The catch-all category for my blogs reflecting my professional expertise as a full professor of economics.
This is the second part of the discussion on Tariffs that I started in – Tariffs and more – Part 1 (March 13, 2025). In the first part I considered some of the historical motivations including the infant industry argument. Today, I plan to expand on that discussion and add further considerations that might help us understand what is going on at the moment.
This week, Australia learned that old geopolitical relationships and so-called ‘free trade’ treaties mean little when it comes to US policy. The obsequious way our political class fawns after the US has been a constant sickening element of our national identity for as long as I can recall. When I was a child, we were told by our Prime Minister that Australia was “all the way with LBJ”, a foreign policy that took out nation, against all reason, into the Vietnam War. Now, the US President is demonstrating why a reliance on the US as a ‘good citizen’ of the world is a poor strategy for an advanced nation to adopt. The other interesting aspect of what is going on is that the world is once again entering an experiment that will provide knowledge about the impacts of ripping up free trade agreements and increasing barriers to entry. Theorising is one thing but now we have a practical experiment underway. This is Part 1 of a series on the current debate about tariffs.
Economics courses at university in Australia have been under threat for several decades now and many specialist degrees have been abandoned by universities as student enrolments declined. When the federal government merged the vocational higher education institutions (Colleges of Advanced Education) with the universities in the late 1980s, traditional economics faculties were swamped with half-baked ‘business’ courses in management, HRM, marketing and whatever which then attracted the aspiring ‘entrepreneurs’ who were told by the marketing literature that they would be fast-tracking into management careers in the corporate sector. The reality was that these programs did not equip the students to do very much at all (perhaps erect marketing displays in supermarkets!) but the impact on economics programs was devastating. The most recent Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) Bulletin published on January 30, 2025 contained an article which bears on this issue – Where Have All the Economics Students Gone?. I discuss some of the implications of the decline in student numbers in economics and the lack of diversity that existing programs have for societal well-being.
I am still catching up after being away in the UK last week. I will reflect on that trip in another blog post. So, today, we have a guest blogger in the guise of Professor Scott Baum from Griffith University who has been one of my regular research colleagues over a long period of time. He indicated that he would like to contribute occasionally and that provides some diversity of voice although the focus remains on advancing our understanding of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and its applications. Today he is going to talk about income tax cuts and cost of living relief. Over to Scott …
I have received several E-mails over the last few weeks that suggest that the economics discipline is finally changing course to redress the major flaws in the curricula that is taught around the world and that perhaps Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) can take some credit for some of that. There has been a tendency for some time for those who are attracted to MMT to become somewhat celebratory, even to the point of declaring ‘victory’. This tendency is not limited to the MMT public who comment on social media and the like. My response is that we are probably further away from seeing fundamental change in the economics profession than perhaps where we were some years ago – after the GFC and in the early years of the pandemic (which continues). My answer reflects the incontestable fact that the make up of faculties within our higher education systems has not changed much, if at all, and the dominant publishing and grant awarding bodies still reflect that mainstream dominance. There is still a lot of work to be done and a lot of ‘funerals’ to attend (à la Max Planck).
I was asked during an interview the other day from Paris whether I was a Post Keynesian. I replied not at all and explained that I have never felt that my ideas fit into that category although in a facile sense we are all post keynesian in a temporal sense. Most progressive economists would answer yes if confronted with that question, even most of the economists involved in advancing Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). My point of departure is that while there was a lot of important analytical material in Keynes’ writing that is worth preserving and integrating into, say, MMT, where Keynes went astray was his antipathy to the insights provided by Karl Marx. In particular, I consider that Keynes seriously misunderstood what the dynamics of the class conflict were within a capitalist mode of production. Keynes made major errors in his predictions that one can directly attribute to this blinkered approach to capitalism. I was reminded of this when I read an Op Ed in the Japan Times this week (March 10, 2024) – The economic future of our overworked grandchildren. This blinkered approach, which has fed into the modern Post Keynesian literature – which examines capitalism as if it is an ahistorical, neutral system of production and distribution – is a major reason that I do not associate my work with that school of thought.
I have been travelling for most of today so I have to keep this post short. Well shorter than usual. Edward Palmer Thompson – who died at the age of 69 in 1993, was a British writer who wrote the exceptional book – The Making of the English Working Class – which was a very long social history published in 1963, and considered essential reading for young leftists at the time. I read it in the early 1970s as part of my rites of passage into Leftist intellectual thought and while I prefer books that are less than 800 pages (-:, I found it absorbing. I was reminded of it when I recently read a UK Observer article (February 4, 2024) – What a legendary historian tells us about the contempt for today’s working class – by Kenan Malik.
Scottish-born economist – Angus Deaton – recently published his new book – An Immigrant Economist Explores the Land of Inequality – in which he provides a swathing critique of the state of the economics profession, particularly in the way that it impacts on policy making and societal well-being. He is a microeconomist who made a name for himself studying consumer demand, which means he has not contributed anything significant to the field of macroeconomics, where I hang out. The title refers to his migration to the US from Britain in the 1980s and his reflections on what he found and how the economics academy has changed over this 45 years in the profession. His point is that the economics profession has lost its purpose and should return to a focus on advancing well-being. He is particularly critical of Chicago-style economics – or ‘free market’ thinking. The problem though is that the neoliberal era has not been about applying Chicago-style economic theory. The elites just say they are doing that when in fact all they are doing is utilising the immense government capacity to shift the intervention dial in their favour. The government has not given way to the free market – it has just been reconfigured to become an agent of capital.
It’s Wednesday and while there is a lot to write about, I am prioritising the release today of our latest research at the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE). The release of what we are calling the – CofFEE Financial Resilience Barometer – Version 1.0 – is part of a research collaboration I have with Professor Scott Baum at Griffith University. We have Australian Research Council funding for the next three years to explore regional resilience in the face of economic shocks, particularly after the massive disruptions from the Covid pandemic. Today we release the first output of that research. I also consider other matters today and the usual Wednesday music segment comes with a song from a leading Palestinian singer.
I read an article in the Financial Times earlier this week (September 23, 2023) – How do we raise trillions of dollars to fight the climate crisis? The answer is staring us in the face – which was written by former British Prime Minister and Chancellor Gordon Brown. The article is really just a promotion for a soon to be released book he has co-authored with characters from financial markets and mainstream economics. While purporting to be a solution to the climate challenges facing the world, it falls into the ‘progressive’ mainstream trap of coming up with just another ‘tax the rich’ plan.