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

Latest European Union rules provide no serious reform or increased capacity to meet the actual challenges ahead

It’s Wednesday and we have discussion on a few topics today. The first relates to the new agreement between the European Parliament and the European Council that was announced on February 10, 2024, which purports to reform the fiscal rules structure that has crippled the Member States of the EMU since inception. The reality is that the changes are minimal and actually will make matters worse. I keep reading progressives who claim the EU fiscal rules are no longer operative. Well, sorry, they are and the temporary respite during the pandemic is now over and the new agreement makes that very clear. I also express disappointment that high profile progressives continue to misrepresent Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) as they advance their own agenda, which effectively provides support to the sound finance narratives. Then some updated health data which continues to support my perspective on Covid. And then some anti-fascist music. What’s not to like.

Read more

What is responsible government spending?

Today, I am fully engaged in work commitments and so 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 what responsible government spending should look like. Anyway, over to Scott …

Read more

Rinse and repeat – Truss chaos – the new benchmark

For years, those who want selective access to government spending benefits (like the military-industrial complex and other parasitic sectors), while claiming the government cannot afford to provide adequate income support to the most disadvantaged citizens have used various ruses to give an air of authority or legitimacy to their claims. So in the UK, the lie in 1976 by the then Labour government that it was going to have to borrow from the IMF to stay solvent has been regularly wheeled out. In Europe, it was the ‘tournant de la rigueur’ (austerity turn) introduced by the French government of François Mitterrand in 1983 that effectively cancelled the commitment to the progressive – Programme commun – that is often cited as a demonstration of the limited capacity of governments to resist the global power of the financial markets. The fact that it was progressive governments that instigated these events made it more emphatic – the Left essentially swallowed the fictions introduced by the Right and the corporate elites that governments were now powerless against the power of the financial markets. The macroeconomic contest was essentially ceded to the conservatives and it has been that way since. There is now a new ruse that the elites are using that the progressives are also spreading – the Liz Truss Ruse. This apparently tells us that governments must appease the financial markets or face currency destruction and rising bond yields. Like its predecessors, there is no validity to the claims. But the Left is so bereft that it cannot see through the smoke and mirrors. And that is why the world is in the parlous state that it is – the contest of ideas is non-existent. It is a case of rinse and repeat – except all is happening is lies and posturing is being recycled.

Read more

British government designs fiscal policy within a flawed framework – result = poor policy

This week, the UK Chancellor releases the latest fiscal statement (aka ‘the budget’) and will also have a eye to the general election which must be held before January 28, 2025. One would expect the government would stall the announcement and delay the election for as long as is possible, given the current situation and the cumulative impacts of 12 years of Tory rule, which are plain to see at all levels of British society. All the talk is of tax cuts, that typical ‘sugar hit’ approach to winning votes that soon works it way out of the system. The debate as to what the British government should now be doing is clouded, as these debates are always clouded, by the input of organisations such as the Office of Budget Responsibility, which claims its charter is to “to examine and report on the sustainability of the public finances”, yet consistently provides input which is irrelevant to the substance of the issue and just feeds the flawed political scrum. In the end, the policy choices are not based on the actual opportunities and threats that are available to and confront the currency-issuing government but rather a fictional mindset that all the players are trapped within.

Read more

Apparently the bond vigilantes are saddling up – on their ride to oblivion

When I was in London recently, I was repeatedly assailed with the idea that the Liz Truss debacle proves that the financial markets in Britain are more powerful than the government and can force the latter to comply with lower spending and lower taxes. It seems the progressives have a new historical marker which they can use to walk the plank into conservative, sound finance mediocrity. For decades it was the alleged ‘IMF bailout of the Callaghan government in 1976’ when Chancellor Dennis Healey lied to the British people about running out of money and needing IMF loans to stay afloat. They, of course, never needed any loans but Healey and Callaghan knew the people wouldn’t know that and they used the fiction as a vehicle to keep the trade unions in a subjugated position. That lie has resonated for years and has been a principle vehicle for those advocating smaller government, more privatisation, and more handouts to the top-end-of-town while at the same time cutting welfare payments to the poor, killing the national health system, degrading public utilities, transport and education and all the rest of it. Well now that gang, which now rules the Labour Party in Britain has a new fiction – the ‘Truss surrender to the markets’. And the logic is spreading elsewhere with lurid claims emerging that the so-called bond vigilantes are saddling up to force the US government broke.

Read more

Anything we can actually do, we can afford

I often make the point in talks that the fictional world that mainstream economists promote leads to poor decisions in the real world by our policy makers. We saw that in the 1980s and 1990s with the large scale privatisations of public enterprises, touted as employment-enriching, productivity-boosting strategies to provide ‘more money for government to spend on welfare’. We now have enough data to know that in almost all the examples the promises have not been fulfilled and the outcomes worse than what would have been had the enterprises been maintained in the public sector and motivated to provide public service rather than private profit. The same mistake is being made with the response to the climate emergency. Economists and commentators are claiming we need to ‘repeat the privatisations’ to get enough investment cash to facilitate the necessary restructuring. They are wrong and if governments, operating on the assumption that they do not have ‘enough cash’, rely on private funding for climate initiatives then the outcome will be poor for societies.

Read more

British Labour Party running scared of the usual shadows

This is an election year in the UK and unless something dramatically changes, the Labour Party will be in power for the next term of Parliament and will have to manage a poly crisis that they will inherit from 40 or more years of neoliberalism. Note, I don’t confine the antecedents to the Tory period of office since 2010 because the decline started with James Callaghan’s Labour government in the 1970s and then just got worse during successive periods of Labour and Tory rule. During that long period, there has been no shortage of economists and public officials predicting that the financial markets would soon reap chaos as a result of the public debt levels being ‘too high’ (whatever that means). The most significant chaos came in 1992 when Britain was forced out of the European exchange rate system, which it should never have joined in the first place. While all these economists are now pressuring the likely next British government to pull back on their promises to ‘assuage’ the financial markets, there is not even a scintilla of evidence to support their predictions of doom. And the Labour party leaders are too stupid to realise that.

Read more

British House of Lords inquiry into the Bank of England’s performance is a confusing array of contrary notions

On November 27, 2023, the Economic Affairs Committee of the British House of Lords completed their inquiry into the question – Bank of England: how is independence working? – by releasing their 1st Report after taking evidence for several months – Making an independent Bank of England work better. The report is interesting because it contains a confusing array of contrary notions. On the one hand, the witnesses to the Inquiry claimed it was “Groupthink” in operation that prevented the Bank from raising rates earlier and that it was obvious the inflationary pressures were traditional excess spending driven by excessive monetary supply growth (classic Monetarism). That assessment is contested by the alternative, which I adhere to, that the inflationary pressures were supply driven and not amenable to interest rate shifts. And the Groupthink arises because these economists consider interest rate changes would solve the inflation irrespective of the contributing factors. While the Report is sympathetic to the mainstream view as above, it then launches into a critique of the mainstream forecasting approaches. A confusing array of notions.

Read more

Changes to RBA Act will further entrench the depoliticisation of economic policy and reduce democratic accountability

Today, I consider the latest development in the entrenchment of neoliberalism in the Australian policy sector, specifically, the latest decision by the Treasurer to excise his powers under Section 11 of the Reserve Bank Act 1959, which allowed the Treasurer to overrule RBA policy decisions if they considered them not to be in the national interest. This power was considered an essential aspect of a working democracy, where the elected member of parliament had responsibility for economic policy decisions that impacted on millions of people. The latest evolution will further see macroeconomic policy depoliticised and placed in the hands of a small cabal of mainstream economists who regularly advocate policies that serve special corporate interests and leave millions unemployed. I also provide a video from a TV show I appeared on in Tokyo the other day. Then some lovely guitar music. It’s Wednesday after all!

Read more
Back To Top