 Znači je, da neo-libera je dobro, zelo je življenja, da je zombija. Kako smo pošli? Nisem nekaj, da pričočne investije bila pričočnje, da je nekaj držav, da je nekaj držav, da je tudi 30. seči. Nisem nekaj, da je dobro pričočnje, da je tradizionalne konečnjega era, da je genera pričočnje, pričočnje, et cetera, should be a solution, though I do not exclude that that can be the right-wing answer. I think that it is clear that the phase of indebted consumption may create the appearance of stability for a while, but it creates a capital which is unsustainable. I am Riccardo Bellofiore and I am affiliated to the University of Bergamo, a university in the northern Italy near Milan. I was lucky enough to know Minsky since the late 70s, because he came to Bergamo very often, he even bought a house. I have been intrigued by the two sides of Minsky. The most known is the financial instability hypothesis. Minsky died in 1996, but became a very well-known figure after the crisis of 2007-2008, because he was connecting instability to private debt. Of course, private bubble for household consumption was a key here. There is, however, the other side of the moon, which is not very well-known, that for me was very important, this other side of the moon is the fact that Minsky in the 80s developed a stage view of capitalism, speaking of five phases. There was the commercial, the industrial phase of capitalism, the financial stage, then the managerial stage, the Keynesian era and after the money manager capitalism. But the other very important thing, which is already there in the writings of the 70s for Minsky, is the heritage of the New Deal. It was very much for a radicalized view of socialization of investment, and also for the state as direct employer. So his view out of the crisis of the 70s, but I would say also the same can be said for going out of this crisis, was actually a view which tried to connect the Keynes heritage to the New Deal heritage. The New Deal was the world in which he studied and he made also his political education. So these ideas of the socialization of investment and the status that the employer was very much coherent with the secret theory of money, but he provided a much more stress on the financial side, on the financial stability, which was lacking in the theory of the monetary secret. Minsky had this stage view of capitalism. His stress was mainly if not only on finance. He loved to say that in capitalism money is not the most important thing, it is the only thing. My perspective is very sympathetic to this, but I have an origin also in the Marxian framework, so my stress is also on labor surplus value profitability. And as you know in Marxianism there is this view of the falling rate of profit, which is very often interpreted mechanically. I tried to have a non-mechanical interpretation of the falling rate of profit, so in my view actually the long depression of the late 19th century was a traditional falling rate of profit theory to low surplus value. But in the 30s the crisis was an effective demand crisis, which I would not define as under consumption but as under investment. Keynes plus Kaleski are very important here. Then there was the way out of this crisis, mostly because of the destruction of capital and the World War II. The following era was the era of the traditional Keynesian phase, and it ended again because there was a profitability crisis. Two low gross profits, but this time not for the traditional view of the falling rate of profit, but because there were social struggles not only on the wage, but also in the direct production process. This view has some depth with the regulation school, also authors by Andrew Glean, where the profit was a containment by workers of exploitation and productivity. After there was neoliberalism. I see neoliberalism, yes, as Miski says, as the money manager, capitalist phase, that I would rather rephrase in a Marxian way as the real subsumption of labor to finance and debt. Actually, the workers were traumatized in production, so we had this phenomenon that economists call the flat Phillips curve. You can reach full employment, but there is no rise in wages, productivity, exploitation is very high and so on, but also households were included through the money managers and so on into finance and went into debt against this fictional wealth, or because they needed to. Doing this, they became not only actors through the alienated figure of the money managers in the financial market, they became also in-depth consumers. So in-depth consumption was the new form of aggregate effective demand, the leading form of autonomous effective demand. In this case, the crisis came with the great recession and they very much agree with the interpretation of Adam Tooze in his book Crash, that this so-called financial crisis was not really due against falling rate of profit under consumption, this kind of thing, and not immediately from effective demand. It was due from the perversion of too short-term finance, a sort of crisis of funding in a world which is now transnational and there are interlocked metrics. The heart of the matter is North Atlantic finance, the system of banks, shadow banking, institutional investors, et cetera, related between US, the Eurozone and UK. So the crisis came from there, not from where everybody expected it, the global imbalances between US and China or the internal imbalances within the Euro area. This stage view is linked to the idea that each phase has something which propels it, but the forces leading up are the same forces that exhaust themselves, and so you have an upper turning point and go into a structural crisis. But in this view, where there is a kind of necessary upper turning point, there is no necessity in the lower turning point, there must be institutional innovation. This is very strong view in Minskij, but it is also in others very different as Schumpeter, et cetera. The German idea, so to speak, of making profits through net exports cannot be applied to the world, and it leads to trade wars again as we are. So what is the way out? I think the way out is a kind of different government spending, a targeted government spending in the Minskij meaning of the world, but here I also use a concept borrowed from the other secretists, the French secretists, Alain Parghese. He speaks of good planet deficits, because the point is that the monetaries or neoliberalist policies, which are different, but here it is not very, very essential to distinguish them, this kind of policies, they say they are against government deficits, but they create government deficits. They are self-defeating because they kill GDP and employment and so on. We want to have ex-ante planet deficit, which rise for a while, the debt over GDP, but these expenditures are good because they create tangible and intangible new resources, not only infrastructures, but also the green expenditures, but they think that we should put into investment things like health, education and so on. So after a while, the GDP should go up, and as Minskij wanted, Minskij was the case idea that in full employment you should have some kind of balanced budget excluding the investment. We reach a way out of the crisis.