Kevin Walsh could be the next Fed chairman, and he's already got a "plan" to cancel America's $39 trillion debt. Sounds like big news, right? 🤷‍♀️ Here's the catch: he trained in the exact same broken economic models as every Fed chair before him. Models that leave out banks. Leave out private debt. Leave out money itself. That matters a lot right now, because 2026 has three separate disasters lining up at once: a war that just gutted global fertilizer and helium supply, a Fed about to raise rates to fight the wrong kind of inflation, and a record breaking El Nino that could wipe out even more of the world's fertilizer output. Steve breaks down exactly why raising rates here won't cool inflation, it'll just cause more bankruptcies. Same religion, different priest. 😅 Watch the full breakdown here 👇 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAuEgIjGLcQ&views

Keir Starmer just became the sixth UK prime minister to resign without finishing his term. Every headline asks what he did wrong. Steve says that is the wrong question. Think about it: six prime ministers, left and right, all promised to fix the economy and all failed the same way. When that many people fail at the same task, the problem is not the people. It is something underneath them, and it is private debt. 😬 Everyone watches government debt. But private debt, what households and businesses owe, is what actually drives crises. In Britain it sat under 60% of GDP for a century, then trebled to 180%, pouring into housing and shares while wages stalled. That squeeze is what keeps breaking prime ministers. This video is worth your 20 minutes 👉 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzvAtOOfhuo&views

Friends, I read the UCL Self Financing State Article, which MMT points to as ‘proof’ the Bank of England creates new money for the Government to both spend and deficit spend. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4890683 The research on the U.K. Government accounts is fantastic! However, their conclusions do not seem to match their research, it is like they wrote the conclusions before they wrote the paper! Chris Rimmer asked me to write out the mistakes I am seeing in their conclusions, so here it is. Please review, and let me know if you see any mistakes; if so, what do you think am I missing? Or do you agree they made mistakes? Please advise. Thx! 1. The U.K. Parliament Approved Deficit Spending Over The Last 4 Years. · 120B pounds 21/22 · 127B POUNDS 22/23 · 134B POUNDS 23/24 · 146B POUNDS 24/25 P24 : https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9040/CBP-9040.pdf 2. The BoE Has Reduced The Supply Of Reserves Almost 30% The Last Four Years From Around 1T Pounds To Roughly 700T Pounds Today. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/markets/bank-of-england-market-operations-guide/our-objectives Q: How could reserves go down if the Bank of England was issuing new reserves to pay for Government spending or Deficit Spending? 3. The Treasury Debt Management Office (DMO) Sells Gilts Before Funds Are Needed, So Treasury Always Has Excess Reserves On Deposit To Meet All Spending Obligations, And Does Not Need To Borrow From The Bank Of England. https://www.dmo.gov.uk/responsibilities/financing-remit/ 4. The U.K Government And HM Treasury Credit Line With The Bank Of England Shows The Government Has Not Borrowed From The Bank Of England In The Last 15 Years.

I think it was the economist Romer who said that orthodox economics is methodologically unself-aware. Steve’s lectures on methodology are therefore particularly relevant. I knew that Karl Popper, as Steve explained, didn’t properly describe the methods of science. But I didn’t know some things that I subsequently saw in Wikipedia’s page on Popper - that he was a firm opponent of those alternative routes to knowledge (variants of epistemology, the theory of knowledge) that were not based on empirical testing. He argued for falsification-through-test rather than confirmation-by-selective-observation that characterised the inductivist method of classical science. I therefore also read Wikipedia’s voluminous page on epistemology, which says - “Epistemology explores how people should acquire beliefs.”. I was surprised by how many different variants of that ‘how’ the page goes on to describe, such as ‘justification’, ‘rationality’, ‘contextualism’, ’skepticism’, ‘internalism, ‘externalism’ and ‘empiricism’ among others. Later it says - According to the correspondence theory of truth, to be true means to stand in the right relation to the world by accurately describing what it is like. This means that truth is objective: a belief is true if it corresponds to a fact.” and then “The coherence theory of truth says that a belief is true if it belongs to a coherent system of beliefs. A result of this view is that truth is relative since it depends on other beliefs.”. So ideas that are coherent can - in the ‘coherence’ definition- be seen as true even if they don’t correspond to reality.. I confess to shock at just how much of a ‘loose-fit’ to reality some of these methodologies about knowledge allow themselves to be. I guess science may have made me naive, in the sense that C P Snow was on about …

Quick thing worth knowing about inflation is that prices can rise two ways: a demand shock (people spend too fast) or a supply shock (the cost of producing things goes up). They look the same at the checkout, but the cure for one makes the other worse. The 1970s was a supply shock. Oil went from $2.50 to $40 a barrel and dragged the price of everything up with it, because energy is the input to all production. Here is where it gets interesting 🫤 The Fed treats inflation as a demand problem, so it raises interest rates to cool people down. But if the real cause is supply, there is no excess demand to cool. All a rate hike really does is push banks to lift mortgage and loan rates, so households and firms hand more of their income to the banks. You squeeze the economy without touching the actual cause. Steve's latest video breaks the whole thing down, so it is a must watch! Watch, then tell us supply shock or demand shock? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCDR3y4rqik&views