Category Archives: Video από συνέδρια. τηλεοπτικές εκπομπές κλπ.- Videos from conferences, lectures, tv etc.

Another comment on the current tensions between Greece and Turkey (and a debate with a Turkish chauvinist– S.Mavroudeas PRESS TV 11-9-2020

Yesterday (11-9-2020) I was asked by PRESS TV to comment on the current tensions between Greece and Turkey.

I expressed the opinion that these tensions and war-mongering threats are coming from both sides, that is the Greek and the Turkish ruling elites. And that the peoples of Greece and Turkey have nothing to gain from this. The two ruling elites scramble for supposed oil reserves in the Eastern Mediterranean basin. The existence of these reserves is far from certain; and also, if they exist, it is equally uncertain whether it is economically feasible to exploit them (debth, price of oil etc.). The irony is that, even if they exist and one side or the other gets them, the ultimate beneficiary would be the big Western oil companies that will exploit them paying peanuts to the host country.

So, the Greek and the Turkish ruling elites are flirting with war for their own gains and the gains of their foreign patrons. The Greek and the Turkish peoples have nothing to gain from this. However, they will pay a bloody price in the case of a war as they will be the cannofodder for their ruling elites.

The solution is a return to the status quo ante and the cease of all aggressive actions by both sides.

The other commentator in the News programme was a Turkish analyst who expressed the typical nationalistic and war-mongering rhetoric of chauvinist jingoists in both sides of the Aegean. Notable, among his arguments, was the dictum that you can expand your borders by winning militarily. Typical rubbish by people that usually send other people to be massacred while they play the super-heroes safely at home.

The videos of the comment can be assesed via the following links:


A comment on the current tensions between Greece and Turkey – S.Mavroudeas PRESS TV 11-8-2020

The News Bulletin of PRESS TV asked for my comments on the current tensions between Greece and Turkey regarding the Exclusive Economic Zones in the Eastern Mediterranean.


The video of my comments and their transcript follows.

The current tensions are part of the long-running antagonism between the Greek and the Turkish ruling elites. This antagonism goes back to the formation of nation-states in the Balkan and the Eastern Mediterranean area in the 19th and the early 20th centuries.

In this antagonism both ruling elites scramble for gains and for regional influence.

They both use international law at will; that is each one chose an item of international law of the seas that suits it and disregards others.

This antagonism takes place under the auspices of the US, EU and NATO who are the ultimate patrons and arbiters. Recently, Greece has become even more subservient to these patrons because of its participation in the EU and the subsequent wreck of its economy during the recent economic crises. On the other hand, Turkey pursues a more independent and aggressive policy by playing not only with the West but also with Russia and other regional powers. As it feels more confident, the Turkish ruling elite expands its areas of operation more aggressively. However, the Greek ruling elite – although in a worse condition – does not fail to reply aggressively wherever it can.

The object of the current tensions is the ownership and the exploitation of potential oil and natural gas reserves in the Eastern Mediterranean. Thus, both ruling elites try to extend their Exclusive Economic Zones. The irony is that (a) the existence of these reserves (and moreover whether they are economically exploitable) is far from certain and (b) if they exist it is US and Western oil companies that will get the contracts.

This is a miserable reason for throwing the peoples of Greece and Turkey into a bloody war. A famous Turkish poet (Nazim Hikmet) once wrote that they are two Greeces and two Turkeys. The one is that of the ruling elite and it is fake: it serves only the interests of itself and its patrons. The other is that of the people and it is the real one. This real Greece and this real Turkey have no interest whatsoever in a bloody war supervised by the Western patrons.

Συνέντευξη Ράδιο ΛΟΚΟΜΟΤΙΒΑ 23-7-2020 Αγγέλης Μαυρουδέας





Την Πέμπτη 23/7/2020 το Ράδιο ΛΟΚΟΜΟΤΙΒΑ φιλοξένησε συζήτηση με τους Γ.Αγγέλη (οικονομικό δημοσιογράφο) και Στ.Μαυρουδέα (καθηγητή Πολιτικής Οικονομίας). Η συζήτηση αφορούσε την παγκόσμια και την ελληνική οικονομία και κάλυψε θέματα όπως η οικονομική κρίση και η επιδημία του κορωναϊού, οι αντιφάσεις και τα αδιέξοδα της ευρωπαϊκής ενοποίησης, η κατάσταση της ελληνικής οικονομίας, το πρόσφατο πρόγραμμα οικονομικής στήριξης της ΕΕ και οι μνημονιακές δεσμεύσεις που συνεπιφέρει, η έκθεση Πισσαρίδη και πολλά άλλα.

Η καταγραφή της συζήτησης βρίσκεται στον παρακάτω σύνδεσμο:

S.Mavroudeas’ interview in News of PRESS TV (11-7-2020) on the trade war

I was asked for an opinion for the trade war between US and France in the News programme of PRESS TV (11-7-2020).

The videos of the interview follow below.

Also below are the main points of my intervention.



PRESS TV 11-7-2020


This last episode is part of the trade wars that are raging during the last decades

The main instigator is the US who sees its economic hegemony faltering and tries to secure its position.

The other parts retaliate.

However, the causes of these current trade wars are far deeper.

The collapse of the Eastern bloc enabled the West to instigate the ‘globalisation’, that is an era of opening the economies, removing protectionist and trade barrier and weakening the national economic policies of the less developed economies. This facilitated Western inroads in these economies. The US benefited most from this ‘globalisation’ era because of its dominance oon the financial sector. However, the ‘globalisation’ era created several contradictions for the world and western-dominated capitalist system. A number of countries (‘emerging economies’) became the manufacturing powerhouses of the global economy. Thus, slowly Western dominance is challenged.

Consequently, protectionism and trade wars were gradually implemented; particularly in the form of ‘economic sanctions’ but not only.

The eruption of the 2008 global capitalist crisis and the current coronavirus crisis shutters the ‘globalisation’ era. The crises lead to the eruption of intra-imperialist rivalries. Trade wars have become the name of the day. We have entered the ‘de-globalisation’ era. In this new era imperialist economic and military wars constitute the rule of the game.


Regarding this particular tit-for-tat between the US and France, I would not rule out a mid-term compromise between them; given that what they exchanged till now is more or less threats rather than the actual implementation of punitive measures. We have seen this also in the US-China trade war. However, the deep strategic rivalries will ultimately prevail – one way or another – and the trade war will continue anabated.

Interview on the Greek economy – Press TV News 5-7-2020


Today I offered my opinion on the state of the Greek economy in a comment for the News programme of PRESS TV (5-7-2020).

The video of the interview follows together with its transcript.

Η ελληνική μετάφραση του κειμένου ακολουθεί.


The Greek economy is a failed economy.Since its accession to the EU it has been de-industrialised and became a service economy, heavily dependent upon tourism.

The 2008 global crisis and the subsequent 2010 eurozone crisis shattered this weak economy. The imposed EU-IMF austerity programmes weakened it further, instead of rectifying it.

This failed economy showed already signs of a slowdown in the end of 2019. The coronavirus epidemic aggravated this situation and triggered a severe crisis. Epidemics and the subsequent economic and social lockdowns hit asymmetrically hardly service economies. The Greek data verify this dismal aspect: -16% of GDP during the first quarter of 2020, that is without April and May when the lockdown was in full force.

The prospects of the Greek economy are equally dismal. The right-wing Greek government says that it expects in the worst scenario a -9.7% contraction of GDP. This is pure hypocrisy. The contraction will be much higher than 10% but the government tries to massage the numbers in order to avoid the politically damaging two-digit number.

Equally hypocritical is the scenario of a quick (V-shaped in economic jargon) recovery in 2021. Service economies do not have the agility to stage such recoveries. So, the Greek economy will need much more time in order to recover the damage of the coronavirus crisis.

In front of the coronavirus crisis, the EU was obliged to relax its austerity rules. Thus, Greece does not face the conditionality of a 3.5% primary fiscal surplus. It also expects some aid from the EU emergency program. However, this will be less than aspired, it will carry austerity conditionalities and will trickle down to the Greek economy only in 2021; that is too late.

The Greek right-wing government tries to hide this bleak picture from the public; like its predecessor, the SYRIZA centre-left government. It will fail like its predecessor. The Greek economy and society are entering a new period of pain and social upheaval.


Η ελληνική οικονομία είναι μια αποτυχημένη οικονομία

Από την ένταξή της στην ΕΕ, αποβιομηχανοποιήθηκε και έγινε οικονομία υπηρεσιών, εξαρτώμενη σε μεγάλο βαθμό από τον τουρισμό.

Η παγκόσμια κρίση του 2008 και η επακόλουθη κρίση της ευρωζώνης του 2010 κατέστρεψαν αυτήν την αδύναμη οικονομία.

Τα επιβληθέντα προγράμματα λιτότητας των ΕΕ-ΔΝΤ την εξασθένισαν περαιτέρω, αντί να επιδιορθώσουν τα προβλήματα της.

Αυτή η αποτυχημένη οικονομία έδειξε ήδη σημάδια επιβράδυνσης στα τέλη του 2019. Η επιδημία κοραναϊού επιδείνωσε αυτήν την κατάσταση και πυροδότησε μια σοβαρή κρίση. Οι επιδημίες και τα συνακόλουθα κλεισίματα οικονομικών και κοινωνικών δραστηριοτήτων έπληξαν ασύμμετρα τις οικονομίες που βασίζονται στις υπηρεσίες. Τα ελληνικά στοιχεία επιβεβαιώνουν αυτή τη θλιβερή πτυχή: -16% του ΑΕΠ κατά το πρώτο τρίμηνο του 2020, δηλαδή χωρίς τον Απρίλιο και τον Μάιο όταν το κλείσιμο δραστηριοτήτων ήταν σε πλήρη ισχύ.

Οι προοπτικές είναι εξίσου δυσοίωνες. Η δεξιά ελληνική κυβέρνηση λέει ότι αναμένει, στο χειρότερο σενάριο, συρρίκνωση του ΑΕΠ κατά -9,7%. Αυτή είναι καθαρή υποκρισία. Η συρρίκνωση θα είναι πολύ υψηλότερη από το 10%, αλλά η κυβέρνηση προσπαθεί να κάνει μασάζ στους αριθμούς για να αποφύγει τον πολιτικά ζημιογόνο διψήφιο αριθμό.

Εξίσου υποκριτικό είναι το σενάριο μιας γρήγορης ανάκαμψης (σε σχήμα V σε οικονομική ορολογία) το 2021. Οι οικονομίες υπηρεσιών δεν έχουν την ευελιξία να προβούν σε τέτοιες ανακάμψεις. Έτσι, η ελληνική οικονομία θα χρειαστεί πολύ περισσότερο χρόνο για να αποκαταστήσει την ζημιά της κρίσης του κοροναϊού.

Μπροστά στην κρίση του κοροναϊού, η ΕΕ ήταν υποχρεωμένη να χαλαρώσει τους κανόνες λιτότητας. Έτσι, η Ελλάδα δεν αντιμετωπίζει την απαίτηση επίτευξης ενός πρωτογενούς δημοσιονομικού πλεονάσματος 3,5%. Αναμένει επίσης κάποια βοήθεια από το πρόγραμμα έκτακτης ανάγκης της ΕΕ. Ωστόσο, αυτή θα είναι μικρότερη από την αναμενόμενη, θα έχει όρους λιτότητας και θα εκταμιευθεί από το 2021 δηλαδή πολύ αργά.

Η κυβέρνηση της ΝΔ προσπαθεί να κρύψει αυτή τη ζοφερή εικόνα από το κοινό, όπως ο προκάτοχός της, η κεντροαριστερή κυβέρνηση του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ. Θα αποτύχει όπως ο προκάτοχός της. Η ελληνική οικονομία και κοινωνία μπαίνει σε μια νέα περίοδο πόνου και κοινωνικής αναταραχής.


‘Labour Process Theory: A Critical Reappraisal’ – S.Mavroudeas ICOPEC 2020, Marmara University, Istanbul

I was an invited speaker in ICOPEC 2020 (Marmara University, Istanbul

The subject of my presentation was ‘Labour Process Theory: A Critical Reappraisal’

Below follow (a) the abstract of my talk and (b) my voice powerpoint


11th International Conference of Political Economy

Global Inequalities

June 24-26, 2020, Marmara University, Istanbul


‘Labour Process Theory:

 A critical reappraisal’


Stavros Mavroudeas

Professor (Political Economy)

Dept. of Social Policy

Panteion University






Labour Process Theory was born after H.Braverman’s ground-breaking work ‘Labor and Monopoly Capital’ (1974). Its major contribution was that it reinstated at the foreground the Marxist analysis of Labour Economics as a credible alternative to both the Neoclassical and the Keynesian theories of Labour Economics. Following from this a vibrant discussion was born that led to the creation of the scientific sub-field of Labour Process Theory within the academia. Notwithstanding its crucial contributions and significant advances over the previous forty years, today the Labour Process Theory is in a stalemate. This has been accurately characterized as a state of identity crisis. This paper reviews the evolution of Labour Process Theory and periodizes it in four distinct phases. The first one is marked by Braverman’s seminal contribution and his deskilling thesis. The second one scrutinised several of Braverman’s stylized facts (and especially the deskilling thesis) and expanded analytical and empirical studies to new issues (e.g. labour market segmentation, power and control in the workplace, designing job descriptions, cohersion and consent in the factory). The third phase attempted a generalization of the Labour Process Theory and ventured into macroeconomic projections on the basis of it (e.g. theories about Fordist and psot-Fordist capitalism, Flexible Specialisation). The last phase is characterized by a distancing from the Marxist theory of the social mode of production, the Labour Theory of Value and class struggle and is being lost in interesting but limited empirical issues concerning the workplace and managerial strategies. This paper argues that a return to the foundations of Marxist economic analysis is necessary in order for the Labour Process Theory to regain its identity and explanatory power. This task is particularly pressing in the current era of rapid changes in the workplace and the labour market.


Interview on the EU-Turkey refugee clash – PRESS TV 9-3-2020

This is a short interview of S.Mavroudeas’ in PressTV News regarding the recent clash over refugees between the EU and Turkey.

‘Economic Crisis and the crisis of Economics: Political Economy as a realistic and credible alternative’ – video lecture by S.Mavroudeas

I have been invited by the ISEPA’19 conference (organised by the Dicle University) to speak atheir conference.

Since I could not make it due to other obligations I was asked for a video lecture.

Its subject is ‘Economic Crisis and the crisis of Economics: Political Economy as a realistic and credible alternative’

Nikos Zappas did an excellent job in recording and editing the video.

The link for watching the video is below:


  • The abstract of the lecture is the following:




‘Rethinking the Economy and Politics: Current Solutions for New Problems’

10-12 October 2019, Dicle University, Diyarbakir


‘Economic Crisis and the crisis of Economics:

Political Economy as a realistic and credible alternative’


Stavros Mavroudeas

Professor of Political Economy

Panteion University

Dept. of Social Policy




This video lecture focuses on the current crisis of Economics and the relevance of Political Economy as a realistic and credible alternative. The last global capitalist crisis of 2008 reopened discussions on the issue of economic crisis; an issue long forgotten by the dominant tradition within economic theory, Economics. Economics (that is the study of the economy in abstraction from social and political relations, as a ‘play’ between individuals and not between social classes) has failed, in both its Mainstream (Neoclassicism) and Heterodox (Keynesianism) versions to forecast, comprehend and confront the 2008 crisis. This is a repetition of Economics’ dismal record against almost all previous major economic crises. Its Mainstream version considers capitalism a perfect system where crises erupt only because of deformations of the ‘normal’ functioning of the market. Its Heterodox version maintains that capitalism – because of its anarchic nature – is prone to crises but the existence of an overseer (in the form of the state) can secure the avoidance of such sad episodes. Both versions have failed utterly as the crisis hit both deregulated and regulated economies. On the other hand, Political Economy – the other major tradition in economy theory – proposes a more realistic and credible understanding of the economy. The latter is not an ‘play’ between individuals but between antagonistic social classes. This class struggle within the economy has an inherent social nature and is necessarily linked with politics. Thus, Political Economy argues for a unified analysis of the economy, the society and politics. Within Political Economy the Marxist tradition argues that capitalism is a system that passes from periods of booms to periods of bust. This is the normal functioning of the system as it exhibits cyclical fluctuations (economic cycles). Thus, crises are not an aberration but a normal characteristic. Moreover, state intervention can affect the eruption and the evolution of crises but it cannot extinguish their existence. This analytical framework has greater explanatory power that Economics.


  • The main points of the talk are the following:

The subject of this video lecture is the current crisis of Economics and the relevance of Political Economy as a realistic and credible alternative to the former.

Historically, economic thought is divided between two main alternative approaches: Political Economy and Economics.

The following table summarises the fundamental differences between these approaches.



Table 1: Main alternative economic approaches






Agents social classes

the economy is a social ‘game’


the economy is a ‘game’ between individuals

Primary focus production circulation (and only that involved in market exchange
Analytical framework Dual system:

(labour) values detn. prices

Single system:

prices detn. prices

Analysis of the economy in relation to society and politics in a unified framework separately


Economics is the study of the economy in abstraction from social and political relations, as a ‘play’ between individuals. There cannot be social groups as each individual is different from the other. However, these totally different individuals obey miraculously the same behavioural norm (minimize cost while maximizing utility).

On the contrary, Political Economy considers the economy as a social process; thus it is a ‘play’ between social classes. There is antagonisms between them (class struggle). And also they are different behavioural rules for different social classes.

Each of the two main alternative economic approaches is sub-divided two currents, as shown in Table 2.


Table 2: Sub-divisions of the Main alternative economic approaches


Since the end of the 19th century, Economics have become the dominant approach. Thus, it constitutes the Orthodoxy or the Mainstream. Political Economy continues its existence (mainly in the form of Marxist and Radical Political Economy) but it is relegated to the ‘underworld’, excluded from the commanding heights of economic policy making.

However, because of its a-social nature and its unrealistic fundamental assumptions (perfect markets etc.), Economics has been scarred by internal strife. These problems are particularly evident during big and prolonged economic crises. Thus, there appears within Economics also a Heterodoxy. The latter is practically a heresy: it shares several articles of faith with the Orthodoxy but it disagrees in some others.

Since the mid-1980s economic thought and policy has been increasingly dominated by very dogmatic and conservative types of Neoclassical theory (usually branded as Neoliberalism). Rational Expectations, infatuation with mathematization without considering its realism, belief in the perfect functioning of markets are its main features. Keynesianism – the previous Orthodoxy – became a Heterodoxy.

However, Neoliberalism – because of its unrealistic assumptions – has serious problems in instructing economic policy. Thus, even before the 2008 global capitalist crisis, a new Orthodoxy was created. This is the New Macroeconomic Consensus, which is a hybrid between a mild Neoliberalism and the conservative New Keynesianism. In a nutshell, the New Macroeconomic Consensus Orthodoxy is Keynesian in the short-run (accepting the existence of frictions and disequilibria and thus the efficacy of economic policy) and Neoliberal in the long-run (believing in Rational Expectations and self-equilibrating markets).

Nevertheless, the 2008 global capitalist crisis and its aftermath tore apart the credibility of this Orthodoxy and show once again the blatant inability of Economics to understand, forecast and confront economic crises.

There is ample evidence of this failure:

New Classicals have pronounced the end of economic cycles.

On a more practical level, the IMF declared in October 2007 that “in advanced economies, economic recessions had virtually disappeared in the post-war period”.

And then there was astonishment:

Nobel Prize winner and top Chicago neoclassical economist Eugene Fama declared: “We don’t know what causes recessions. I’m not a macroeconomist, so I don’t feel bad about that. We’ve never known. Debates go on to this day about what caused the Great Depression. Economics is not very good at explaining swings in economic activity… If I could have predicted the crisis, I would have. I don’t see it. I’d love to know more what causes business cycles.”

The failure of Economics (both in their Orthodox and Heterodox versions) to comprehend the economic crisis stems from their very methodology.

Table 3 summarises the way the main schools of economic thought approach the issue of economic crisis.

Table 3: Schools of economic thought

& the economic crisis


Essentially, Neoclassicism believes that capitalism is a perfect system (a Swiss clock) that never fails (and falls into crisis). Crises occur because some agent does not follow the normal market behaviour (hence it distorts the perfect functioning of the market). Capitalism is perfect and self-equilibrating.


Keynesianism believes that capitalism may fall into crisis (possibility theory of crisis) because its anarchic nature permits agents to function irregularly. However, a wise state supervision can either avoid crises or solve them. Capitalism is the best but it has to be saved from its own contradictions.


These approaches have failed not only in the last crisis but also in the previous ones. Their failure stems from their common foundations of Economics:

  • Understanding of the economy as a ‘play’ between individuals fails to grasp its social dimension and particularly the role of class struggle. It fails also to link economic and social and political processes.
  • Their belief that capitalism is the best socio-economic system leads to either ignore its fundamental deficiencies and contradictions or think that they can be rectified.
  • Their emphasis on the sphere of circulation ignores that the basis of the economy is the sphere of production. Thus, both Neoclassicism and Keynesianism ignore the critical role of profitability (the rate and the mass of profit) in the capitalist economy. Consequently, they cannot discern how a falling profitability leads to economic crisis.


Contrary to both of them, Political economy proposes a more realistic and credible understanding of the economy. The latter is not a ‘play’ between individuals but between antagonistic social classes. This class struggle within the economy has an inherent social nature and is necessarily linked with politics. Thus, Political Economy argues for a unified analysis of the economy, the society and politics.


Within Political Economy the Marxist Political Economy tradition offers a very realistic, sophisticated and coherent theory of crisis. It argues that capitalism is a system that passes from periods of booms to periods of bust. This is the normal functioning of the system as it exhibits cyclical fluctuations (economic cycles). Thus, crises are not an aberration but a normal characteristic. Moreover, state intervention can affect the eruption and the evolution of crises but it cannot extinguish their existence.


The main points of the Marxian theory of crisis can be summarized as follows:


  • Economic crises are part of the normal functioning of the capitalist system (that is, they have endogenous [systemic] causes).
  • This implies that crises are a usual and frequent event (that is they are a systematic phenomenon).
  • This does not imply that capitalism is in continuous crisis; neither than that it is destined to collapse due to simply an economic Rather, that capitalism passes from periods of boom (growth) to periods of bust (recession). This succession causes the fluctuations of economic activity (economic cycles) and is expressed both in the short-run economic cycles and in the long-run ones.
  • The systemic causes of crises derive from the dominant sphere of production (and are subsequently expressed in the others and not vice versus). They express the contradictions of capitalist accumulation and they operate even without the effects of class struggle (i.e. crises appear even without workers’ militancy).
  • Τhe basic determinant (systemic cause) of both the shοrt-run and the long-run economic fluctuations is the profit rate (and the linked to it mass of profits). The profit motive is the aim and, hence the determining factor in the operation of the capitalist system. Therefore, its fluctuations determine both the short-run and the long-run fluctuations of the accumulation of capital (grossly expressed in the fluctuations of investment and the GDP).
  • The basic rule that determines the movement of profit is the Law of the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall (TRPF). It provides the central direction. It co-exists in continuous struggle with a number of counter-acting tendencies. Their interplay causes both the long-run fluctuations (alteration between ‘golden eras’ of strong growth and deep structural crises) and the short-run fluctuations (alterations between growth and slump).
  • Intra-capitalist competition takes place in view of rates of profit (each capitalist eyes his adversaries) and is crucially shaped by the firms’ technical structure. Therefore, technical change is the main determinant of competitive advantage. This crucial role attributed to technical change differentiates Marx from both A.Smith (he considered technical change but not in relation to the rate of profit) and D.Ricardo (he did not considered technical change in relation to the rate of profit)
  • The crisis is both an expression of the problems of the capitalist system and a rectification mechanism.
  • Problems: the very success of the system (its overaccumulation of capital) causes its failure (the inability to continue to accumulate). Its overextension leads it to surpass its social and technical limits (in the given period).
  • Rectification: a process of destruction and reconstruction. Part of the system must be destroyed (e.g. bankruptcies) in order to leave space for its


This analytical framework has greater explanatory power than that of Economics as the debate on the recent global crisis proved.


Interview in Press TV News on the ominous signs of a coming new recession 14-8-2019

This is an interview in Press TV News (Stavros Mavroudeas & Steve Keen) on the recent turmoil in financial markets and the ominous signs of a coming new recession in the world economy. With Stev Keen we agreed that the gist of the matter are the unresolved causes of the 2008 crisis. However, we disagreed on its causes (Steve attributing it to deficient demand and private debt, me emphasising the falling profitability). We also disagreed on the subsequent measures used to surpass the 2008 crisis. Steve argued that Quantitative Easing is working, that public deficits do not matter and that the premature withdrawal of QE leads to the current turmoil. I argued that QE is not a remedy to falling profitability and problems in real accumulation. It alleviates part of the private debt but it cannot generate a recovery as profit rate falters. I also argued that public deficit matters as it becomes unsustainable and a burden to capital accumulation. More generally, I argued that when the real economy if ill (in marxist terms meaning a falling profitability) then monetary means cannot solve, in the long-run, the problem. Overall, this exchang is indicative on the differences between the Marxist and the post-Keynesian analysis.

Αυτή είναι μια συνέντευξη στο κεντρικό δελτίο ειδήσεων του Press TV που έδωσα μαζί με τον γνωστό μετα-Κεϋνσιανό οικονομολόγο Steve Keen σχετικά με την πρόσφατη αναταραχή στις διεθνείς χρηματοπιστωτικές αγορές και τα δυσοίωνα σημάδια μιας επερχόμενης νέας ύφεσης στην παγκόσμια οικονομία. Με τον Steve Keen συμφωνήσαμε ότι η ουσία του θέματος είναι τα ανεπίλυτα αίτια της κρίσης του 2008. Ωστόσο, διαφωνήσαμε για τα αίτιά της (ο Steve το αποδίδει σε ελλιπή ζήτηση και ιδιωτικό χρέος, ενώ εγώ υποστήριξα ότι οφείλεται στην πτώση της κερδοφορίας). Επίσης, διαφωνήσαμε σχετικά με τα επακόλουθα μέτρα που χρησιμοποιήθηκαν για να ξεπεραστεί η κρίση του 2008. Ο Steve υποστήριξε ότι η ποσοτική χαλάρωση (QE) λειτουργεί, ότι τα δημόσια ελλείμματα δεν έχουν σημασία και ότι η πρόωρη απ;osyrsh του QE οδηγεί στην σημερινή αναταραχή. Υποστήριξα ότι το QE δεν αποτελεί θεραπεία για την πτώση της κερδοφορίας και τα προβλήματα στην πραγματική συσσώρευση. Ανακουφίζει μέρος του ιδιωτικού χρέους αλλά δεν μπορεί να δημιουργήσει ανάκαμψη καθώς το ποσοστό κέρδους μειώνεται ή/και δεν είναι επαρκές. Υποστηρίζω επίσης ότι το δημόσιο έλλειμμα δεν είναι αδιάφορο θέμα καθώς καθιστά μη διατηρήσιμη και επιβαρύνει τη συσσώρευση κεφαλαίου. Γενικότερα, ισχυρίστηκα ότι όταν η πραγματική οικονομία είναι «άρρωστη» (πράγμα που από μαρξιστική άποψη σημαίνει πτώση της κερδοφορίας) τότε τα νομισματικά μέσα δεν μπορούν να λύσουν, μακροπρόθεσμα, το πρόβλημα. Συνολικά, αυτή η ανταλλαγή απόψεων είναι ενδεικτική των διαφορών μεταξύ της Μαρξιστικής και της μετα-Κεϋνσιανής ανάλυσης.

Interview on the Greek elections (July 7-7-2019), Press TV

These are the videos of the interview (together with Sp. Marchetos) in Press TV news on the results of the recent (7-7-2019) Greek general elections. The interview was aired on 8-7-2019.