ではなく、前の政権の発明でもなく、経済をどのように運営していくかについての一連の考え方の発明であり、そこから始めなければならないのです。なぜなら、システムがどのように構成されているかについての考え方を真剣に変えない限り、私たちはこのままつまずき、流行病という生物学的な出来事と、困難の原因が何であるかを認識しないことの両方の影響を受けて、つまずくことになるからです。1932年には投資がゼロになり、それが父の人生を決定づけ、私の人生にも大きな影響を与えた時代全体を決定づける変化をもたらしました。

 uh and uh reconstruction and development and a positive change and essentially that's the if i hark back to a historical period that's the one i think you have to harp back to and think about really understand what you have to think about and what you have to do and what how you have to reorganize things but it's understandable people don't want to do that they they hold on to illusions that what was six months ago can be restored of course these illusions have particularly lucrative but for some uh sure of course that's motivated failures they are not unmotivated errors in certain respects that's true once once assets are devalued houses and corporate assets and everything else there somebody can come along who has some access to credit or have some capital and pick them up for cheap and i'm sure that's very much i mean i know that's very much in people's minds and there was short selling in the market uh the governmental response was delayed and they were intelligence briefings which even some senators sold out their their stock positions in january when they understood what was going to happen uh but other people sold short and made there was a report of 300 and some billion dollars of profits made by short selling the market um so yes uh there there's basically a a fork in the road uh that can happen and the you know the more likely one is the grim possibility that people will simply be foreclosed evicted that their properties will be commercial properties will be shut down and eventually they'll be bought up and demolished and god knows what if anything will happen to them uh but that this will become a very concentrated economy with many millions of people who are homeless and who have no source of of of of support and the collapse in the state and local government services which depend upon their tax revenues property taxes and sales taxes and that's also very much in the offing at the present time so all of that is one one possibility and and my view is that that that's it's not a tolerable pos it's obviously not tolerable but it's not something which can be supported politically for the reason that the people who were affected by it were doing what they were supposed to do right they were doing what was part of the public effort to defeat the disease staying home.

 

 しかし、人々がそれを望まないのは理解できます。6ヶ月前の状態が回復できるという幻想を持ち続けるのです。もちろん、こうした幻想は特に利益をもたらしますが、一部の人々にとっては、もちろん動機のある失敗であり、動機のない失敗ではありません。ある意味ではその通りです 一度資産が切り下げられれば、住宅や企業の資産などあらゆるものが、信用力や資本力のある誰かがやってきて、安く手に入れることができます そのことが人々の心を大いに揺さぶっているのは確かです 市場では空売りが行われました 政府の対応は遅れていましたし、情報の説明もありました 何が起こるかを理解した一部の上院議員は1月に株式を売り抜けました しかし、他の人々は空売りをして利益を得ました 空売りをして3億数千万ドルの利益を得たという報告もあります そうですね......基本的には道が分かれています......起こりうる可能性が高いのは、人々が単に差し押さえられて立ち退き、商業施設が閉鎖され、最終的には買い取られて取り壊され、それらに何が起こるかは神のみぞ知る、という厳しい可能性ですが......何百万人もの人々がホームレスになり、支援の源がないという非常に集中した経済になるでしょう。しかし、これは非常に集中した経済となり、何百万人もの人々がホームレスとなり、生活を支えるものがなくなります。また、固定資産税や売上税などの税収に依存している州や地方自治体のサービスが崩壊し、これも現在進行中です。

 

 uh they were late took the furloughs from their jobs or were laid off uh but this was all part of a common national effort if you then tell them well it's just because you couldn't pay your mortgage you now have to lose your house you could you couldn't pay you can't pay your rent you're going to be invicted and thrown out on the street uh good luck holding that in i don't think that's going to work um so the ultimately i think uh that the other fork in the road is the one that has to be seriously taken up and considered and that really is to say at the end of the day what has to give here is the structure of debts the financial structure here which has become basically unsustainable and needs to be written down written off that can happen that's what they did in the 30s ultimately was that they wrote down and wrote off the debts but the the key point he made is ultimately you mentioned before the period between 1929 and 1932 33 just before fdr came in with his new deal but it seems to me that the difference with our error because our 1929 course took place in 2008 in our 1929 the difference was that the central banks of the g20 money printing and reflow to the financial sector unlike in 1929 so the the way i feel it um jamie is that you know the period between 1929 and 1932 you know that was three years but with the cortisone that has been applied by central banks after 2008 that period has been stretched and stretched and stretched and that is what creates very low levels of investment because the money printed by the fed the central bank of europe of my bank of england bank of japan it reflows asset prices the float stock of changes it reflows the financial sector but it does not go into investment into things society needs and they so you have this amazing incongruity between say you know liquidity available in investment that creates depletionary forces those beget political monsters all over the globe and that creates the fragility you're talking about and the huge amount of private debts because people simply don't have the incomes so they have to rely more and more private that during the good times and then corona by iris comes so it seems to me that you know we this is worse than the 1930s because in the 1930s at least we had to have we have fdr had no alternative or somebody had to do it had to come in and restructure that because they didn't have this toxicity of the you know the liquidity which is zombifying the financial sector keeping asset prices up and the stories everywhere everybody everyone else well uh yeah up to a point uh there are things which weren't didn't exist in the 1930s that continue to function social security the united states continues to function uh and so long as the government is bailing out you know the the corporate debtors then the bonds are not defaulting massively and that supports a great many people who have you know who have have retirement funds and this kind of thing uh so this if the structure is different one has to think about it quite carefully but at the same time there's no way that that helps let's say a boeing major american manufacturer of aircraft there's no way it helps anybody who's trying to maintain a commercial establishment of a retail mall i saw a report i don't know if it's accurate that 90 of american malls could close that landlords are sending out default notices to their commercial clients right now by the thousands um and this is an implosion of an extent because the american economy depends upon it's very largely a an economy floated by um you know by suburban expansion and and commercial uh retail of this kind um and uh so it seems to me that uh that there are certain things that financial bailouts simply can't achieve uh and that you know i don't know whether it means three years six years or whether we have some political motion in a shorter period of time one or two another thing that actually makes it possible that it's shorter is that in the 1930s there were a lot more people in the countryside um and so there was a lot more that was you know in the local provision uh and uh now we are very urban and that requires that supply chains continue to function and then incomes continue to be adequate to make meet basic requirements uh and it's possible that that could that could crack apart even more quickly than it did in the in the early 30s not sure but it's you know i think one has to think about these things in terms of the actual systems that are there right now okay well we've been to china we've been to the united states let's come to the stupid continent of the world europe um before you i i you know i give you the floor again and let me say for the benefit of our audience that you and i have worked for years trying to come up with sensible solutions to the eurozone crisis to the never-ending euro area stagnation what 10 years now we could have started earlier because the signs were on the wall even before that how do you assess europe's predicament at the moment well when you take europe all together it has a disturbing resemblance to the united states in some respects and the sense that there's no natural authority that is capable of of bringing the continent back from the brink in a in an ordinary an orderly and and coordinated and effective way and that's been the struggle uh when you take it as country by country then you have to deal with all the diversity of course the places like the uk very neoliberal have come to the much worse experience places that were afflicted by austerity and ran down their public health systems in the italy and spain and france to a very substantial degree i got hit very hard uh people the phones that were fast and that maintained i mean and then you have this experience in greece that's in spite of everything there was a it seems to have been uh that's something about the society held together through this uh so you you you've got a diversity of experiences that's also true to a degree inside the united states um they uh and in terms of of uh where we are uh in terms of facing up with to the issues that have afflicted the eurozone uh well uh you're uh probably you're no doubt much closer to that than i am but uh obviously there's been some movement um and it probably helps to have at least one national leader and i'm referring to chancellor merkel who knows something about science and at the end of the day whatever one may think of her and has to compare her to for example the leadership in the united states she does know about science but not about economics the well absolutely that is of course a problem uh that is of course the problem but as i say i would would i would i would i trade donald trump for angela merkel but that's new york minute as they say what you know but you know that's that that's a damning merkel with faint praise isn't it let's just say consider judgment well look a a couple of points and then a larger one and then i'll pass the floor onto you again uh firstly regarding britain you refer to britain as neoliberal there's no doubt about that if you look at the period from 1979 onwards but it is very interesting that this government has point blank refused to countenance austerity uh there's been a lot of prep there's a great push from the treasury uh towards both the chancellor of the exchequer and boris johnson to adopt austerity and they are refusing it and you know they're they're they're loosening up the purple strings as if there is no tomorrow and they they seem to be doing this from a position almost an ideological opposition to austerity which is a very interesting development given that this is happening in the united kingdom then you mentioned greece that somehow we managed to hold this together we have a very small number of deaths from um from kobe 19. uh but i very much fear that we're going to have the largest number of deaths from hunger as a result of economic affliction and also you know our government loves to portray itself as the paragon of epidemiological expertise and success and you we have countries next to us like you know albania and bulgaria that did more or less nothing during this period and they have the same very low um you know infection rate and death count so the balkans were very lucky to escape maybe by accident you know the trajectory of the the of of of the of the infection um regarding merkel's economics and what's happening in europe i need to say this for the benefit of our audience and then ask you to comment yet again we have on the one hand the same category error that we had in 2010 in the euro crisis you know they keep treating this problem as from an economic point of view as one that can be solved by means of loans um as if it is an illiquidity problem as opposed to you know an avalanche of uh bankruptcies and secondly uh again we have a lot of wonderful announcements which um if you um you know hold them up against the light for more than five seconds they just vanish you know we have um the the so-called recovery fund of 500 billion which if you look at it it just doesn't exist there's no money there we have these fantastic announcements of effectively common debt until you look more careful into them and again their macroeconomic impact is insignificant and what really matters jamie and i want to put this to you is that with everything they have done while they have opened up the the purse and allowed for monies to be lent especially for european stability mechanism and for the markets with qe quantum vision all that money is going to be added to the burden of national debt and national deficit and given that mrs merkel whom you mentioned quite in a complementary fashion before has already declared that german the german federal budget next year is going to go back to the black zero the swag snool there's no doubt that immediately when they hit zero they will demand of brussels that brussels demands of rome madrid athens and so on the elimination of budget deficits and given that the budget deficit in greece and italy will be something like minus 12 of gdp we're talking about the prospect of gigantic new austerity hitting us next year in the years to come just as europe is escaping from the coronavirus malays we're going to be hit by austerity that is equivalent of that of 2010-2011. well and then i and i therefore retract any any intimation of of of generosity in my previous remarks yeah because obviously this is not going to work and europe will be destroyed and it will collapse under this uh that's where you're at the situation where the wolf is at the door uh and uh yeah it's it that seems to me impossible that you could enforce uh that kind of uh of uh adjustment on italy at this stage uh without having a breakup just for example without having a breakup of the of the eu and and in practice if not if not in name uh so i wonder if that's what that's what basically he's not going to be there for very long strategy at this point you have to remember that merkel who is the smartest amongst them as you said is not going to be there for very long yeah of course she's on her way out so you see i'm not saying that they will demand of italy that they go back to a primary surplus but if italy has a budget surplus a deficit of -12 and say to italy okay we will show maximum flexibility remember when we you and i were around the corridors of the euro group they were always talking about maximum flexibility well yeah we will we will hit you over the head with a blunt instrument but we will wrap it up in newspaper that's what they mean so they will they will say to the italians okay don't go to a primary surplus but you have to go from -12 to minus two that's ten percentage points of austerity in a country like italy oh it can't be done okay as i say at that point you're basically calling an end to the whole experiment the whole project but can you be can you imagine the alternative scenario can you imagine berlin saying okay we will go to the schwarzenegger to build the black zero but it's okay let it not do you think do you see this being politically fathomable uh you're the better judge of that my instinct would be to say no that they can't do that either my instinct is that it won't happen either they will insist it will insist and you see this is the difference with the united states you said that the two continents look more or less the same well the difference is that um you know you have a federal budget that they that it can take all this rubbish you know on on into it and it can expand majestically its deficits and nobody cares yeah now that you know it helps in the us and the uk to have governments which are completely free of any any um you know debt to principle and uh or any commitment to principles uh and uh willing to uh you know say to pass what i mean in the us you're right 500 billion compared to the five or six trillion that are on the table in the united states is uh is for an economy of comparable sizes essentially trivial some uh and even if it were there which as you tell me is not it's not uh the uh the u.s is sustained by its willingness to to suspend all pretense of principle in an emergency uh but at the same time uh what we failed to do here was to organize we failed to do this in an effective way uh we failed we failed to mobilize the resources and so we're sitting there still struggling uh with with basics like testing and contact tracing and uh and and symptom monitoring and other things that would enable us to have more normal lives uh with some degree of security uh and we're we can see that they're calculating uh to have allow the infections to go up and then to let lock them down again and they're struggling to get through november now elections in the u.s are a very good thing because they suspend economic principle you basically if you have to make the economy work uh in order to get through them um but uh in these circumstances uh you're looking at it's easy to say that unless something happens others that really is you know that causes this thing to burn out on its own and i mean i can't predict the epidemiology or the biology of this uh but i don't think it's very likely that's not what the models are saying um then we're we're looking at a you know seriously intractable problem and one which again to come back to the u.s the u.s doesn't solve this problem then then nobody else in the world can really solve it because that you can't break the connections completely um and so the fact that the chinese or the vietnamese or the koreans or the um many other places new zealand and other places have have have got this under control is very provisional so long as there's a huge economy out here here in europe or the united states that has failed to do so okay it's time it's time to get your crystal ball out imagine that this is december 2013. and we assume that we're both alive and kicking and in reasonably good nick and you are asked by the atlantic or if it still exists or some vulnerable publication to write a a review of the 2020s what do you think you will be writing in that review in december 2013 oh that's hard uh yeah that's the whole point to end up with a bank not with a whimper you know at the moment i'm having a very great difficulty writing anything because two months ago i was writing furiously along the themes that you and i familiar with about what uh you know what was necessary uh it was not in the expectation that things would happen along those lines but that uh you know at least you could begin to get people focused uh to think about how things should happen uh and that's not the way it developed uh the fact is it's extremely hard uh so what do i think i mean right i mean i think it's entirely possible that the european union will fall apart and then the united states will fall apart and then we will see uh that the uh that that what happened into yugoslavia what happened to the soviet union was a precursor of what may happen to us uh and if that's the case is because we we we allowed an incompetent political leadership uh and we allowed a a um you know a failure of uh of our own ability to respond competently seriously and in an organized and effective way unified way to a major problem to major crisis uh this is uh you know one thing talks about the effect of chernobyl for example on the soviet space well this is not entirely different in important respects um and it really it will change people's attitudes uh toward the systems in which they live in which way over ten years may well say well okay the political systems under which we operated before are are not uh are not viable uh and i mean i would like to think that that's different and that we will have another another rebirth another revival another uh you know let's just say major uh reconstruction effort uh but uh material conditions are different the psychological conditions are different uh and um the polarization is extreme and the uh the the just the the let's just say that the criminal incapacity of the political elite is much more profound now uh and uh so one uh and i hit the end on a note which is as grim as this but if you ask me what i think might happen in in in in 10 years i don't think you can rule out that the the systems that we're in will simply not be there and we will have suffered a major measure a long-standing decline in our living standards and our and in our social coherence uh and we will ask ourselves what if what what happened well we'll look back over a half a century when we allowed ourselves to to be led down garden paths of various kinds in particular that if you like the neoliberal one the idea that we can allow uh essentially self-organization and market forces to control and credit institutions to run the societies that we do that uh we're going to get the kind of uh instability and uh and inequality and precarity uh and difficulty uh and eventually social strains that blow things apart that we that that that kind of illusion produces well tragically one of the tragedies but also this is a credit to you is that um even though as you say it's the last few weeks that have caused a great deal of pessimism to descend upon us but you upon you upon me i gave a very dystopic lecture on the cambridge union the other day two days ago um well if you if you if our viewers uh want to read two books uh that um we're very present about that one is called the predatory state and the other is called the end of normal and jamie galbraith happens to be the author of both i don't think that when you were writing them you were sort of trying to predict the current predicament but in a sense they both add a great deal of substance to the you know the bleakness that surrounds us well i had the advantage of having spent my career as an ambulance chaser financial crisis going back to 1975 in new york city when i was on the congressional staff the predator state i wrote in response largely to the to the hurricane katrina and they they call it just brought that very much very sharply into focus and how how they uh the political system the united states was basically feeding on institutions that have been built up in the 20th century and the end of normal was an assessment of what happened after the financial crisis and what happened leading up to the financial crisis and especially of the of the uh of the economic ideas that underpin the those developments and uh and then looking forward to the way technology and energy and um and the the collapse of effective military power so all of these things played into the economic conditions uh i was surprised uh and well i think the the the uh ability of the system to to to carry on for another 13 years but was something i didn't fully expect um and partly because material conditions were different from what i expected but uh but the underlying analysis i think was sound and it it showed the for the the what the epidemic showed was that it hit an extreme a system that become extremely fragile uh and there's now cracked apart in a way which as i said we've been talking about very very difficult to restore we have to really think about how to how to reorganize ourselves i know there have been many questions about uh universal basic income job guarantee and so forth i'm very much on the job side of that that that debate i think the important thing is to have an organized society that's doing things we have vast tasks that need to be done and we can get people uh to to work on them and achieve things then we can we can build a a way forward um but they uh you know that's what i can continue to work on but come back to the uh you know at the end of the day i keep coming back to william of orange it is not necessary to hope in order to persevere you have to keep going working on these things indeed and speaking of things speaking of getting things done and defeating fear and fearing fear itself as fdr said let me remind you but mainly our audience that you and i were together in a number of places when conflicts of note were taking place but we were also together in at the end of november 2018 in vermont when you know we made an open call for a progressive international and now it is coming together i hope to see you in september in reykjavik if we can travel if not we will do it by teleconference but the progressive international is really taking shape we have a capacity to be hopeful without being optimistic through this collaboration with thousands of people across the globe some wonderful people and movements are joining us and jamie you are going to be part of it whether you like it or not again i know you like it um and let me just come to the end thank you for um joining another now the very notion of another now is a hopeful one even though we are not issuing any optimistic predictions whatsoever uh i will chat again very soon in this forum in other forums say hello to the family from all of us because you know the personal is political uh we miss you all than i and i we are missing austin we're missing ying the kids emma eve all of you um as we say hugs thank you okay it's one of the great pleasures of is being able to work with you and with everybody and dm and progressive international uh i'm very happy to be part of it so let's carry on soon let's carry on. 

 

 

（ アメリカでも、国がこの問題で崩壊したにもかかわらず、多くのコミュニティの反応があったと思いますが、中国では、それがどれほど効果的であったか、そしてもしあなたもあなたがどれほど効果的であったかは本当に驚くべきことではありませんでしたそれを促進する上での国家の役割も非常に強力であったことを知っていますが、本質的なことは、経済がはるかに回復力があり、活動を再開できる能力が証明されたことです。アメリカからイギリスへ、またはヨーロッパ大陸でもそうだと思います。今、そこに表示されているのはそれだけです。」2つの地域の主な違いは、中国内では大きな信用バブルが発生しているものの、それは中国の範囲内に含まれていることと、資本規制が維持されており、中央政府がその民間企業を効果的に償却できることにも同意します。問題ええと、私が1990年代にそこにいたとき、コントロールが議論されていましたが、彼らはそれらをリラックスしませんでした。公衆衛生の領域でも動員しますが、彼らが資本規制を持っていて、中国が不動産バブルや株式バブルなどの信用バブルを持っているという事実は、それらが含まれていて、それらを書き留める能力があることを意味します借金または単に無視する彼らは必要に応じてそこにいますええと、それは銀行セクターが本質的にそれの下にあるのでそれは国営セクターでありそれは政策セクターであり、これは常にそうであり、彼らが始めた改革期間の初めからあなたは銀行セクターを持っていることを知っています何かええと、私は25 30年前、西側の経済学者が不良債権を言ったことを覚えています。

  米国では、この問題で政府が崩壊していたにもかかわらず、コミュニティの反応が非常に大きかったと思いますが、中国では、その効果は本当に驚くべきものでしたし、それを促進する国家の役割も非常に強かったと思います。このことは、米国や英国、あるいはヨーロッパ大陸でも同じことが言えると思います。私が中国にいた1990年代には、資本規制が議論されていましたが、彼らはそれを緩和せず、今も維持しています。彼らはインフラを維持しており、それはもう何年も前にさかのぼります。これは、銀行セクターが本質的に国の管理下にあり、政策的なセクターであるためで、これは常にそうであり、改革期の初めから、銀行セクターを持つことには意味があるとされてきました。 と言っていました。

 そして中国の銀行はシステムをダウンさせようとしています、そしてそれは起こっていません、そしてそれらが保持されている限り、そしてそれが国の自治権がない限り、それは起こる必要はありません。米国政府は公的機関を運営することができますが、予算不足は、これらのものが国の管理下にあるということです。米国はそこと公共部門にも柔軟性がありますが、銀行部門には及ばないのです。定期的に米国で救済する必要がありますが、それは借り手を救うことはできませんが、中国人はその点で彼らが好きなことをする能力を持っていますが、対称的な救済または対称的な米国の能力はありません」起こりたくない米国連邦政府ええと、あなたが知っているのは、もちろん、米国の美しさは、連邦政府にこの程度の柔軟性を与える法外なドルの力ですが、たとえば、たとえ輸送システムであっても、連邦政府は、パンデミックが連邦政府をうまく導入していることを知っているように、一貫性があり、ニーズに対応する方法で医療サービス輸送を動員する中国の能力のようなものはありません。米国政府はその点で多くの潜在的な力を持っており、米国政府は、民間請負業者を先制するために国防生産法で年に数十万回使用されている国防生産法をすでに帳簿に載せている立法府を持っています。軍事問題については、そうですね、議会はそこにあります。必要に応じて新しい法令を制定することができます。それはしませんでした。私はそれらの権限を使用しませんでした。それは基本的にシステムを介してお金を送り出すというパラダイムに基づいて行動しました。これはまず第一にその効果が非常に不均一であり、第二に供給の問題に対処しておらず、長期的な持続可能性に対処していません。債務の問題に対処するので、あなたは本質的にあなたが直面しているものの非常に欠陥のあるビジョンでこれに近づくことになります。それらの力を使用することは、ええと、それらを呼び出すことを拒否しますええと、議会が行動したとき、それは基本的にシステムを通してお金を送り出すというパラダイムに基づいて行動しました。供給の問題に対処しておらず、長期的な持続可能性は債務の問題に対処していないので、あなたは本質的にあなたが直面しているものの非常に欠陥のあるビジョンでこれに近づくことになります。それらの力を使用することは、ええと、それらを呼び出すことを拒否しますええと、議会が行動したとき、それは基本的にシステムを通してお金を送り出すというパラダイムに基づいて行動しました。供給の問題に対処しておらず、長期的な持続可能性は債務の問題に対処していないので、あなたは本質的にあなたが直面しているものの非常に欠陥のあるビジョンでこれに近づくことになります。向き直る。向き直る。

  中国の銀行がシステムを崩壊させようとしていますが、実際にはそうなっていません。中国の銀行が維持されている限り、そして国の自治がない限り、そうなる必要はありません。 米国は、公共部門には柔軟性がありますが、銀行部門には及ばないのです。米国では定期的に救済しなければなりませんが、それでは借り手を救えません。米国連邦政府は......もちろん、米国の美点は、ドルの法外な......力で、連邦政府にある程度の柔軟性を与えていることですが、例えば公衆衛生システムや交通システムに関しては、連邦政府には、中国のように、首尾一貫した方法で医療サービス輸送を動員する能力はありません。パンデミックのようなニーズに首尾一貫して対応できるような方法で保健サービス輸送を動員する能力は、中国のようなものではありません。議会は必要に応じて新しい法律を制定することができますが、私はそのような権限を使わなかったので、議会はその発動を拒否しました。 長期的な持続可能性にも対応していませんし、債務問題にも対応していません。そのため、結局、自分が直面していることについて、非常に欠陥のあるビジョンでアプローチすることになってしまいます。

 ええと、それは最後の1 umのような特徴的な金融危機であるかのように多くの点でアプローチされ、中断があったかのように経済を本質的に成長軌道に戻すための新しい一連のクレジット商品を見つけることができました対称的にええと逆になりましたそしてもちろん何が起こったのかというと、今も供給過剰になっている多くの資本資産があり、誰も新しいものを構築するつもりはありませんええと消費者行動に大きな変化がありますええと外出して購入する意欲に影響を与えると、経済活動の回復を遅らせる非常に多くのことに公衆衛生上の制約があります。そうすれば、人々は家から出て、ビーチなどに行くことができます。彼らはええと、それかどうか」安全かどうかは別のことですが、ここ数日で戻ってきて飛行機に戻り、新しい自動車を購入するのか、新しい商業オフィスビルを建設するのか、新しい小売店を建設するこれらの質問への答えは、ほぼ間違いなく、かなり長い間ではありません。スポーツイベントや、人々を多数集めることを含むものは言うまでもなく、アメリカ経済を動かしているものの多くがあります。それは商業活動の慣習の一部ですええと、これらすべてのものは彼らの背中に平らですええと、私たちは政府がこれが事実になるとは思っていませんでしたか、少なくとももしそうなら、しなかった」まるで最初から経済を再構築する必要があるかのように振る舞います、そしてもちろん今、私たちはこれを再開するというこのレトリックに巻き込まれました。コンタクトトレーシングと症状の監視が必要であり、一般的に、人々が入る環境が適度に安全で安全であることを確認する必要があります。

  多くの点で、前回のような特徴的な金融危機であるかのようにアプローチされ、中断が対称的に......逆転するかのように、基本的に経済を成長軌道に戻すための新しい信用手段を見つけることができると考えられていました。消費者の行動に大きな変化があり、それが消費者の購買意欲に影響を与えています。また、公衆衛生上の制約が多くのものに及び、それが経済活動の回復を遅らせています。新しいオフィスビルを建てようとしているのか 小売店を建てようとしているのか これらの質問への答えはほぼ確実にありません そしてしばらくの間はありません アメリカ経済を牽引してきたものの多くは あなたが知っているスポーツイベントや 商業活動の一環として大勢の人が集まるようなもの コンベンションやリゾートなどに関わるものは すべて裏目に出ています 政府はこのような状況になるとは考えていませんでしたし、少なくとも考えていたとしても、最初から経済を再構築する必要があるとは考えていませんでした。そしてもちろん、今、私たちは再開のレトリックに巻き込まれています。再開とはつまり、何百万人、何十万人もの人々が、接触者の追跡や症状の監視、そして一般的に人々が入る環境が適度に安全でセキュアであることを確認するために必要なのです。

 彼らはそこにいません私たちはそれをしていませんええと、連邦政府がそれらを行うために行動を起こさなかったものを行うことができたかもしれないそれらのこと米国外の人々はその場所の1つの計り知れない側面を見つけますそしてつまり、その文脈では明らかに失敗している民間医療に重点を置いたヘルスケアです。この危機は、すべての人にメディケアのバーニー・サンダースの考えに近い世論を縁取った可能性があると思いますか。彼はまだ確固たる敵ではありません。圧倒的に疑問の余地はありません。世論を動かします。医療制度が機能しないことは明らかです。医療保険制度が機能しません。 4,000万人の仕事を失った場合は、雇用主を通じて保険に加入します。失った場合は、その時点で別の健康保険に加入する必要があります。余裕があれば、これは変化しています。不愉快な認識ええと、しかし、ええと、健康保険業界は、多くの政治的レバレッジを備えた大規模で強力な資金のある業界であるという事実は残っています。たとえあなたが新しい大統領があなたがしなければならなかったことだと決めたのを知っていたとしても簡単に起こります私はあなたがそれを持っていないのですかしかし同時にそれは」これは楽しいことですが、システムの機能不全は非常に明白であり、さらに増えるでしょう。それは、それに対する答えだったかもしれないのと同じくらい悪いことだったということです。その理由は、封鎖中、人々は家にいたので、交通事故はほとんどなく、労働災害はほとんどなく、他の感染症もほとんどなかったので、病院は実際には他のすべてのクライアントを行ったために空でした。アメリカのシステムは、病院がサービス料ベースで払い戻されるための財政的問題であり、空のベッドで、私たちが浮かんでいるために頼っているすべての病気の人々はどこにいるのかと言っています、そしてあなたはあなたが言うことを知っていますあなたはこれを作ることはできません誰もこのシステムを発明しなかったでしょうええとあなたが知っているが効果的に。

  アメリカ以外の国では、この国の不可解な点として、医療が挙げられます。この危機が世論をバーニー・サンダーズの「すべての人のための医療」という考えに近づけたと思いますか？ジョー・バイデンが「すべての人のための医療」を採用しようとする動きを見ましたか？世論は圧倒的に......医療制度が機能していないことは非常に明白です 医療保険制度が機能していないのは......何百万人もの人々が失業し、およそ4000万人になろうとしています 失業した人々は雇用主を通して保険に加入しなければなりません 失業した人々は余裕があれば別の医療保険に加入しなければなりません そして、これが彼らを変えていくのです......つまり、ある種の不承不承の認識があるということです......しかし、医療保険業界は大きな力を持ち、潤沢な資金を持つ業界であり、政治的にも大きな影響力を持っているという事実は変わりません......。 政治的な影響力を持った、資金力のある大規模な業界であり、基本的にはそれを置き換える必要があるのですが、そうはいきません。たとえ新しい大統領が誕生して、「私がやるべきこと」と決めたとしても、簡単には起こらないでしょう。その理由は、ロックダウンの間、人々は家にいて、交通事故はほとんどなく、労働災害もほとんどなく、他の感染症もほとんどなかったので、病院は実際には他のすべての顧客に対応したために空になっていました。 ベッドが空になると、我々が生活を維持するために頼っている病人たちはどこにいるのかということになります。

 流行を除いて多くの点でありますええと、健康問題の減少は実際に医療制度に財政問題の困難をもたらしますよく、私有刑務所制度と呼ばれる同様の制度があります。あなたは全体が生き残るために問題が必要であることを知っていますが、はい、しかし私的な刑務所システムは私がそれが私的で非営利の私的医療制度であるとは思わないものの大きな部分のそれほど大きなものではありませんヨーロッパに移動する前に、すぐにヨーロッパに移動します。質問がありますので、回答してください。4年前にヒラリー対ドナルドの質問について話し合っていたときに、回答を公開しないように視聴者にお願いします。私たちが有権者だった場合、私はあなたが有権者であることを意味しますが、私たちがスウィングステートの有権者だった場合、あなたはスウィングステートの投票ではありませんでした11月にドナルドを締め出すためにヒラリーに投票してください。私は宗教的な民主党員です。つまり、多くの人が感じているような関係だと知っているということです。彼らの教会に向かってええと、それについてはあいまいです」ええと、彼らを去るのは成功しているので、その答えはイエスです。もちろん、私はビデンに投票します。ええと、ええと、これはあなたがこの国で起こったことを望んでいたことです。あなたは私がこれらの問題があると思うようなものではないことを知っています、そして私たちが直面している種類の危機はあなたが遅れて到着する個人を知っているあなたの仕事ですそして私はそれを理解することは専門家として重要だと思いますコロナウイルスの影響を知っている私たちの経済が崩壊した理由は、それがこの特定のええとギャングの手に連邦政府を持っていたというだけではありませんええとそれは本当にそれがどのように関係しているのですか経済は過去40年にわたって設計されてきました。

  疫病以外の多くの点では......健康問題の減少は、実際に医療制度の財政問題を生み出しています 似たような制度に民営化された刑務所制度がありますが、犯罪が起きなければ完全に崩壊してしまいます......ええと、全体としては、生き延びるためには問題が必要なのですが、ええ、しかし、民営化された刑務所制度はそれほど大きな問題ではありません......それは民営化された医療制度ではないと思います......民営化された非営利団体です......ヨーロッパに移動する前に、私は質問があります。 ヨーロッパの話に移る前に、1分後にヨーロッパの話に移りますが、私はあなたに質問があります。あなたはそれに答えればいいのですが、私たちは視聴者にあなたの答えを明かさないようにお願いします。しかし、もし私たちがスイングステートにいたら、鼻をつまんでヒラリーに投票し、ドナルドを締め出すでしょう。しかし、同時に、私は、これらの問題や私たちが直面している危機が、遅れてきた個人の仕業であると考えるようなタイプではありません。コロナウイルスの影響でアメリカ経済が崩壊したのは、単に連邦政府がこの特定のギャングの手中にあったからではなく、過去40年間に経済がどのように設計されてきたかに関係しているということを、専門家として理解することが重要だと思います。

ええと、特に13年前の金融危機からの復帰で、起こったことは、金融セクターを再構築してバランスの取れた回復を追求するのではなく、公的部門と民間セクターのバランスを再構築するのではなく、私たちがこれを持っていたということは、私たちが経済的拡大を遂げたことを前提としていました。それは、特に、自社株を買い戻すために債務を発行した企業部門によって推進された株式市場の資本資産評価に基づいていました。高度にレバレッジされ、その債務を証券化したので、これは別のチャネルでのプロセスであり、住宅ローンである最後の金融危機につながったのは企業債務であり、かつて収益性の基盤がなくなったと言うことができます'全身の問題にぶつかります非常に大きな全身の問題ええと、それは流行の結果として非常に速く起こりましたええと、これはこの政権の発明ではなく、発明ではありませんでした前政権の発明で、あなたがどのように経済を運営するかについての一連のアイデアの発明であり、それは私たちが今始めなければならないところです明らかに政治部門はそれらの線に沿って考えていません、そして私の見解はシステムがどのように構成されているかについての考え方に深刻な変化が生じるまで、私たちはつまずき、両方の影響の下でつまずくので、この認識を変えるために変更します。流行と何を認識できなかったのかという生物学的出来事難しさの原因は何であり、1929年から30年にかけて1933年の初めに32年の終わりに起こった30年代に起こったのです。 1932年、そしてそれはついに私の父の人生を定義し、私の人生を確実に囲む全時代を本当に定義する変化をもたらしました。そして、劇的な実験の期間がありました。人生と、確かに私の人生を包み込む時代全体を本当に定義しました。そして、劇的な実験の期間がありました。人生と、確かに私の人生を包み込む時代全体を本当に定義しました。そして、劇的な実験の期間がありました。

特に13年前の金融危機からの立ち直りにおいて、何が起こったかというと、金融セクターを再建し、バランスのとれた回復を追求し、官民のバランスを再構築するのではなく、このような景気拡大が行われたのですが、これは特に株式市場における資本資産の評価に基づいていました。企業は自社株を買い戻すために負債を発行し、非常に高いレバレッジをかけ、その負債を証券化しました。これが、前回の金融危機につながった、異なる経路のプロセスです。しかし、これは今の政権の発明ではなく、前の政権の発明でもなく、経済をどのように運営していくかについての一連の考え方の発明であり、そこから始めなければならないのです。なぜなら、システムがどのように構成されているかについての考え方を真剣に変えない限り、私たちはこのままつまずき、流行病という生物学的な出来事と、困難の原因が何であるかを認識しないことの両方の影響を受けて、つまずくことになるからです。1932年には投資がゼロになり、それが父の人生を決定づけ、私の人生にも大きな影響を与えた時代全体を決定づける変化をもたらしました。

 ええと、ええと、再建と開発、そして前向きな変化、そして本質的には、歴史的な時代を思い起こして、あなたが考えなければならないこととあなたがしなければならないことを本当に理解しなければならないと思うものです。そして、どのように物事を再編成する必要があるのか​​、しかし理解できる人々は、6か月前のものを復元できるという幻想を持ち続けていることを望んでいません。もちろん、これらの幻想は特に儲かっていますが、確かにそれは動機付けられています。失敗は、特定の点で動機付けられていないエラーではありません。資産が切り下げられた家や企業資産など、クレジットにアクセスできる人や資本を持っている人がやって来て、安く手に入れることができると確信しています。 '非常に私はそれが人々の心に非常にあり、市場での売りが不足していたことを知っていることを意味しますええと政府の対応が遅れ、彼らは何が起こっているのかを理解したときに一部の上院議員でさえ1月に彼らの株式ポジションを売り切れたインテリジェンスブリーフィングでしたええと、しかし他の人々は売れ行きが悪く、市場を売ることによって300億ドルと数十億ドルの利益が得られたという報告がありました。おそらく1つは、人々が単に差し押さえられて、彼らの資産が商業用資産になり、最終的には閉鎖されるという恐ろしい可能性です。買収されて取り壊され、神は彼らに何かが起こったらどうなるかを知っていますが、これは非常に集中した経済になり、何百万人もの人々が家を失い、支援の源がなく、州の崩壊になります税収、固定資産税、消費税に依存する地方自治体のサービスも、現時点では非常に多いので、それはすべて1つの可能性であり、私の見解では、それは明らかに許容できることではないということです。耐えられないが、それによって影響を受けた人々が彼らが家にいる病気を打ち負かすための公的努力の一部であったことを彼らが正しくしているはずだったという理由で政治的に支持できるものではない。

 

 しかし、人々がそれを望まないのは理解できます。6ヶ月前の状態が回復できるという幻想を持ち続けるのです。もちろん、こうした幻想は特に利益をもたらしますが、一部の人々にとっては、もちろん動機のある失敗であり、動機のない失敗ではありません。ある意味ではその通りです 一度資産が切り下げられれば、住宅や企業の資産などあらゆるものが、信用力や資本力のある誰かがやってきて、安く手に入れることができます そのことが人々の心を大いに揺さぶっているのは確かです 市場では空売りが行われました 政府の対応は遅れていましたし、情報の説明もありました 何が起こるかを理解した一部の上院議員は1月に株式を売り抜けました しかし、他の人々は空売りをして利益を得ました 空売りをして3億数千万ドルの利益を得たという報告もあります そうですね......基本的には道が分かれています......起こりうる可能性が高いのは、人々が単に差し押さえられて立ち退き、商業施設が閉鎖され、最終的には買い取られて取り壊され、それらに何が起こるかは神のみぞ知る、という厳しい可能性ですが......何百万人もの人々がホームレスになり、支援の源がないという非常に集中した経済になるでしょう。しかし、これは非常に集中した経済となり、何百万人もの人々がホームレスとなり、生活を支えるものがなくなります。また、固定資産税や売上税などの税収に依存している州や地方自治体のサービスが崩壊し、これも現在進行中です。 ）

 

 彼らがゼロに達するとすぐに、ブリュッセルがローマのマドリッド・アテネなどに要求するブリュッセルを要求し、財政赤字を解消し、ギリシャとイタリアの財政赤字がマイナス12のgdpのようなものになることを考えると間違いありません。ヨーロッパがコロナウイルスのマレーから脱出しているように、来年には巨大な新しい緊縮財政が私たちを襲う可能性について話します。私たちは2010年から2011年と同等の緊縮財政に見舞われるでしょう。それで、私と私は、前の発言で寛大さの暗示を撤回します。明らかにこれは機能せず、ヨーロッパは破壊され、この下で崩壊します。オオカミはドアにいますええとええとええそれは」

 

JP 検索 9+ アバターの画像 ガルブレイスとバルファキス2020 限定公開 6 回視聴•2021/05/11 0 0 共有 保存 me com チャンネル登録者数 82人 2020/05/26 https://youtu.be/tMURR7WSZvE​ 0 件のコメント me com 公開コメントを入力... 文字起こし 00:02 someone has to win in the human race 00:04 if it isn't you then it has to be me 00:06 that song was written in the 70s 00:09 by alan price it was a soundtrack of a 00:11 great movie oh lucky man 00:14 i got to know this just as 00:17 margaret thatcher was about to storm 10 00:20 downing street 00:21 and change the world with you know 00:24 the myth of neoliberalism 00:27 which was precisely that somebody has to 00:29 win so it's going to be 00:30 me and um you know poor people are just 00:33 poor people because they don't get to 00:35 see they make a bad choice this in life 00:38 um that was then this is now 00:41 and this is another now the tv's program 00:45 that tries to find silver linings in 00:46 this complete catastrophe 00:48 and it is a complete catastrophe if you 00:50 look at the hundreds of millions of 00:52 people who are going hungry tonight 00:55 that wouldn't have gone hungry had uh 00:58 financialized capitalism not been in the 01:01 in in in the fragile state it was before 01:05 government 19 hit 01:09 one of the silver linings that we've 01:11 been talking about this program 01:13 and which i have been hanging on for 01:16 hope 01:16 is the fact that politics has now been 01:19 revealed 01:20 as it is because before this crisis 01:24 it seemed did not or at least they 01:26 portrayed it to be a kind of football 01:28 game where you know 01:29 different teams called parties um scored 01:32 goals and 01:33 seated goals and went up and down the 01:35 league table and then you know at the 01:37 end of the 01:38 particular term in office they got the 01:41 price of forming a government 01:43 uh that was not in power and politicians 01:46 were 01:46 always hiding behind their powerlessness 01:49 but now we see 01:50 that government is immensely powerful 01:53 and in the end that lenin was always 01:56 right 01:57 when he said that politics is about 02:00 who does what to whom 02:05 tonight i have the great joy and 02:08 privilege to be joined by 02:12 an economist a professor an activist 02:16 but above all else and this is what i 02:19 want to emphasize 02:20 a great friend um you know a brother a 02:23 member of the family 02:25 and the comrade comrade in arms jamie 02:28 galbraith 02:28 welcome to another now uh thank you for 02:32 joining us 02:33 all the way from sunny austin i suspect 02:35 it must be sunny by now 02:37 or if not it's actually quite cloudy and 02:39 cool here it's great to be with you 02:42 welcome and welcome welcome so how is 02:45 life in austin these days 02:48 uh well quieter than normal uh the uh 02:51 the student population was dispersed in 02:54 march uh 02:55 and uh this has been quite far from 02:58 being one of the 02:59 worst affected communities uh although 03:01 it obviously 03:02 uh has been devastating for the uh for 03:05 the local 03:06 uh you know the local commerce and the 03:08 local business community and the 03:10 local working community uh but uh 03:12 compared to a lot of other places it has 03:14 been relatively calm here in the last 03:16 several months 03:19 well universities are fantastic when the 03:22 students are not there aren't they i 03:23 mean i always like the idea of a 03:24 university for 03:25 without students 03:29 oh i spent the first or month or six 03:33 weeks in the 800 square feet of my third 03:35 floor here 03:36 in the space that you can see and since 03:39 then i've been 03:40 going out as far as the little park at 03:42 the base of my uh 03:43 base of my street and walking around it 03:45 for an hour or so each day so i've seen 03:48 a lot of my neighbors and 03:50 i've seen a lot of the local flowering 03:52 plants 03:53 uh and for the rest i've been watching 03:56 it 03:56 as everybody else has over electronic 03:59 medium 04:00 indeed it is as if we do occupy exactly 04:04 the same spot in the universe 04:06 whatever our screen shows us and i 04:07 suspect we read and watched 04:09 more or less the same stuff um but 04:12 before we start 04:13 the usual fair of an another now 04:16 um let me let me just 04:19 jump in to american politics 04:23 very briefly and then jump right 04:24 straight out again because it's very 04:27 devastatingly boring these days um 04:30 is joe biden going to be the nominee in 04:33 the end 04:34 who takes on donald trump is the 04:36 democratic party going to 04:38 to commit this this crime against logic 04:42 well he's the only candidate uh and so 04:45 long as that's the case 04:46 it's likely that when the convention 04:48 comes around they will cast their votes 04:50 for him 04:51 uh they but the frankly the fate of the 04:55 democratic party doesn't rest on the 04:57 electors it doesn't rest on the 04:59 convention delegates 05:00 uh this is a candidate who's supported 05:03 by uh 05:04 who came into the race uh with the 05:06 support of the establishment 05:08 in order to defeat 05:11 bernie sanders others he wasn't the only 05:13 one but he was the one who was 05:15 who became the designated survivor if 05:17 you like 05:18 and uh you know what the establishment 05:21 decides is what will happen 05:23 uh at the moment they appear to be 05:24 backing him and that what 05:26 appears to be the most likely outcome 05:30 now they're thinking sorry go ahead 05:35 no just you know the standard questions 05:38 it depends on whether you believe the 05:40 polls my my belief is that the polls 05:42 will converge 05:43 toward the uh close to the election as 05:45 they always do that they're not 05:46 meaningful now 05:48 and they you know we're many months away 05:49 from the election uh if indeed a proper 05:51 election is held 05:53 um and uh and all in previous elections 05:57 this tends to come to a 05:59 comes down to a narrow decision in a 06:01 handful of states 06:02 and i expect that will be the case again 06:04 but we don't know okay let's jump 06:06 straight out again from contemporary 06:09 american politics 06:10 and do that which we always do here in 06:13 another now 06:14 um go back to your formative years 06:18 um you know growing up 06:21 uh under the very large 06:25 shadow of another galbraith that some 06:28 people may remember 06:30 um tell us about it 06:34 oh you know i was uh in the second 06:37 cohort of my parents children that's 06:38 born in 1952 06:40 uh and at that point my father was 06:43 really at the 06:43 in the ascendant phase of his career uh 06:47 so they uh 06:51 i spent of course very interesting 06:53 couple of years 06:54 in india but i was uh just i escaped 06:57 home 06:58 at the age of 14 when off the boarding 06:59 school didn't like it escaped from there 07:01 went to france 07:03 uh on a program and then escaped from 07:05 there and went to berkeley 07:06 uh and so uh you know my formative years 07:09 passed relatively quickly and i would 07:11 say that the 07:12 my relationship with my father was 07:14 became most intense during the vietnam 07:16 war period 07:17 as a teenager you know i had the 07:18 opposite trajectory of most people of my 07:20 generation who rebelled against their 07:22 parents 07:23 and myself my father was from the 07:26 beginning the leading voice 07:28 in opposition to that war there was a 07:31 degree of family harmony that was 07:32 unheard of in the country in those days 07:35 uh you know that persisted right through 07:38 uh 07:38 yeah largely to the to the end i became 07:42 an economist in the belief that uh that 07:43 i would not be competing with him 07:45 contemporaneously 07:46 and i misestimated that for about third 07:49 by about 30 years 07:54 and and your father was remarkable in 07:56 the sense that 07:57 not only was he uh erudite and 08:00 progressive 08:01 but he actually became more progressive 08:04 and slightly more erudite as he go on 08:09 oh i think if you go back uh 08:13 to as early certainly as i can remember 08:16 but even before that 08:17 uh he came into politics from a farming 08:21 background he's a very practical person 08:23 he did not have an academic formation 08:26 because he had a degree in animal 08:27 husbandry 08:28 and a phd in agricultural economics uh 08:31 and uh they uh 08:35 his his approach to things was always 08:38 that of of a very politically 08:41 hard-headed person i mean when he was in 08:42 his early 30s he was in charge of every 08:44 price in the united states 08:46 uh for a year uh and that gave him a 08:49 let's just say a comfortable view of the 08:51 exercise of power which he never 08:53 relinquished he was always 08:55 you can go through his letters which are 08:56 now available and enormously voluminous 08:59 and he was 09:00 he was intervening sharply and with a 09:02 good deal of perception 09:04 all the way through he was one of the 09:05 first people to suggest the marshall 09:07 plan for example and 09:08 one can go through an enormous list of 09:10 things it just never ends 09:12 i did uh as you know i even 09:15 did you know as i did some research in 09:18 economic history i kept finding traces 09:20 of his influence on 09:21 all kinds of things you would heart find 09:22 it find it hard to imagine 09:24 the location of ammunition factories for 09:26 the mobilization for the second world 09:28 war just for example 09:30 but but what you what what you're 09:32 portraying as 09:34 a kind of um yeah the merit 09:37 that he didn't have a very solid 09:39 theoretical background in economics no 09:41 on the contrary it was a great merit 09:43 exactly that's important no no he will 09:46 approach 09:47 approach these questions without any uh 09:49 you know 09:50 academic preconceived beliefs and so he 09:52 was entirely free of the dogmas of 09:55 classical and neoclassical economics 09:57 that's what david that plus the ability 10:00 to write in english gave him his power 10:03 can you imagine if you try to be the 10:05 prize are you know the the fixer of 10:07 every prize in the american economy 10:09 during the war during the war economy 10:11 uh if you believed in in the general 10:13 equilibrium models of prices 10:15 it would just be impossible to do it of 10:17 course of course i mean 10:19 what the way the way to do this was you 10:21 you started with a 10:22 with what had been done in the first 10:24 world war and you improved on it 10:26 and then you adjusted very quickly when 10:27 you realized the things you were doing 10:29 wasn't 10:29 working and they did that repeatedly 10:31 over the course of the life of that 10:33 agency 10:34 now that was long before that was years 10:36 before i was born but still 10:37 as i said it gives you a feel for for 10:40 for the flexibility and the 10:41 uh that he had uh 10:45 flexibility willingness to trust his 10:47 judgment 10:48 yeah and of course it helped 10:51 fixing places the fact that they were 10:54 already fixed by the cartels 10:56 uh unlike economic theory that was the 10:58 first discovery was that 10:59 that you could fix prices when the when 11:01 the big corporations had already fixed 11:03 them 11:04 uh that it was not it was not that 11:05 difficult a thing to do and then you 11:07 just had to make exceptions 11:08 uh and i asked him where do you find 17 11:11 000 people 11:12 to run prices the united states so lion 11:15 grant colleges i hired all the 11:16 economists 11:17 all the institutional economists who 11:18 were a little too old to fight wanted to 11:20 do something 11:21 that we just you know brought in people 11:24 all kinds of very interesting people 11:26 lots of lots of people who went on to 11:28 to uh to shape the post-war world went 11:31 through that agency in those years 11:35 well let's make a segue directly from 11:38 the 1940s 11:39 to the here and now because 11:42 you know i've been reading your stuff 11:44 and we've been chatting for 11:46 a while now during this lockdown 11:49 and it seems to me that you are calling 11:51 for similar 11:54 measures as those practiced during the 11:57 war economy 11:59 uh for the lockdown economy or the 12:00 coronavirus economy 12:04 yes uh well that was my first instinct 12:06 was that this was a mobilization problem 12:08 and i think that instinct was correct uh 12:10 there are two aspects to it 12:12 one was assuring you have the 12:13 appropriate supplies medical supplies 12:15 protective equipment uh hospital beds 12:17 and 12:18 uh and food and medicines the other the 12:20 basics that people needed 12:22 while everybody else was hunkered down 12:24 and the other was the mobilization of 12:26 the population to ensure 12:28 that you got you broke the chain of 12:29 transmission of the disease and you had 12:31 to hold those things in place 12:33 long enough uh to um to do the trick and 12:37 it turns out that now we've now come 12:39 through that 12:40 experience and some societies were 12:41 capable of doing it and others were not 12:43 and the ones that were not were the 12:45 neoliberal 12:46 uh uh societies the ones that were for 12:49 or and you mentioned this earlier when 12:50 you just start speaking the ones that 12:52 were based upon 12:53 uh basically a credit and debt economy 12:56 that had become extremely fragile 12:58 and they run up to this uh they were hit 13:01 at a moment of extreme fragility and 13:03 they broke 13:03 uh and they were not able politically 13:06 and socially to withstand the uh 13:08 the pressure to um to to to get the job 13:11 done 13:12 and and now they are in the in this kind 13:15 of uh 13:15 extremely boggy situation of trying to 13:19 resume economic activity which will not 13:21 resume 13:22 uh and they're going to find that they 13:24 that they're falling short on both 13:26 on both uh uh well we don't know quite 13:29 what's going to happen to the epidemic 13:30 but it doesn't look good 13:31 well let's just say that it's that they 13:34 have not got the job done 13:36 um and at the same time on the economic 13:38 front they're not going to be able to 13:40 achieve what they think they can achieve 13:42 precisely because they believe in this 13:44 general equilibrium model 13:45 everything's going to go back to a 13:46 previous normal without any 13:48 uh consequences for having been 13:50 interrupted for a period of months 13:52 but that isn't going to happen and it's 13:54 obvious to anybody who can look around 13:56 and see it then it isn't 13:58 i believe they can see it too they they 14:00 talk about a v-shaped discovery 14:03 anybody anybody who has a business under 14:04 understanding of this has seen this from 14:06 the beginning 14:07 uh and they've been positioning 14:08 themselves but you have uh 14:10 you know that you have the political 14:12 people and the economists surrounding 14:13 them who say oh yeah 14:14 they desperately want to win the 14:16 election and so they've been talking 14:17 themselves 14:18 into the belief that they'll be a fast 14:20 recovery um it's an illusion obviously 14:22 but any business person will tell you 14:24 that 14:24 nobody who makes it you know is in the 14:26 in any let's say this 14:27 the supply of aircraft parts thinks that 14:31 there's a business there 14:32 half the planes are on the ground i mean 14:35 it's it's 14:39 but not only are they on the ground but 14:40 they cease to function 14:42 as a store of value because most i mean 14:45 lufthansa 14:46 was assuming that because it owned its 14:48 airplanes he could use them as 14:50 collateral to borrow money 14:51 now that the collateral has gone down 14:53 the toilet 14:54 so it can't even borrow money so it's 14:56 it's knocking on they're not 14:57 commercially 14:58 they they they the government will lend 15:00 money in the united states to a large 15:02 corporation 15:04 we see that uh that doesn't get they 15:06 have that 15:07 they've got 500 or 500 billion right out 15:09 of the out of the starting gate 15:11 so they can be kept up they can be 15:13 propped up for a while and have been 15:15 uh but they and the planes are you know 15:17 the planes remain 15:18 airworthy if they were could they simply 15:20 be scrapped you'd have a better chance 15:22 of 15:23 restarting uh the whole industrial 15:26 process but they're they're not going to 15:27 be 15:27 that's where the difference lies with 15:29 the war economy that's where the 15:31 difference lies with the war economy 15:32 during the war economy 15:33 capital store was destroyed.

 

 right 15:36 exactly you 15:37 you made it and then you blew it up but 15:38 that's uh doesn't happen so much in the 15:40 civilian 15:41 economy well let's take the three major 15:44 economic blocks one at a time 15:46 in brief let's begin with china because 15:49 unbeknownst to 15:50 most of our viewers yeah you have a very 15:53 strong connection with china whether you 15:54 like it or not it lives in your home 15:58 yeah well okay she's not like 16:02 she's called ying she's a sport for 16:04 almost 30 years now 16:06 she's a formidable member of the 16:08 household as well as 16:10 a citizen of the people's republic of 16:12 china your wife 16:14 uh so you know china very well how do i 16:16 mean 16:17 beyond all the uh the noise regarding 16:21 the you know the what what the president 16:24 of china knew what 16:25 he didn't know what happened in and so 16:27 on 16:28 what's your assessment of the way china 16:30 handled 16:31 the kobe 19 crisis?

G:

 well one thing that's 16:35 clear that china met the two criteria i 16:37 just 16:38 mentioned before they had the the 16:39 production base and they were able 16:41 to sustain the population through the 16:44 the 16:44 the what was required to break the 16:47 transmission 16:48 uh in a very very severe lockdown in all 16:51 the whole country but especially in 16:53 in hubei province with 60 million people 16:56 um 16:56 so they achieved that um and the second 16:59 thing that they 17:00 achieved was the ability to to resume 17:02 afterwards 17:03 uh and that meant that is fundamentally 17:05 because the chinese economy is not 17:07 rooted 17:08 uh in the same levels of of of debt 17:11 uh of of land rent uh and 17:15 uh that that the western economies are 17:17 uh so 17:18 uh and this has been true i i did some 17:21 economic work in china 25 years ago it 17:23 was true then 17:24 it's probably somewhat less true now but 17:26 it's it's uh 17:27 it's still a big difference between 17:29 china and the rest so you can have 17:32 uh they were also able uh 17:35 to essentially mobilize the whole 17:38 population so it was extremely 17:40 uh socially unified response to this 17:44 crisis and i don't want to minimize how 17:46 unified it was in parts of the west too 17:48 i think that 17:48 even in the united states there was a 17:50 great deal of community 17:52 response uh even though the national 17:54 government had fell apart on this issue 17:56 uh but in china it was really really 17:59 beyond remarkable how 18:00 how effective it was and and if and and 18:03 also you know the the role of the state 18:06 in in fostering it was also very strong 18:08 uh but the essential thing is that the 18:10 economy was 18:11 proved to be much more resilient uh 18:14 and ability able to uh to begin to 18:17 resume activity 18:19 uh that will be true in in in the in the 18:21 us to the uk or 18:23 i think in continental europe as well uh 18:26 and that 18:27 uh that's all that's showing up right 18:29 now uh 18:30 there's a major major distinction 18:32 between the two regions.

 V:

 18:34 would you also agree that within china 18:38 while there is a large credit bubble it 18:41 is 18:42 contained within the confines of china 18:44 and the fact that.

 

 18:45 capital controls remain in place and the 18:48 central government can effectively write 18:50 off that 18:51 private or problem uh 18:56 controls were under discussion when i 18:58 was there in the 1990s and they did not 19:00 relax them then 19:01 uh and they have been they maintained 19:03 them they maintained an infrastructure 19:05 uh that comes back uh you know many many 19:08 years now uh 19:09 that provides they were able to mobilize 19:11 in the public health domain as well 19:13 but the fact that they had uh capital 19:15 controls and they had 19:17 means that the and china does have 19:20 credit bubbles as real estate bubbles 19:22 and stock bubbles and so forth 19:24 but they are contained and the capacity 19:26 to 19:27 write down those debts or simply to 19:29 ignore them is there as necessary 19:31 uh and that's because the banking sector 19:33 is essentially under the 19:34 it's a state controlled sector it's a 19:36 policy sector 19:37 and this has always been the case and 19:39 since the beginning of the reform period 19:41 when they started 19:42 you know having a banking sector that 19:44 meant something um 19:46 and for i remember 25 30 years ago 19:49 western economist saying oh the 19:50 non-performing loans and the chinese 19:52 banks are going to bring the system down 19:54 and it hasn't happened uh and so long as 19:57 they're 19:58 retained and then there's no national 20:00 autonomy it doesn't need to happen 20:01 because 20:02 as i say it's a it's the same reason 20:04 that the us government can run a public 20:06 but 20:06 budget deficit is that they uh these 20:09 these things are uh 20:10 under national control the u.s has also 20:14 its flexibility in there 20:15 and in the public sector but it doesn't 20:17 extend to 20:19 a banking sector is is something which 20:22 is periodically has to be bailed out in 20:25 the united states but that doesn't save 20:27 the 20:27 the borrowers uh whereas the chinese 20:30 have the capacity to 20:32 uh to do what they like in that respect 20:35 they have the capacity for symmetric 20:37 bailouts or symmetric 20:39 um united states doesn't want to happen 20:44 no the united states federal government 20:46 um 20:47 the the the you know 20:50 the beauty of course of the united 20:51 states is the the exorbitant uh 20:54 power of the dollar that um 20:57 affords this degree of flexibility to 20:59 the federal government 21:01 but when it comes for instance to public 21:03 health systems even in even 21:05 transportation systems 21:06 the federal government has nothing like 21:09 the chinese capacity to mobilize 21:12 health services transportation 21:16 in a manner that is coherent and 21:19 um responsive to the to to to a need 21:22 like 21:22 you know the pandemic is uh 21:26 introducing well the federal government 21:29 the united states has a lot of potential 21:31 power in that respect and uh it 21:33 does have legislative uh uh 21:36 enactment statutes that are already on 21:38 the books the defense production act 21:40 which is used 21:41 by the pentagon hundreds of thousands of 21:42 times a year to preempt private 21:44 contractors on 21:45 military matters uh so uh 21:49 those powers are there um that congress 21:51 is there it can enact new statutes as 21:54 required 21:54 it just didn't do it i didn't use those 21:57 powers it would refuse to 21:59 uh invoke them uh and when it when 22:02 congress did act it acted on a paradigm 22:04 of 22:05 basically pumping money through the 22:06 system uh which 22:08 was first of all very uneven in its 22:10 effect and secondly 22:12 uh doesn't address the supply issues and 22:14 doesn't address the 22:15 the uh the long-term sustainability 22:18 doesn't address the debt question 22:20 uh so uh you end up with 22:23 essentially approaching this with a very 22:26 defective vision of what you're facing 22:28 uh it was approached in many respects as 22:31 though it was a 22:32 characteristic financial crisis like the 22:34 last one 22:35 um and that you could find a new set of 22:39 of credit instruments to essentially put 22:41 the economy 22:42 back on on a growth path as though the 22:45 interruption was 22:46 could be symmetrically uh reversed um 22:49 and what's what's happened of course is 22:52 that again we have a lot of capital 22:53 assets that are on the ground that 22:55 that are now in excess supply nobody's 22:57 going to build new ones 22:59 uh we have massive changes in consumer 23:02 behavior uh 23:03 which is going to affect their 23:04 willingness to go out and purchase and 23:06 then you have the public health 23:07 constraints 23:08 on a great many things which slows the 23:10 return of economic activity 23:12 so yes people can come out of their 23:14 houses they may go to the beaches and so 23:15 forth where they have them 23:17 uh whether that's safe or not is another 23:19 thing but we're seeing that 23:20 over the last few days but are they 23:23 going to go back get back on airplanes 23:25 and 23:26 are they going to purchase new 23:28 automobiles are they going to build new 23:30 commercial office buildings are they 23:31 going to build new retail outlets 23:33 the answer to those questions is almost 23:35 surely not and not for quite some time 23:37 uh and so a lot of what has been driving 23:40 the american economy not to mention 23:42 you know sporting events and anything 23:44 that involves 23:45 uh bringing people together in large 23:47 numbers that is a part of a commercial 23:49 activity conventions 23:51 um uh resorts all of these things are 23:54 are are flat on their backs um and 23:57 we didn't we didn't the government 23:59 didn't see 24:00 that this was going to be the case or at 24:02 least if it did it didn't 24:04 act as though uh it needed to 24:06 restructure the economy from the 24:07 beginning 24:08 and of course we now now we we have this 24:11 caught up in this rhetoric of reopening 24:13 uh reopening what 24:15 uh i mean are there people there the 24:17 millions of people or hundreds of 24:19 thousands that we need for 24:20 for contact tracing and symptom 24:23 monitoring and generally 24:25 making sure that the environments people 24:27 go into are reasonably safe and secure 24:29 they're not there we haven't done it uh 24:32 those things the federal government 24:33 could have done those that just didn't 24:35 didn't get its act together to do them 24:39 those outside the united states find one 24:42 one unfathomable aspect of the place 24:45 and that is healthcare the 24:48 emphasis on private healthcare which is 24:50 clearly failing 24:52 in that context do you think that this 24:54 crisis may 24:55 have edged public opinion closer to 24:59 bernie sanders 25:00 idea of medicare for all do you see the 25:03 movement 25:05 given by joe biden to adopt medicare for 25:07 all because he hasn't yet 25:09 he's been a steadfast opponent there's 25:11 no question is overwhelmingly 25:13 uh move public opinion uh it's very 25:16 obvious that the health care system 25:17 doesn't work 25:18 health insurance system doesn't work uh 25:21 people who are 25:22 many millions now approaching i guess 25:24 roughly 40 million people who've lost 25:26 their 25:26 their jobs will get their insured 25:28 through their employer they lost 25:30 they have to go on to another health 25:32 insurance uh option at that point if 25:34 they can afford it 25:35 uh and this is this is changing that 25:38 they 25:38 uh i mean there is a sort of grudging 25:40 recognition 25:41 uh but the fact remains that the 25:44 uh health insurance industry is a large 25:47 powerful well-funded industry with a 25:49 lot of political leverage uh and uh 25:52 basically replacing it as you would need 25:54 to do it's not 25:56 it's still not going it's not something 25:58 going to happen easily even if 26:00 uh there were a you know a new 26:03 presidency decided that that was the 26:06 what you had to do i did it's you you 26:08 haven't got the 26:10 uh i mean it's still going to take a big 26:12 fight to make something like that happen 26:15 but at the same time it's clear that 26:16 this is um 26:18 the fun the the dysfunction of the 26:20 system is very very apparent 26:23 uh in the um and will become more so i 26:26 have to say 26:27 is it was it as bad as it might have 26:29 been the answer to that is no 26:30 and the reason for that is that during 26:32 the lockdown uh people stayed home 26:34 there were no very few traffic accidents 26:37 there were very few work accidents there 26:39 were very few 26:40 other infectious diseases so hospitals 26:43 actually were 26:43 empty uh because they did all their 26:46 other clients 26:47 and this caused in the american system a 26:50 financial problem for the hospitals to 26:52 get 26:52 reimbursed on a fee-for-service basis uh 26:55 and so with the empty beds they're 26:56 saying where are all the sick people who 26:57 we rely on to stay afloat 27:00 uh and then you know you say 27:03 you can't make this up nobody nobody 27:05 would have invented this system 27:07 uh in which uh you know but effectively 27:10 there's a 27:10 in many respects except for the epidemic 27:13 uh a decline in in health problems 27:16 actually produces financial problem 27:19 difficulties for the health care system 27:22 well there is a similar system called 27:25 the the privatized prison system that 27:26 would go completely 27:28 robust if uh crime was not committed 27:31 um you know the the whole yeah 27:36 needs problems in order to keep 27:37 surviving but 27:39 yes but the private prison system isn't 27:41 as big a thing of the bigger piece of 27:42 the thing i don't think it's the private 27:44 health care system private and 27:45 non-profit 27:49 before we move to europe and we shall 27:51 move to europe in a minute 27:53 um i've got a i've got a question for 27:56 you you can answer it and we will ask 27:57 our viewers not to reveal your answer to 28:00 keep it between us 28:02 um you know four years ago 28:05 um when we were discussing the hillary 28:08 versus donald 28:10 question you know we all said 28:13 you know what can you do if we were 28:16 voters 28:17 i mean you are a voter but if we were 28:19 voters in a swing state you you were not 28:21 a vote in the swing state you're in 28:23 texas for god's 28:24 for god's sakes um but if we were in a 28:28 swing state we will 28:29 you know hold our nose like that and 28:31 vote for hillary to keep donald out 28:34 um in november are you going to vote for 28:36 biden 28:40 i am a religious uh 28:44 democrat which is to say 28:48 you know it's a kind of the relationship 28:50 that 28:51 many people feel toward their church uh 28:54 however 28:55 ambivalent about it it's succeedingly 28:57 hard to leave 28:58 um they uh so the answer to that is 29:03 yes i will vote for biden of course i 29:05 will um 29:06 the uh is this what you would hope 29:10 have happened in this country uh no 29:12 obviously 29:13 uh but at the same time uh 29:16 the uh 29:20 you know i i'm i'm not a sort to think 29:24 that these problems are and the 29:27 kind of crisis that we're facing is the 29:29 work of 29:31 you know a late arriving individual and 29:33 i think it's important as a professional 29:35 to understand 29:36 uh that the reason the us economy has 29:39 crumbled 29:40 under the uh you know the impact of the 29:42 coronavirus 29:44 is not simply that it had uh a federal 29:47 government 29:47 in the hands of of of this particular 29:51 uh gang uh it is it really has to do 29:55 with the way 29:56 in which the economy has been engineered 29:58 over the last 40 years 30:00 um and in particular in the in the 30:03 uh return from the financial crisis of 30:06 13 years ago 30:08 and what happened was that rather than 30:12 constru reconstructing the financial 30:13 sector and 30:15 pursuing a balanced recovery and rather 30:17 than 30:18 rebuilding a balance between the public 30:21 and the private sector 30:23 uh was that we we had this we had an 30:25 economic expansion that was predicated 30:27 on uh on a great deal it's particularly 30:31 on on on capital asset valuations on the 30:33 stock market 30:34 driven by uh the corporate sector which 30:38 issued debt to buy back its own stocks 30:41 uh 30:41 and became very highly leveraged and 30:43 then securitized that debt so it was 30:45 this 30:45 is a process uh in a different channel 30:48 that 30:49 that led to the last financial crisis 30:50 that was mortgages this was corporate 30:52 debt 30:53 and you could tell uh that once the once 30:56 the base of profitability ran out you're 30:58 going to run into 30:59 systemic problems very big systemic 31:02 problems 31:03 uh it happened much it happened very 31:05 fast as a result of the epidemic 31:07 uh but uh that this was this was not the 31:10 invention of 31:11 of this administration and it was 31:14 and it wasn't the invention of the 31:15 previous administration's the invention 31:17 of a whole set of ideas about how you 31:19 run 31:20 um you run the economy and that's where 31:23 we have to begin 31:24 now obviously the political sector is 31:26 not thinking along those lines 31:28 and my view is one has to continue to 31:30 work to change to change this perception 31:33 because until you do until you really 31:34 have a serious change in the way we 31:36 think about how the system is structured 31:38 uh we're going to stumble along and 31:40 we're going to stumble along 31:42 under the impact both of the of the 31:44 biological event of the epidemic 31:46 and of the failure to recognize 31:49 uh what's what what the source of the 31:51 difficulties 31:52 is um and that happened in the 30s that 31:54 happened from 1929 to 30 to the end of 31:57 32 31:58 at the start of 1933. uh it took four 32:00 years 32:01 uh four years of deepening disaster 32:03 basically investment went to nothing in 32:05 1932 32:06 and that finally brought in uh a change 32:10 that defined my father's life and really 32:12 defined the whole era that certainly 32:13 brackets my life as well 32:15 uh and one had a a a 32:18 a period of of of dramatic 32:21 experimentation uh and uh reconstruction 32:25 and development 32:26 and a positive change and 32:31 essentially that's the if i hark back to 32:33 a historical period that's the one i 32:35 think you have to harp back to and think 32:36 about 32:37 really understand what you have to think 32:39 about and what you have to do and what 32:41 how you have to reorganize things but 32:43 it's understandable people don't want to 32:45 do that they 32:46 they hold on to illusions that what was 32:48 six months ago can be restored 32:52 of course these illusions have 32:54 particularly lucrative 32:56 but for some uh sure of course 32:59 that's motivated failures they are not 33:02 unmotivated errors 33:05 in certain respects that's true once 33:07 once assets are devalued houses and 33:09 corporate assets and everything else 33:11 there somebody can come along who has 33:12 some 33:13 access to credit or have some capital 33:15 and pick them up for cheap and i'm sure 33:16 that's very much i mean i know that's 33:18 very much in people's minds 33:19 and there was short selling in the 33:20 market uh the governmental response was 33:23 delayed 33:24 and they were intelligence briefings 33:25 which even some senators sold out their 33:27 their stock positions in january when 33:29 they understood what was going to happen 33:31 uh but other people sold short and made 33:33 there was a report of 33:34 300 and some billion dollars of profits 33:36 made by short selling the market 33:38 um so yes uh there 33:42 there's basically a a fork in the road 33:44 uh that can happen 33:45 and the you know the more likely one is 33:47 the grim possibility 33:49 that people will simply be foreclosed 33:51 evicted 33:52 that their properties will be commercial 33:54 properties will be shut down and 33:55 eventually they'll be bought up and 33:56 demolished and god knows what 33:58 if anything will happen to them uh but 34:02 that this will become a very 34:03 concentrated economy with many millions 34:06 of people who are homeless and who have 34:07 no source of 34:08 of of of support and the collapse in the 34:12 state and local government 34:13 services which depend upon their tax 34:15 revenues property taxes and sales taxes 34:18 and that's also very much in the offing 34:20 at the present time 34:21 so all of that is one one possibility 34:24 and and my view is that 34:25 that that's it's not a tolerable pos 34:27 it's obviously not tolerable 34:29 but it's not something which can be 34:31 supported politically for the reason 34:32 that the people who were affected by it 34:35 were doing what they were supposed to do 34:37 right they were doing what was 34:38 part of the public effort to defeat the 34:41 disease 34:42 staying home uh they were late took the 34:44 furloughs from their jobs or were laid 34:46 off 34:46 uh but this was all part of a common 34:48 national effort if you then tell them 34:50 well it's just because you couldn't pay 34:51 your mortgage you now have to lose your 34:53 house you could 34:54 you couldn't pay you can't pay your rent 34:56 you're going to be invicted and thrown 34:57 out on the street 34:59 uh good luck holding that in i don't 35:01 think that's going to work 35:02 um so the ultimately i think uh that the 35:05 other fork 35:06 in the road is the one that has to be 35:08 seriously taken up and considered and 35:10 that 35:10 really is to say at the end of the day 35:13 what has to give here is the structure 35:15 of debts the financial 35:17 structure here which has become 35:19 basically unsustainable 35:21 and needs to be written down written off 35:23 that can happen that's what they did in 35:25 the 30s 35:26 ultimately was that they wrote down and 35:28 wrote off the debts 35:30 but the the key point he made is 35:32 ultimately 35:33 you mentioned before the period between 35:36 1929 35:37 and 1932 33 just before 35:40 fdr came in with his new deal 35:43 but it seems to me that the difference 35:45 with our error 35:47 because our 1929 course took place in 35:49 2008 35:51 in our 1929 the difference was that the 35:54 central banks 35:55 of the g20 money printing 35:58 and reflow to the financial sector 36:00 unlike in 1929 36:02 so the the way i feel it um jamie is 36:05 that 36:06 you know the period between 1929 and 36:09 1932 36:10 you know that was three years but with 36:13 the cortisone that has been applied by 36:15 central banks after 2008 that period has 36:18 been 36:18 stretched and stretched and stretched 36:21 and that is what creates 36:23 very low levels of investment because 36:25 the money printed by the fed the central 36:27 bank of europe 36:28 of my bank of england bank of japan it 36:31 reflows asset prices the float stock of 36:34 changes it reflows the financial sector 36:36 but it does not go into 36:38 investment into things society needs and 36:40 they so you have this amazing 36:42 incongruity between say you know 36:43 liquidity available in investment that 36:45 creates depletionary forces 36:47 those beget political monsters all over 36:50 the globe 36:51 and that creates the fragility you're 36:53 talking about 36:54 and the huge amount of private debts 36:57 because people simply don't have the 36:58 incomes so they have to rely more and 37:00 more 37:00 private that during the good times and 37:01 then corona by iris comes so 37:04 it seems to me that you know we this is 37:06 worse than the 1930s because in the 37:07 1930s at least 37:09 we had to have we have fdr had no 37:12 alternative or somebody had to do it had 37:15 to 37:16 come in and restructure that because 37:19 they didn't have this toxicity of 37:22 the you know the liquidity which is 37:25 zombifying the financial sector 37:27 keeping asset prices up and the stories 37:29 everywhere everybody 37:30 everyone else well uh yeah up to a point 37:34 uh there are things which weren't didn't 37:36 exist in the 1930s that continue to 37:39 function 37:39 social security the united states 37:40 continues to function uh 37:42 and so long as the government is bailing 37:44 out you know the 37:46 the corporate debtors then the bonds are 37:48 not defaulting massively and that 37:51 supports a great many people who have 37:53 you know 37:54 who have have retirement funds and this 37:56 kind of thing uh so this if the 37:58 structure is different one has to think 38:00 about it quite carefully 38:01 but at the same time there's no way 38:04 that that helps let's say a boeing 38:08 major american manufacturer of aircraft 38:11 there's no way it helps anybody who's 38:14 trying to maintain a commercial 38:15 establishment of 38:16 a retail mall i saw a report i don't 38:19 know if it's accurate that 38:21 90 of american malls could close that 38:24 landlords are sending out default 38:25 notices to their commercial clients 38:27 right now by the thousands um and this 38:30 is an implosion 38:32 of an extent because the american 38:33 economy depends upon it's 38:35 very largely a an economy floated by 38:38 um you know by suburban expansion and 38:40 and commercial 38:42 uh retail of this kind um and 38:45 uh so it seems to me that uh that 38:48 there are certain things that financial 38:50 bailouts simply can't achieve 38:52 uh and that you know i don't know 38:56 whether it means three years six years 38:58 or whether we have 38:59 some political motion in a shorter 39:01 period of time one or two 39:03 another thing that actually makes it 39:05 possible that it's shorter is that in 39:07 the 1930s there were a lot more people 39:08 in the countryside 39:10 um and so there was a lot more that was 39:12 you know in the 39:13 local provision uh and uh 39:16 now we are very urban and that requires 39:20 that supply chains continue to function 39:22 and then incomes continue to be 39:23 adequate to make meet basic requirements 39:27 uh and it's possible that that could 39:29 that could crack apart even more quickly 39:31 than it did in the 39:32 in the early 30s not sure but it's you 39:34 know i think one has to think about 39:36 these things 39:36 in terms of the actual systems that are 39:38 there right now 39:40 okay well we've been to china we've been 39:42 to the united states 39:44 let's come to the stupid continent of 39:46 the world 39:47 europe um before you 39:51 i i you know i give you the floor again 39:53 and let me say 39:54 for the benefit of our audience that 39:58 you and i have worked for years trying 40:00 to come up with sensible solutions to 40:03 the eurozone crisis 40:04 to the never-ending euro 40:08 area stagnation 40:12 what 10 years now we could have started 40:15 earlier because 40:16 the signs were on the wall even before 40:19 that 40:21 how do you assess europe's predicament 40:23 at the moment 40:26 well when you take europe all together 40:29 it 40:29 has a disturbing resemblance to the 40:31 united states in some respects 40:33 and the sense that there's no natural 40:36 authority that is capable of of 40:38 bringing the continent back from the 40:40 brink 40:41 in a in an ordinary an orderly and and 40:44 coordinated and effective way and that's 40:46 been the struggle 40:47 uh when you take it as country by 40:49 country then you have to deal with all 40:50 the diversity of course the 40:52 places like the uk very neoliberal have 40:54 come to the 40:55 much worse experience places that were 40:57 afflicted by austerity and ran down 40:59 their public health systems in the 41:01 italy and spain and france to a very 41:04 substantial degree 41:05 i got hit very hard uh people the phones 41:08 that were fast 41:09 and that maintained i mean and then you 41:11 have this experience in greece that's 41:13 in spite of everything there was a it 41:15 seems to have been uh 41:16 that's something about the society held 41:19 together 41:20 through this uh so you you you've got a 41:22 diversity of experiences that's also 41:24 true to a degree inside the united 41:26 states 41:27 um they uh and in terms of of uh 41:30 where we are uh in terms of facing up 41:33 with to the 41:34 issues that have afflicted the eurozone 41:37 uh 41:37 well uh you're uh probably you're no 41:40 doubt much closer to that than i 41:42 am but uh obviously there's been some 41:44 movement um 41:45 and it probably helps to have at least 41:48 one 41:49 national leader and i'm referring to 41:50 chancellor merkel who knows something 41:52 about science 41:56 and at the end of the day whatever one 41:59 may think of her and has to compare her 42:01 to 42:02 for example the leadership in the united 42:04 states 42:06 she does know about science but not 42:08 about economics the 42:10 well absolutely that is of course a 42:11 problem uh that is of course the problem 42:14 but as i say i would would i would i 42:16 would i trade donald trump for angela 42:18 merkel 42:21 but that's new york minute as they say 42:23 what 42:24 you know but you know that's that that's 42:26 a damning 42:27 merkel with faint praise isn't it 42:32 let's just say consider judgment 42:36 well look a a couple of points and then 42:38 a larger one and then i'll 42:40 pass the floor onto you again uh firstly 42:43 regarding britain 42:44 you refer to britain as neoliberal 42:46 there's no doubt about that 42:48 if you look at the period from 1979 42:51 onwards 42:52 but it is very interesting that this 42:53 government has point blank refused to 42:56 countenance austerity 42:58 uh there's been a lot of prep there's a 43:01 great push 43:02 from the treasury uh towards both the 43:04 chancellor of the 43:05 exchequer and boris johnson to adopt 43:08 austerity and they are 43:09 refusing it and you know they're they're 43:12 they're loosening up the purple 43:13 strings as if there is no tomorrow and 43:15 they they seem to be 43:17 doing this from a position almost an 43:19 ideological opposition to austerity 43:21 which is a very interesting development 43:23 given that this is happening in the 43:25 united kingdom then you mentioned greece 43:27 that somehow we managed to hold this 43:29 together we have a very small number of 43:30 deaths from 43:32 um from kobe 19. uh but i very much 43:36 fear that we're going to have the 43:38 largest number of deaths from hunger 43:40 as a result of economic 43:43 affliction and also you know our 43:46 government 43:46 loves to portray itself as the paragon 43:49 of epidemiological expertise and 43:53 success and you we have countries next 43:55 to us like you know albania 43:57 and bulgaria that did more or less 43:59 nothing during this period and they have 44:01 the same very low 44:02 um you know infection rate and death 44:05 count 44:06 so the balkans were very lucky to escape 44:08 maybe 44:09 by accident you know the trajectory 44:12 of the the of of of the of the infection 44:16 um regarding merkel's 44:20 economics and what's happening in europe 44:22 i need to say this for the benefit of 44:24 our audience and then 44:25 ask you to comment yet again we have 44:28 on the one hand the same category error 44:30 that we had in 2010 in the euro crisis 44:33 you know they keep treating this problem 44:35 as from an 44:36 economic point of view as one that can 44:38 be solved by means of loans 44:40 um as if it is an illiquidity problem as 44:43 opposed to 44:44 you know an avalanche of uh bankruptcies 44:47 and secondly uh again we have a lot of 44:51 wonderful announcements which um if you 44:54 um 44:55 you know hold them up against the light 44:57 for more than five seconds 44:58 they just vanish you know we have um the 45:02 the so-called 45:02 recovery fund of 500 billion which if 45:05 you look at it it just doesn't exist 45:07 there's no money there 45:08 we have these fantastic announcements of 45:11 effectively common debt 45:13 until you look more careful into them 45:15 and 45:17 again their macroeconomic impact 45:20 is insignificant 45:23 and what really matters jamie and i want 45:26 to put this to you 45:28 is that with everything they have done 45:31 while they have opened up the 45:34 the purse and allowed for monies to be 45:37 lent especially for european stability 45:39 mechanism and for the markets 45:40 with qe quantum vision all that money is 45:44 going to be added 45:45 to the burden of national debt and 45:48 national deficit 45:50 and given that mrs merkel whom you 45:52 mentioned 45:53 quite in a complementary fashion before 45:55 has already declared that 45:57 german the german federal budget next 46:00 year is going to go back to 46:01 the black zero the swag snool there's no 46:04 doubt that immediately when they hit 46:06 zero 46:07 they will demand of brussels that 46:10 brussels 46:10 demands of rome madrid athens and so on 46:15 the elimination of budget deficits and 46:17 given that the budget deficit in greece 46:18 and italy will be something like minus 46:20 12 46:21 of gdp we're talking about 46:24 the prospect of gigantic new austerity 46:27 hitting us 46:28 next year in the years to come just as 46:31 europe is escaping from the coronavirus 46:34 malays 46:36 we're going to be hit by austerity that 46:38 is equivalent of that of 2010-2011. 46:42 well and then i and i therefore retract 46:44 any any intimation of 46:47 of of generosity in my previous remarks 46:51 yeah because obviously this is not going 46:53 to work and europe will be destroyed and 46:54 it will collapse under this 46:56 uh that's where you're at the situation 46:59 where the wolf is at the door 47:01 uh and uh yeah it's it 47:06 that seems to me impossible that you 47:09 could enforce 47:10 uh that kind of uh 47:13 of uh adjustment on italy at this stage 47:17 uh without having a breakup 47:20 just for example without having a 47:21 breakup of the of the eu 47:23 and and in practice if not if not in 47:26 name 47:27 uh so i wonder if that's what 47:31 that's what basically he's not going to 47:32 be there for very long strategy at this 47:34 point 47:35 you have to remember that merkel who is 47:37 the smartest amongst them as you said 47:39 is not going to be there for very long 47:41 yeah of course 47:42 she's on her way out so you see i'm not 47:44 saying that they will demand of italy 47:46 that they go back to a primary surplus 47:48 but if italy has a budget surplus a 47:50 deficit of -12 47:52 and say to italy okay we will show 47:54 maximum flexibility remember 47:56 when we you and i were around the 47:58 corridors of the euro group they were 47:59 always talking about maximum flexibility 48:02 well yeah we will we will hit you over 48:04 the head with a blunt instrument but we 48:06 will wrap it up in newspaper that's what 48:08 they mean 48:08 so they will they will say to the 48:11 italians okay 48:12 don't go to a primary surplus but you 48:14 have to go from -12 to minus 48:16 two that's ten percentage points of 48:19 austerity 48:20 in a country like italy oh it can't be 48:24 done okay as i say at that point you're 48:26 basically 48:28 calling an end to the whole experiment 48:30 the whole project but 48:32 can you be can you imagine the 48:33 alternative scenario can you imagine 48:35 berlin saying 48:36 okay we will go to the schwarzenegger to 48:39 build the black zero 48:40 but it's okay let it not do you think 48:43 do you see this being politically 48:46 fathomable uh 48:48 you're the better judge of that my 48:50 instinct would be to say no that they 48:51 can't do that either 48:53 my instinct is that it won't happen 48:54 either they will insist 48:56 it will insist and you see this is the 48:58 difference with the united states you 48:59 said that the two continents look more 49:00 or less the same 49:01 well the difference is that um you know 49:04 you have a federal budget that they 49:05 that it can take all this rubbish you 49:08 know on on 49:09 into it and it can expand majestically 49:13 its deficits and nobody cares yeah now 49:16 that you know 49:17 it helps in the us and the uk to have 49:19 governments which are completely free of 49:21 any 49:21 any um you know debt to principle 49:24 and uh or any commitment to principles 49:27 uh 49:27 and uh willing to uh you know 49:31 say to pass what i mean in the us you're 49:34 right 500 billion compared to the five 49:36 or six trillion that are on the 49:38 table in the united states is uh is 49:41 for an economy of comparable sizes 49:44 essentially 49:45 trivial some uh and even if it were 49:47 there which as you tell me is not it's 49:49 not 49:50 uh the uh the u.s is sustained by its 49:54 willingness to to 49:55 suspend all pretense of principle 49:58 in an emergency uh but at the same time 50:01 uh 50:02 what we failed to do here was to 50:04 organize we failed to do this in an 50:06 effective way 50:07 uh we failed we failed to mobilize the 50:09 resources and so we're sitting there 50:10 still struggling 50:12 uh with with basics like testing and 50:14 contact tracing and uh 50:17 and and symptom monitoring and other 50:19 things that would enable us to have more 50:21 normal lives 50:22 uh with some degree of security uh and 50:24 we're we can see that they're 50:26 calculating uh to have allow the 50:29 infections to go up and then to let lock 50:31 them down again 50:32 and they're struggling to get through 50:34 november now elections in the u.s are a 50:36 very good thing because they suspend 50:38 economic principle you basically if you 50:40 have to make the economy work 50:41 uh in order to get through them um but 50:44 uh 50:45 in these circumstances uh you're looking 50:48 at 50:49 it's easy to say that unless something 50:51 happens 50:52 others that really is you know that 50:55 causes this thing to burn out on its own 50:57 and 50:57 i mean i can't predict the epidemiology 50:59 or the biology of this 51:01 uh but i don't think it's very likely 51:03 that's not what the models are saying 51:05 um then we're we're looking at 51:08 a you know seriously intractable problem 51:12 and one which again to come back to the 51:14 u.s the u.s doesn't solve this problem 51:16 then then nobody else in the world can 51:18 really solve it 51:20 because that you can't break the 51:21 connections completely um 51:23 and so the fact that the chinese or the 51:25 vietnamese or the koreans or the 51:27 um many other places new zealand and 51:31 other places have have have got this 51:33 under control is very provisional 51:35 so long as there's a huge economy out 51:37 here here in europe or the united states 51:39 that has failed to do so 51:42 okay it's time it's time to get your 51:44 crystal ball out 51:45 imagine that this is december 2013. 51:50 and we assume that we're both alive and 51:52 kicking and in 51:54 reasonably good nick and 51:57 you are asked by the atlantic or if it 52:00 still exists or some 52:02 vulnerable publication to write a 52:05 a review of the 2020s 52:09 what do you think you will be writing in 52:11 that review in december 2013 52:16 oh that's hard uh yeah that's the whole 52:19 point to end up 52:20 with a bank not with a whimper 52:25 you know at the moment i'm having a very 52:27 great difficulty writing anything 52:29 because 52:40 two months ago i was writing furiously 52:43 along the themes that you and i 52:45 familiar with about what uh you know 52:47 what was necessary 52:49 uh it was not in the expectation that 52:52 things would happen along those lines 52:54 but that uh 52:54 you know at least you could begin to get 52:57 people 52:58 focused uh to think about how things 53:00 should happen 53:01 uh and that's not the way it developed 53:03 uh 53:04 the fact is it's extremely hard uh so 53:07 what do i think i mean right 53:09 i mean i think it's entirely possible 53:11 that the european union will fall apart 53:12 and then the united states will 53:14 fall apart and then we will see uh that 53:17 the uh 53:17 that that what happened into yugoslavia 53:20 what happened to the soviet union was a 53:21 precursor 53:23 of what may happen to us uh and if 53:25 that's the case is because we 53:27 we we allowed an incompetent political 53:29 leadership 53:30 uh and we allowed a a um 53:33 you know a failure of uh of our own 53:36 ability to respond competently seriously 53:38 and 53:39 in an organized and effective way 53:42 unified way to a major problem 53:44 to major crisis uh this is uh you know 53:47 one thing talks about 53:48 the effect of chernobyl for example on 53:50 the soviet space 53:52 well this is not entirely different in 53:54 important respects um 53:56 and it really it will change people's 53:58 attitudes 53:59 uh toward the systems in which they live 54:01 in which way over ten years may 54:03 well say well okay the political systems 54:05 under which we operated before 54:07 are are not uh are not viable 54:10 uh and i mean i would like to think that 54:13 that's different and that we will have 54:14 another 54:15 another rebirth another revival another 54:18 uh you know 54:20 let's just say major uh reconstruction 54:23 effort 54:24 uh but uh material conditions are 54:27 different the psychological conditions 54:29 are different uh 54:30 and um the polarization is extreme 54:33 and the uh the the just the the 54:37 let's just say that the 54:40 criminal incapacity of the political 54:42 elite 54:43 is much more profound now uh and 54:46 uh so one uh and i hit the 54:50 end on a note which is as grim as this 54:52 but if you ask me what i think might 54:54 happen in in in 54:55 in 10 years i don't think you can rule 54:57 out that the 54:58 the systems that we're in will simply 55:00 not be there and we will have suffered a 55:02 major measure a long-standing decline 55:05 in our living standards and our and in 55:07 our social 55:08 coherence uh and we will 55:11 ask ourselves what if what what happened 55:14 well we'll look back over a half a 55:15 century when we allowed ourselves to 55:17 to be led down garden paths of various 55:20 kinds in particular that 55:22 if you like the neoliberal one the idea 55:24 that we can allow 55:25 uh essentially self-organization and 55:28 market forces to 55:29 control and credit institutions to run 55:31 the societies 55:33 that we do that uh we're going to get 55:35 the kind of 55:37 uh instability and uh and inequality 55:40 and precarity uh and difficulty 55:43 uh and eventually social strains that 55:45 blow things apart that we that that 55:48 that kind of illusion produces 55:51 well tragically one of the tragedies but 55:53 also 55:54 this is a credit to you is that um 55:58 even though as you say it's the last few 56:01 weeks that have 56:03 caused a great deal of pessimism to 56:06 descend upon us 56:07 but you upon you upon me i gave a very 56:09 dystopic 56:10 lecture on the cambridge union the other 56:12 day two days ago 56:14 um well if you if you if our viewers 56:18 uh want to read two books uh that 56:21 um we're very present about that one 56:24 is called the predatory state and the 56:27 other is called 56:28 the end of normal and jamie galbraith 56:30 happens to be the author of both 56:33 i don't think that when you were writing 56:34 them you were sort of trying to 56:36 predict the current predicament 56:40 but in a sense they both add a great 56:43 deal of substance 56:44 to the you know the bleakness that 56:47 surrounds us 56:50 well i had the advantage of having spent 56:52 my career as an ambulance chaser 56:54 financial crisis going back to 1975 in 56:57 new york city when i was on the 56:58 congressional staff 57:00 the predator state i wrote in response 57:02 largely to the 57:03 to the hurricane katrina and they they 57:06 call it 57:06 just brought that very much very sharply 57:08 into focus and how 57:10 how they uh the political system the 57:13 united states was basically feeding on 57:16 institutions that have been built up in 57:17 the 20th century and the end of normal 57:19 was an assessment of what happened after 57:21 the 57:21 financial crisis and what happened 57:23 leading up to the financial crisis and 57:25 especially of the 57:26 of the uh of the economic ideas that 57:28 underpin the 57:30 those developments and uh and then 57:32 looking forward to 57:33 the way technology and energy and um and 57:36 the 57:36 the collapse of effective military power 57:40 so all of these things played into 57:43 the economic conditions uh 57:46 i was surprised uh and well i think the 57:49 the the uh ability of the system to to 57:52 to carry on for another 13 years but 57:56 was something i didn't fully expect um 57:59 and partly because material conditions 58:01 were different from what i expected but 58:03 uh 58:05 but the underlying analysis i think was 58:07 sound and it 58:08 it showed the for the the what the 58:10 epidemic showed was that it hit 58:12 an extreme a system that become 58:13 extremely fragile 58:15 uh and there's now cracked apart in a 58:17 way which 58:18 as i said we've been talking about very 58:20 very difficult to restore 58:22 we have to really think about how to how 58:24 to reorganize ourselves i know there 58:25 have been many questions 58:26 about uh universal basic income job 58:29 guarantee and so forth 58:31 i'm very much on the job side of that 58:33 that that debate i think the important 58:35 thing is to have an organized society 58:37 that's doing things we have vast tasks 58:39 that need to be done and we can get 58:42 people 58:43 uh to to work on them and achieve things 58:46 then we can 58:47 we can build a a way forward um 58:50 but they uh you know that's what i can 58:54 continue to work on but come back to 58:58 the uh you know at the end of the day i 59:01 keep coming back to william of 59:03 orange it is not necessary to hope in 59:05 order to persevere 59:07 you have to keep going working on these 59:09 things indeed 59:10 and speaking of things speaking of 59:12 getting things done and 59:14 defeating fear and fearing fear itself 59:19 as fdr said let me remind 59:23 you but mainly our audience that 59:27 you and i were together in a number of 59:30 places when conflicts 59:34 of note were taking place but we were 59:36 also together 59:37 in at the end of november 2018 in 59:40 vermont 59:41 when you know we made an open call for a 59:44 progressive international 59:46 and now it is coming together 59:49 i hope to see you in september in 59:51 reykjavik if we can travel 59:52 if not we will do it by teleconference 59:55 but 59:56 the progressive international is really 59:58 taking shape we have 60:00 a capacity to be hopeful without being 60:02 optimistic 60:04 through this collaboration with 60:06 thousands of people across 60:07 the globe some wonderful people and 60:09 movements are joining us and jamie you 60:11 are going to be 60:12 part of it whether you like it or not 60:13 again i know you like it 60:16 um and let me just 60:20 come to the end thank you for um 60:23 joining another now the very notion of 60:26 another now is a hopeful one 60:28 even though we are not issuing any 60:31 optimistic predictions whatsoever 60:33 uh i will chat again very soon in this 60:35 forum 60:36 in other forums say hello to the family 60:39 from all of us because you know the 60:42 personal is political 60:44 uh we miss you all than i and i we are 60:46 missing austin we're missing ying the 60:48 kids emma eve 60:50 all of you um as we say 60:53 hugs thank you okay it's one of the 60:57 great pleasures of 60:58 is being able to work with you and with 61:00 everybody and dm and 61:01 progressive international uh i'm 61:05 very happy to be part of it so let's 61:08 carry on 61:08 soon let's carry on.