Over the course of this economic crisis, I have seen a lot of erroneous analysis based on the conflation of things that are not commensurate. It is getting worse as the debt hysteria mounts. These conflations are examples of category errors, which are common in monetary and macroeconomic analysis. Most of the theoretical development in macroeconomics text books used by universities fall foul of this type of error. The one thing that follows is that when you detect this type of error you should be deeply suspicious of the arguments being presented.

Several readers have written to me asking about the Ricardian equivalence theorem, which is increasingly getting mentioned in the media and public policy reports. As I will explain, the theorem is used by anti-government proponents to argue that fiscal deficits are counterproductive and that cutting deficits in the middle of a recession will actually be good for the economy. They never really give up, do they? The theorem is a good example of the general mainstream approach where stark policy conclusions are derived which capture the popular debate but the underlying assumptions that are required to generate those conclusions are rarely widely known or mentioned in the popular press. Of-course, if the public understood these underlying assumptions then they would not take the conclusions seriously.

In the coming period and probably years you should expect to hear, read and be submerged with mainstream economists coming out and assessing the structural budget deficit. Across most economies, these so-called “experts” will be arguing that the structural deficit in the nation is too high and deep cuts are needed to bring it into surplus. The importance of this debate is that they use the structural deficit estimates as an indicator of the fiscal stance being taken by the government and thus separate out the effect of the automatic stabilisers. The problem is that it is an inexact science. The mainstream approach is highly dependent on the NAIRU concept (see below) and thus will err on the side of concluding that the deficit is “too big” and “likely to cause inflation”, whereas it is probable that the deficit will be too small to underpin private savings and high levels of employment.

The Australian financial press today pushed the message “Dubai shook investor confidence across the Persian Gulf after its proposal to delay debt payments risked triggering the biggest sovereign default since Argentina in 2001”. Last time I knew, Dubai was an emirate and Argentina a sovereign nation. While the current crisis in Dubai is clearly an issue it is not an instance of sovereign default. Some research is required.

I mentioned in yesterday’s blog that there is a growing number of deficit-terrorists out there who are trying to appear reasonable to separate themselves from the more loony Austrian-school fringe. They are appearing reasonable by saying that “now we should have deficits” but soon (unspecified) “we will need surpluses” to “pay back the excesses”. That sort of spurious reasoning. Even some self-styled progressives who want us to think they are both reasonable people and knowledgeable commentators are starting to emerge within this broad camp. But in general their arguments reflect, at best, an ignorance of how the monetary system operates. This unholy gathering will prove to be very damaging to the need for a broader understanding of how these operations and how government fiscal interventions impact.

Today we explore the problem of squirrels falling down holes. The exact number and size of the holes is to be determined – there is some disagreement. Who the squirrels are is also somewhat confused. But some thorough analysis should get us through this difficult task. Suffice to say, I have been reading the World financial press again … as I do against my own better judgement on a daily basis … and have done for the last too many years.

In the last recent period we have been told that Goldman’s is doing “god’s work”, that they are “sorry” for the “things” they have done wrong, and that their operations are essential to the well-being of the economy. Conversely, there have also been (influential) calls to “break up the banks” so that retail banking would be separated from the investment (risk-taking) activities. During the neo-liberal period, these two distinct roles became blurred and banks increasingly behaved as hedge funds. Legislation that supported the separation was abandoned under intense lobbying from vested financial market interests. The mess that these developments has created is now for all too see. Modern monetary theory (MMT) provides some simple rules for assessing whether the break-up plan is sensible and necessary. That is what this blog is about.