Here is an excellent recap on food production and security covering many of the key topics. I learnt quite a few new things which is the goal ! Also quite depressing. But with some lowkey optimism towards the end.

Hi everyone, Firstly, my thanks to you for signing up to this lecture series--and, I have to say, given the quality of discussions you're having, this community as well. I would now like your help in expanding this community. Please let me know if you'd be willing to do a testimonial about this course, either in video format (preferred) or text. You signed up in the early days, as you know, and frankly I wasn't sure myself how well this would work out. But I am now proud of the lectures I've put together, and I'm quite happy to tell people that this is both value for money and a worthy cause. But of course, that will be much more effective if it comes from you rather than me. So, if you're willing to help out here, can you say so in the replies here? Please also let me know what you prefer--video (which is preferred) or quick text (which you could write the latter in the reply if you feel inclined). I'll then pass these details on to Jordan, who will get in touch to arrange the videos. I expect that all it will take is say 30 seconds of you talking to your webcam--and spontaneously and live, rather than to a script. You'll need to say your name--which can be the whole kaboodle or just your first name, if you'd prefer to be somewhat anonymous. And then add what you think of the course, and your recommendation to people who are considering signing up. Cheers all, Steve PS I'm writing the slides I'll give at that commercial property talk in Barcelona on Tuesday week right now, after which I'll get back to writing the Ravel lecture. That will leave just the "critique of Neoclassical micro" lecture to finish and the first full set of lectures will be complete (well, except for the "flowchart side of Minsky" lecture which I noted that I'll give in every 2nd set of lectures, in place of the Godley Table lecture I gave in the current set of ten).

Much ado is being made (rightfully) on Gary Stephenson's exhortations to tax the rich - all over the internet and BBC, getting people of all ilks to wade into the debate. Especially useful is @Steve Keen s and Phil's youtube dialogue on the Subject. https://youtu.be/G7e1Tpl71oY?si=tjE5_ZojAclb5BN7 Here is my take: I am of the mind that the reasoning around Gary is going arse-backwards when it comes to the "the rich". Let me explain: the rich are rich because they have operated with success within a system that is commonly-owned. The system is large and complex, including fiat currency, licensed actors like banks, frameworks of regulations and stimuli and constraints of all kinds. Some bits are publicly owned, some bits are private. Now. To operate in this system is a privilege, not a right. A company owner has the privilege to sell goods to citizens in the system, and to hire workers. You might say also that to be able to buy stuff or get a job is also a privilege. All actors are expected to not abuse this privilege. NOW: privileges come with conditions. It should be axiomatic that to earn the privilege of selling stuff you are expected to create jobs. For the privilege of being able to amass money you are expected to see to it that the poor are OK. Think of Kate Rayworth's Doughnut. We are getting into system dynamics here: as long as there are unemployed people, businesses should be expected to contribute to their livelihood, as the rules of the game. As long as wages do not cover living costs, businesses are expected to contribute, rules of the game. Because, in this complex system, a human system, we know that fairness is an attribute desired by all. That is why we have rules for games. Level playing fields. To identify the system and rule changes needed you cannot look at individual rules like taxing rich or even wealth, you have to see it system dynamically from above. IF you start from the paradigm that "To be a part of the system, you have to accept the system is designed for the good of all." So you need to design constraints that put ceilings into place (you can't screw up nature, you cant make mineral resources unavailable) and floors (as long as there are people who don't have the basics you will contribute).

I asked ChatGPT the above questions and here is the answers I got. Question: What is MMT? Answer: “MMT” typically stands for Modern Monetary Theory, an economic framework that rethinks the role of government spending, taxation, and money creation. Here’s a brief overview: Core Ideas of MMT: 1. Sovereign Currency Issuers: Countries that issue their own currency (like the U.S. with the dollar) can’t “run out” of money in the same way a household or business can. 2. Government Spending First: MMT argues that governments spend first, and then collect taxes—not the other way around. Taxes serve to manage inflation and demand, not fund spending. 3. Unemployment as a Policy Choice: Since the government can always fund job programs, persistent unemployment is seen as a policy failure. 4. Inflation, Not Deficits, Is the Constraint: MMT acknowledges inflation as a real limit, not national debt or budget deficits. Criticisms: • Many mainstream economists argue MMT underestimates the inflationary risk of too much government spending. • Some worry it reduces discipline in fiscal policy and could lead to runaway deficits. If you meant something else by “MMT” (e.g., an acronym in a different field like medicine, logistics, or software), let me know!

Steve is giving a talk this coming week on energy. And by chance, Macro N Cheese had Erald Kolasi (The Physics of Capitalism). talking about energy in the economy. Very complimentary about Steve. There is some good information about how new systems require more energy ; basically industrial advances mean more energy usage. In our current world, the AI revolution. Worth a listen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpRQucaRhWI&list=PLLGRRZ7Cym32_kQDHDlKZfS6KdMm85471