As the ballistic missiles between Iran and Qatar seem to have gone quiet for the time being I am making another attempt to get to Europe today for work commitments. Last week, my flights were cancelled due to the disruptions around Doha Airport. Anyway, fingers crossed. I will be back writing here again on Thursday, July 3, 2025. Here is some music to listen to while you are missing my posts (-:
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) released the latest CPI data yesterday (June 26, 2025) – Monthly Consumer Price Index Indicator – for May 2025, which showed that the annual underlying inflation rate, which excludes volatile items continues to fall – from 2.4 per cent to 2.1 per cent. The trimmed mean rate (which the RBA monitors as part of the monetary policy deliberations) fell from 2.8 per cent to 2.4 per cent. All the measures that the ABS publish (including or excluding volatile items) are now well within the ABS’s inflation targetting range which is currently 2 to 3 per cent. What is now clear is that this inflationary episode was a transitory phenomenon and did not justify the heavy-handed way the central banks responded to it. On June 8, 2021, the UK Guardian published an Op Ed I wrote about inflation – Price rises should be short-lived – so let’s not resurrect inflation as a bogeyman. In that article, and in several other forums since – written, TV, radio, presentations at events – I articulated the narrative that the inflationary pressures were transitory and would abate without the need for interest rate increases or cut backs in net government spending. In the subsequent months, I received a lot of flack from fellow economists and those out in the Twitter-verse etc who sent me quotes from the likes of Larry Summers and other prominent main stream economists who claimed that interest rates would have to rise and government net spending cut to push up unemployment towards some conception they had of the NAIRU, where inflation would stabilise. I was also told that the emergence of the inflationary pressures signalled the death knell for Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) – the critics apparently had some idea that the pressures were caused by excessive government spending and slack monetary settings which demonstrated in their mind that this was proof that MMT policies were dangerous. The evidence is that this episode was nothing like the 1970s inflation.
The global financial press think they are finally on a winner (or should that be loser) when it comes to commentary about the Japanese economy. Over the last few years in the Covid-induced inflation, the Japanese inflation rate has now consolidated and it is safe to say that the era of deflation is over. Coupled with the government (and business) goal of driving faster nominal wages growth to provide some real gains to offset the long period of wage stagnation and real wage cuts, it is unlikely that Japan will return to the chronic deflation, which has defined the long period since the asset bubble collapsed in the early 1990s. It thus comes as no surprise that longer-term bond yields have risen somewhat. But apparently this spells major problems for the Japanese government. I disagree and this is why.
It’s back. Season 3 of the – The Smith Family and their Adventures with Money – produced by MMTed begins today (June 20, 2025) and will run for the next 12 months, with episodes updated every month. The recession has deepened and the government is in chaos, with its chief advisor Professor Raul Noitawl insisting that more austerity is required to bring down the ‘debt mountain’. Ryan has now been unemployed for months and in desperation has reviewed his world view with shocking results. And to make matters worse, a major sovereign ratings agency downgrades the government debt from A to the lowest rating C. A lot of misinformation follows but sharp as a tack journo Mary Winter knows the reality and confronts the Prime Minister with the evidence. More shocking developments will unfold as the season continues.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) released the latest labour force data today (June 19, 2025) – Labour Force, Australia – for May 2025, which revealed that the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 4.1 per cent for the second consecutive month. There was a small decrease in overall employment (-2,500) which was offset by a 0.1 point decline in the participation rate, The net effect was a small decline in official unemployment (-2,600) and a stable unemployment rate. Whether the fall in employment and participation is a signal of a significant slowdown in the coming months is unclear at this stage. Monthly data fluctuates up and down. There was a 1.3 per cent rise in monthly hours worked and significant growth in full-time employment which blurs an easy interpretation of the other changes. Underemployment also fell 0.1 point growth. The broad labour underutilisation rate (sum of unemployment and underemployment) fell to 10 per cent (down 0.1 point) on the back of the declining underemployment. It remains a fact that with 10 per cent of available labour not being used it is ludicrous to talk about Australia being close to full employment. There is substantial scope for more job creation given the slack that is present.
Since we began the Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) project in the mid-1990s, many people have asserted (wrongly) that the analysis we developed only applies to the US because it is considered to be the reserve currency. That status, the story goes, means that it can run fiscal deficits with relative impunity because the rest of the world clamours for the currency, which means it can always, in the language of the story, ‘fund’ its deficits. The corollary is that other countries cannot enjoy this fiscal freedom because the bond markets will eventually stop funding the government deficits if they get ‘out of hand’. All of this is, of course, fiction. Recently, though, the US exchange rate has fallen to its lowest level in three years following the Trump chaos and there are various commentators predicting that the reserve status is under threat. Unlike previous periods of global uncertainty when investors increase their demand for US government debt instruments, the current period has been marked by a significant US Treasury bond liquidation (particularly longer-term assets) as the ‘Trump’ effect leads to irrational beliefs that the US government might default. This has also led to claims that the dominance of the US dollar in global trade and financial transactions is under threat. There are also claims the US government will find it increasingly difficult to ‘fund’ itself. The reality is different on all counts.
This is the second part of my thoughts on the current acceleration in military spending around the world. The first part – The arms race again – Part 1 (June 11, 2025) – focused on background and discussed the concept of ‘military Keynesianism’. In this Part 2, I am focusing more specifically on the recent proposals by the European Commission to increase military spending and compromise its social spending. The motivation came from an invitation I received from the Chair of the Finance Committee in the Irish Parliament to make a submission to inform a – Scrutiny process of EU legislative proposals – specifically to discuss proposals put forward by the European Council to increase spending on defence. The two-part blog post series will form the basis of my submission which will go to the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation on Friday. In this Part, I focus specifically on the European dilemma.
The Chair of the Finance Committee in the Irish Parliament invited me to make a submission to inform a – Scrutiny process of EU legislative proposals – specifically to discuss proposals put forward by the European Council to increase spending on defence. This blog post and the next (tomorrow) will form the basis of my submission which will go to the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation on Friday. The matter has relevance for all countries at the moment, given the increased appetite for ramping up military spending. Some have termed this a shift back to what has been called – Military Keynesianism – where governments respond to various perceived and perhaps imaginary new security threats by increasing defence spending. However, I caution against using that term in this context. During the immediate Post World War 2 period with the almost immediate onset of the – Cold War – nations used military spending as a growth strategy and the term military Keynesianism might have been apposite. These nation-building times also saw an expansion of the public sector, which supported expanding welfare states and an array of protections for workers (occupational safety, holiday and sick pay, etc). However, in the current neoliberal era, the increased appetite for extra military spending is being cast as a trade-off, where cuts to social and environmental protection spending and overseas aid are seen as the way to create fiscal space to allow the defence plans to be fulfilled. That trade-off is even more apparent in the context of the European Union, given that the vast majority of Member States no longer have their own currency and the funds available at the EU-level are limited. We will discuss that issue and more in this two-part series.
Today is a public holiday in the parts of Australia that I live and I have travel commitments. So I’ll be back on Wednesday. What is this holiday about?
On June 3, 2025 Australia’s minimum wage setting authority – the Fair Work Commission (FWC) issued their decision in the – Annual Wage Review 2025 – which provides for wage increases for the lowest-paid workers – around 0.7 per cent of employees (around 88 thousand) in Australia. In turn, around 20.7 per cent of all employees, who are on the lowest tier of their pay award (grade) receive a flow-on effect. The FWC provided a 3.5 per cent nominal wage increase for the lowest paid workers in its 2025 National Wage Case decision. Against the current CPI growth, that provides for some modest real wage increase for this cohort. However, note the discussion above as to the best purchasing power measure to use. Against the more applicable Employee Selected Cost of Living Index (SCLI), the decision provides for barely any real wages growth and fails to redress the massive real wage cuts in recent years. The media has failed to pick up on that reality, and has instead given oxygen to the employers’ responses which called the decision irresponsible while at the same time pocketing record profits as a result of their profit gouging. But at least the lowest-paid workers gained some relief as a result of the decision as the FWC largely ignored the whining of the employers.