Discussions about fiscal statements, analysis and controversies from an MMT perspective

Cryptocurrencies are not currencies

I often get asked about cryptocurrency. And I immediately become bored. The sort of claims that people have made about this phenomenon, which is historically just another speculative asset, are over-the-top to say the least. There are two realities that seem to be ignored. First, we already have mainstream digital money and have had for a long time, before cryptocurrencies emerged. For example, when the central banks credit reserve accounts held by commercial banks as part of the daily payments system clearing, digitial transactions take place. Similarly, when you go on-line and conduct some bank transactions shifting deposits to other owners (paying bills etc) you are using digital currency. Second, cryptocurrencies are not currencies nor are they money, which makes their name rather misleading. In fact, they are just another speculative, non-money asset that are not backed by anything so we say that the fair value is zero. There is an intermediate asset that has emerged – the so called – Stablecoin – which differs from cryptocurrencies, in that the asset is specifically pegged in some way to some national currency or basket of assets. However, the hype surrounding stablecoins is similar to that which has accompanied the evolution of cryptocurrencies, the point being that the ‘stable’ bit is not backed in anyway by any government guarantees. I also distinguish this class of non-monetary assets from the recent developments in central banking known as – Central Bank Digital Currency – which is really just an extension of the already myriad of digital transactions that central banks conduct every day.

Read more

Basing a childcare system on how much private profit it generates is a recipe for certain disaster

We knew in the 1980s, when neoliberal-influenced governments started selling off public trading enterprise for not much that the strategy would not deliver on its promises. At least some of us knew and wrote about it then. I was part of a team that analysed the disasters that would follow the sell off of the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas. Qantas, by the way, has gone through a sequence of high profile scandals, including selling tickets for flights it had already cancelled, illegally sacking workers during COVID, and other demonstrations of incompetent and capricious management. Just this week, it was fined $A90 million for the illegal sacking of the baggage handlers. The latest demonstration of how privatisation has failed is the revelation that the child care industry in Australia has become a honey pot for paedophiles and sociopaths as for-profit child care centres pursue profit at the expense of caring for the children in their centres. The solutions are always straightforward but rejected by governments – bring these activities back into the not-for-profit state sector. Meanwhile, the future of tens of thousands of children are being compromised by profiteering by corporations as governments wax lyrical about how much they care for the kids but do very little to stop the abuse.

Read more

What does it mean for a nation to become bankrupt?

The reason I ask that question is because I read in the UK Guardian article yesterday (published August 11, 2025) – As dark financial clouds gather, Labour has to heed its past: when it chooses austerity, it loses elections – that “Britain is in danger of going bankrupt. It may happen slowly or quickly, but since Labour took office this possibility has increasingly been promoted and discussed in the press, by opposition parties and in the City of London”. And when the author of that article poses his own question: “What exact form will this bankruptcy take?” – he offers the rather tepid response that it will happen because the government is “spending too much, generally on people who have little”, which offers nothing by way of clarification or definitiveness. So it is useful to interrogate the notion of a nation going broke. Can it happen? Can Britain become insolvent?

Read more

State level fire services need to be adequately funded – land tax hikes are necessary and progressive

In my commissioned research activities, which are separate from the basic academic research that occupies most of my time, I come across interesting situations which bear on the way monetary systems operate and the type of constraints faced by different levels of government. In Australia, we have three levels of government: Federal (currency issuer), State and Territories (currency users), and Local government (currency users). Our constitution also confers the major spending responsibilities – education, health, transport, etc on the states and territories despite them having few legal means to raise revenue, which has been a major problem since Federation. If one then embeds that constitutional fact into the fictional mainstream economics narrative that says the currency-issuing federal government is financially constrained in its spending like a household, public debt becomes a media issue. After the pandemic, the federal and state governments were left with significant increases in debt liabilities that has led the state governments to impose austerity cuts and hike taxes. The Victorian state government has recently hiked a levy on land ostensibly to provide extra funding for emergency services. The problem is that the campaign against this tax hike is bringing together an array of anti-progressive elements who just want a change of government. Their campaign, which is roping in progressives who don’t seem to understand the issues, cannot answer how the fire services, which have been underfunded for years as a result of an austerity mindset and facing major equipment deficits and wage demands, will be able to provide adequate services with such a tax hike. The land tax is a progressive tax and the best source of revenue to improve the fire services which are essential to the community. Once again the buy-in to the anti-tax campaign is a case of progressives shooting themselves in the foot.

Read more

British Labour Government should ignore irrelevant fiscal ‘black holes’ and worry about the political hole it is digging for itself

The lack of correspondence arises when a government tries to operate within the tight constraints of unjustifiable fiscal rules by proposing legislation that cuts billions in government support for programs that are the difference between abject poverty for millions and a modest standard of living is once again coming to the fore in Britain. The Labour government is obsessed with achieving fiscal rules that are not only arbitrary but cannot be precisely assessed given the deficiencies in the available data and the forecasting techniques. However, the Chancellor tries to convince everybody that there is precision and that major austerity has to be imposed to fit the government fiscal outcomes within the arbitrary constraints they have imposed. Those constraints do not have any context in the things that matter – reducing disadvantage, dealing with inequality, climate change, health care etc. Yet the constant reference to a ‘black hole’ – the difference between the estimated fiscal trajectory and the fiscal rules constraint leads the government to ill-considered policy hacks aimed at keeping the outcomes within the rules. The visceral reaction against the hacks then leads to the situation we have seen in Britain recently, which further undermines the political viability of the government. The only hole that the government should be worried about is the political hole it is digging for itself as a result of its obsession with imprecisely measured and essentially irrelevant ‘black holes’.

Read more

The US dollar is losing importance in the global economy – but there is really nothing to see in that fact

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.

Read more

The arms race again – Part 2

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.

Read more

The arms race again – Part 1

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.

Read more

Japan sales tax debate continues – Reiwa are the only Party that understands the reality

On July 22, 2025, the – 2025 Japanese House of Councillors election – will be held. I have a good friend who is standing for the – Reiwa Shinsengumi – which is a genuine progressive, Left-wing party, not like the fake progressive parties these days that masquerade as social democratic parties (for example, British Labour, Australian Labor, US Democrats, to name a few of many). My friend is the endorsed candidate for the Kyoto Electoral District (頑張ってね、みなこ). One of the major policies that Reiwa proposes is the abolition of the consumption tax. In fact, this election has spawned widespread opposition to the consumption tax from other parties as well. It has been a highly contentious issue in Japan for several decades and its introduction and regular increases to the present level of 10 per cent reflects the dominance of neoliberal misinformation about the fiscal capacities of the Japanese government. Perhaps, this election we will see some more sensible outcomes.

Read more

Majority of Australians want fiscal deficits to be maintained and the majority of younger Australians want to ditch capitalism

We are now full-swing into the national election campaign in Australia (election on May 3, 2025) and we have a new party – the Trumpet of Patriots – (funded by a property developer/miner) channelling Trump’s approach, the conservatives channelling Trump’s approach (although with a slight more subtle voice but not much), the Greens chasing their tails, and the Labor government desperately trying to stay in power after running scared of doing very much over the last three years. It is not a great choice. The usual scare tactics from the Opposition are out in force – immigration, defence vulnerabilities, etc and the usual ‘free market’ stuff. The Labor government keeps hammering on about their fiscal rectitude – two surpluses out of three – as if we are all mainstream economists who are obsessed with those irrelevancies. But it seems that the voters are not so aligned with mainstream economists.

Read more
Back To Top