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

Japan – the challenges facing the new LDP leader – Part 3

This is a third part of an as yet unknown total, where I investigate possible new policy agendas, which are designed to meet the challenges that Japan is facing in the immediate period and the years to come. The first two parts were written in the context of the elevation of Ms Takaichi to the LDP presidency. It was anticipated that she would then become the Prime Minister as a result of commanding a majority on the floor of the Diet, with help from long-standing coalition partner Komeito. However, in the last few days, things have changed considerably in Japan with Komeito withdrawing from the ruling coalition and throwing the question of who will become the Prime Minister up in the air. One of the issues that are shaping what happens next is the question of social security sustainability as the society ages. This divides the parties and will help to determine the configuration of the next government in Japan.

Read more

Japan – the challenges facing the new LDP leader

This will be a series of blog posts where I analysis the period ahead for Japan under the new LDP leadership of Ms Sanae Takaichi. The motivation is that on November 7, 2025, the research group I am working with at Kyoto University will be staging a major event at the Diet (Parliament) Building in Tokyo where I will be one of the keynote speakers. The strategic intent of the event is to outline a new policy agenda to meet the challenges that Japan is facing in the immediate period and the years to come. It is highly likely that the Lab Director here at Kyoto, who promotes and Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) perspective and was formerly the special advisor to the Shinzo Abe, will return to that position under Ms Takaichi. This gives the event increased importance for outlining an Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)-based perspective. Today, I examine the inflation issue in Japan.

Read more

My current number one candidate for the worst economics article of the year

Unfortunately, the so-called progressive UK Guardian has an Australian economics editor who is anything but if his economic analysis is anything to go by. The economic news for this week started with the release of the – Final Budget Outcome – (FBO) for the 2024-25 fiscal year for the Federal government (released September 29, 2025). It showed the actual fiscal deficit for the year just gone was slightly lower than had been predicted in earlier official statements. The government celebrated claiming a lower deficit was a sign not only of its good management but was also virtuous. The journalists, however, had a different spin, claiming that while the situation could have been worse, it was still bad. The discussion in the media and the official statement from the Treasurer seemed to omit one rather important fact. The context. This allows us to understand the distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ fiscal deficits, a distinction that the commentariat seems unable to grasp. Anyway, this UK Guardian article is my current number one candidate for the worst economics article of the year. Why discuss it? Because it helps illustrate the essentials of macroeconomics that people need to understand.

Read more

Argentina entering the usual doom loop that austerity inevitably creates

‘A picture is worth a thousand words’ is an old adage, which means that some image can express a very complex message more quickly than a written tract – of the sort that will follow in this blog post. At the Spring 2025 meetings of the IMF in Washington, the IMF boss Kristalina Georgieva was ebullient about how well Argentina was doing as a result of the harsh austerity (‘shock therapy’) that the current President Javier Milei has unleashed on his nation. If you watch the IMF boss please also have a brown bag handy for the obvious nausea that will follow. The scene became even more bizarre when the new Minister of Deregulation and State Transformation. aka El Coloso, one Federico Sturzenegger, during a panel with others including Rachel Reeves, pinned a little badge of a chainsaw to Georgieva’s lapel. It was all very lavish and symbolic and ignored the plight that these elites have imposed on ordinary citizens back in Argentina. What is happening back in Argentina is once again demonstrating how the ideology of austerity initially promises the world to the citizens only to backfire and turn to crisis.

Read more

Some discussion about taxation

Over the weekend, I was a presenter at a Fabian’s Society meeting which sought input on ‘alternative taxation policies’ under the general tenet of the need for the Australian government to raise revenue to ensure a socially just society. The other presenter was John Quiggin and I think we provided a good complementarity for the relatively large audience (for a Saturday afternoon – with football finals in progress!). Of course, my opening salvo was to reject the fundamental premise of the workshop – which is a premise that progressive commentators and activists seem unable to shed to the detriment of their argument. I indicated to the audience at the outset that the aim of taxation is generally not to raise more revenue for government, but, instead, to ensure the non-government sector has less spending capacity. More is not less. That is a fundamentally different frame in which to discuss the topic and I closed the workshop by suggesting that one of the single most important things that progressives can learn is to stop using terms like ‘taxpayers’ money’ when discussing fiscal policy. Using those type of terms immediately frames the discussion against progressive goals.

Read more

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
Back To Top