Answer: Probably not! Elections bring out all sorts of revelations and epiphanies. We have seen that in spades in the last few weeks as the two main parties, both rejected as viable governments by the electors have struggled to lure the all important casting vote from the independents who are not only identifiable for the first time (there are even cartoons about them now) but who have taken advantage of their day (or 3 years in the sun) to lever as much out of the parties as possible. So last night, with the government returned as a minority operation at the behest of the vote of three independents and a Green MP, we suddenly see a renewed interest in regional development, public education and parliamentary process. The US President has also found a path to Damascus or at least he is trying to convince voters that he has – even making speeches to industrial workers with his sleeves rolled up. The reality is likely to be different but at least the topic of unemployment is centre stage for a day or so. And dare I add – with some support from the IMF.

For some time I have been promising to write a blog about the role that manufacturing plays in a modern economy. There is a strong presumption, especially from the progressive side of the political debate that manufacturing – or what you produce – defines the capacity for a nation to enjoy growth in real wages and therefore standards of living. So when I have said in the past that I am against industry protection I usually get attacked from the left and I note that this if often coming from people who think it is cute to sound technical by saying the government should balance their budget over the course of the business cycle. As if! Neither viewpoint coming from that quarter has much credibility. I take a more experiential viewpoint. People prefer to consume than to work. What we consume is more likely to give us joy than what we produce especially if the latter is in the context of exploitative capitalist production relationships. I am painting this in black and white terms to garner your interest. Clearly it is more complicated but in general I do not think you need a manufacturing sector to enjoy strong growth in material living standards and perhaps a polluting manufacturing sector erodes the capacity to enjoy broader concepts of growth and well-being. My flame resistant suit is now in place … so here goes.

Whenever unemployment rises substantially – that is, whenever there is a recession, the conservatives hide out for a while because the rapid rise in joblessness does not resonate with their models of voluntary choice (that is, workers choosing leisure although they can never explain why workers would suddenly get lazy?) or with their claims that structural factors push the unemployment rate up (although welfare policies etc rarely alter much). Of-course, they love it when some “structural” policy changes during a recession which is why they are cock-a-hoop about the decision of the US government to extend unemployment benefits. It has given them some latitude to get back into the debate even if all the data is working against them. But they always oppose the use of fiscal policy and so typically, towards the tail-end of a recession, they attempt to justify the deplorable unemployment levels by playing the “structural card”. We are now seeing that again and I expect the propaganda to spread and proliferate. It should be rejected like the rest of the cant.

The denials continue. In the Wall Street Journal yesterday (August 30, 2010) we see the latest desperate attempt by Harvard (and Stanford) professor Robert Barro to redefine away the recession. The article – The Folly of Subsidizing Unemployment claims that if the US government had not have extended unemployment benefits to 99 weeks “the jobless rate could be as low as 6.8%, instead of 9.5% …” Barro has consistently claimed that the government fiscal intervention has largely caused the recession to persist. As we will argue his track record at predicting and/or explaining economic outcomes is very poor. Simple facts always contradict his fantasy world of Ricardian Equivalence and Natural Rates. I am also adding Stanford to my list of universities which sensible students should boycott if they want to learn some economics given Barro’s presence there. The list is getting longer.

The central bankers have been meeting in Wyoming over the weekend as part of the annual Economic Symposium organised by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. While not all of the papers and discussion are yet available for public scrutiny there were some notable presentations (that you can access in full) which suggest that key central bankers are starting to realise that the economic crisis in not over and the fiscal-led recovery is slowing and that monetary policy alone cannot provide the solution. Moreover, one leading central banker indicated that monetary policy is not a suitable tool for controlling longer term problems such as price bubbles in specific asset classes. This view challenges the basis of the mainstream macroeconomics consensus that has dominated the policy debate for 30 odd years and culminated in the worst financial and economic crisis in 80 years. It is certanly a welcome trend in a debate which is typically flooded with ideological input from the mainstream macroeconomics profession.