Steve Keen

an arts law degree.

So I was doing, I could do whatever I liked as my other subjects.

I did psychology and mathematics as my other subjects.

So I was well equipped with the mathematics needed to read economics papers.

I read that paper, realized it was correct and thought, why am I not being taught this?

Why does it not turn up in the textbooks?

So I've been a critic ever since then.

And that's the defining moment for me.

Well, the core mistake that they make is treating the economy as if it's an equilibrium system.

They believe that markets reach equilibrium between supply and demand.

All markets in general tend towards equilibrium.

Capitalism is something which gives you equilibrium.

And this was something which sprung out of the limitations of the 19th century that we – of course, we didn't have computers then.

You had pen and paper if you were lucky.

So if you wanted to make an analytic argument, you had to do what you needed to do with mathematics or what you could do with drawings.

And that was quite –

That was something which for the 19th century economists to develop what we now call neoclassical economics were quite conscious of.

They realized that their analytic techniques weren't up to the issue.

So Marshall, for example, his principles of economics was basically the foundation of all modern textbooks until Samuelson came along, and then you get a blend of the two.

He said, if we want to do the analysis properly, we should be modeling it as an evolutionary system.