The Australian federal election campaign is in full swing and last night the federal opposition in Australia staged their policy launch for the federal election to be held on August 21, 2010. This is a campaign where both sides of politics are running on their respective claims to be better at implementing fiscal austerity measures. It has become a matter of who is promising the biggest budget cuts the earliest. It has made the parties barely distinguishable in terms of their overall policy appeal and has rendered both unfit to govern this country. It used to be said that procyclical fiscal policy was destabilising. This was typically in the context of neo-liberals claiming that expansionary policy always came too late and added to private spending that was already on the rebound and thus increased the inflation risk. But the reverse doesn’t appear to apply for the mainstreamers. Cutting public spending when private spending is weak is being held out as virtuous and the only way to engender growth. This inconsistency exposes the ideological nature of the austerity measures, which reflect as one UK commentator said recently – a desire to complete the neo-liberal demolition of the welfare state started 30 years ago but still incomplete or a reflection that the deficit hawks are total lunatics.

There is a long tradition of economists writing Open Letters to the media in support or in opposition to some government policy stance. The conservatives write them. The so-called progressives write them back. Usually around election times. Often the underlying economics supporting the arguments is difficult to differentiate given they both seek to comment on budgets and fiscal policy. In that context, the differences become matters of degree rather than substance. So the progressives usually take a deficit-dove position where they consider deficits are good sometimes but the budget needs to be balanced over some business cycle. In that sense, the progressives are not different to the more reasonable conservative economists. Neither position is correct and the continual repetition that deficits are only useful in times of recession demeans the public debate. The public ignorance about monetary matters and the role of deficits is continually being reinforced by these letters. Better to tell the truth I think – as long as you know what it is!

Remember back last year when the predictions were coming in daily that Japan was heading for insolvency and the thirst for Japanese government bonds would soon disappear as the public debt to GDP ratio headed towards 200 per cent? Remember the likes of David Einhorn – see my earlier blog – On writing fiction – who was predicting that Japan was about to collapse – having probably gone past the point of no return. This has been a common theme wheeled out by the deficit terrorists intent on bullying governments into cutting net spending in the name of fiscal responsibility. Well once again the empirical world is moving against the deficit terrorists as it does with every macroeconomic data release that comes out each day. I haven’t seen one piece of evidence that supports their view that austerity will improve things. I see daily evidence to support the position represented by Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). Anyway, there was more evidence overnight that I thought should be mentioned and relates to the idea that “the government is the last borrower left standing”.

I have been reading a lot of psychology research in recent months which is a very broadening experience. Mainstream economists rarely include research from the wider social sciences. However, I have always been interested in finding out what other social scientists are up to and how their work bears on the human society that I have spent a career studying. At present, the neo-liberals are on the rise again and are driving governments to introduce harsh fiscal withdrawals using the supposition that this is fiscally responsible behaviour. Their position is unsupported by credible logic or empirical research. In fact, the overwhelming body of evidence rejects the theoretical models they parade to defend their positions. One of the under currents of their proposals is that by cutting public welfare payments and support governments can not only “save” money (and reduce their deficits) but also free the welfare space for private charity. They eulogise the benefits and virtue of private charity but demonise public support for disadvantage. So today I read an interesting article from some psychologists who have examined whether those with economic resources are generous or not. The results of their work are that the poor are more generous and compassionate than the rich. Another evidential flaw in the neo-liberal mantra that should worry all of us.

There were two very different Op Ed pieces in the New York Times on July 31, 2010. On the one hand, the “strategic deficits” man, David Stockman is trying to ramp up a bit of advance publicity for his upcoming book on the financial crisis which I hope goes out to the remainder desks shortly after being published. He is advocating balanced budgets and “sound money” – which is neo-liberal speak for austerity and rising unemployment. On the other hand, Robert Shiller is advocating a “just do it” approach to recovery where the “do it” is defined in terms of public sector job creation. I find the latter argument compelling when you look at the data and what it is telling us about the American lives that are being destroyed by the policy vacuum. I am also sympathetic to Shiller’s line because sound macroeconomic theory points to that solution. Stockman displays an on-going ignorance of macroeconomics although some of this views resonate with me in a positive way.

The US economy is showing signs of slowing as the fiscal stimulus is withdrawn and the spending contractions of the state and local government increasingly undermine the injections from the federal sphere. The recent US National Accounts demonstrate that things are looking very gloomy there at present. In the last week some notable former and current policy makers have come out in favour of austerity though. Some of these notables contributed to the problem in the first place through their criminal neglect of the economy. Others remain in positions of power and help design the policy response. A common thread can be found in their positions though. A blind faith in the market which links them intellectually to the erroneous views espoused by Milton Friedman. His influence remains a dominant presence in the policy debate. That is nothing short of a tragedy.