Fiscal policy – Page 2 – William Mitchell

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

July 28, 2025
bill
Fiscal policy, Fiscal Statements, RBA decisions, Reclaiming community
7 Comments

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.

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’.

June 16, 2025
bill
Central banking, European Union, Fiscal policy, US economy
3 Comments

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

March 27, 2025
bill
Britain, Fiscal policy, Fiscal Statements, UK Economy
8 Comments

It’s been a week of grand fiscal statements. Tuesday, it was for Australia as I discussed yesterday – Australian fiscal statement – rising unemployment amidst a moderate fiscal contraction (March 26, 2025). Then yesterday in the UK, the Labour Chancellor delivered the British Government’s – Spring Statement 2025. Both statements come at a time when the mainstream economics consensus is shifting with the US pushing protection and defunding many global initiatives. And, one of the statements was in the context of an impending federal election (Australia) and from a government that is in danger of losing that election to a bunch of populist Trump-copiers. And the content reflected that. The UK Statement was from a Government currently in no danger of losing office but which is progressively entrapping itself in its hubris and fiscal rules. An interesting juxtaposition. Anyway, the British Chancellor has lost all understanding of what the purpose of fiscal policy is. What is the purpose of fiscal policy? Don’t ask Rachel Reeves!

Australian fiscal statement – rising unemployment amidst a moderate fiscal contraction

Last night (March 25, 2025), the Australian government delivered the latest fiscal statement for 2025-26 (aka – The Budget – and, in doing so tried to win renewed electoral appeal given its waning popularity and a national election that has to be held in the next 6 or so weeks. So it offered the tax cuts and other inducements to the voters. But the underlying tenor of the fiscal position is unsustainable not because it is predicting on-going fiscal deficits out to 2028-29 but because those deficits will be too small relative to other trends that are likely to occur (external sector and household consumption spending). While the commentariat has been in conniptions about ‘eye watering red ink’ for a far as we can see (their eyes are poor), the fact is that the projected fiscal deficit is about the average level since 1970-71. But in the current environment, the forecasted government contraction will damage the economy and push unemployment up further than they are forecasting. Sure enough, the Government handed out some dollops of cost-of-living relief to low-income families – a few pennies in the scheme of things and that will probably help them retain votes. But with all the challenges ahead now is not the time to be in contractionary mode. Winning the election is one thing, but neglecting a host of existential matters in the medium term is not the way to go.

March 24, 2025
bill
European Union, Eurozone dystopia, Fiscal policy
5 Comments

Edward Elgar, my sometime publisher, is interested in me updating my 2015 book – Eurozone Dystopia: Groupthink and Denial on a Grand Scale (published May 2015). I have held them off for a few years because there have been notable developments such as Brexit, COVID-19, and more since I finished that work, which are still playing out and difficult to disentangle in such a way that definitive analysis can be made. One of the striking things about Europe, from my perspective, is that voters appear to have separated the growing economic stagnation and the insecurity it brings from their view of the euro as a currency. The most recent – Standard Eurobarometer Survey 102 (conducted in November 2024) – conducted by the EU itself, “has registered the highest support ever for the common currency, both in the EU as a whole (74%) and in the euro area (81%)”. (85 per cent support in Germany and 76 per cent in France). Given the circumstances that is a pretty stunning result. And more respondents thought the EU economy was ‘good’ than those who thought it was ‘bad’, although in Germany and France, the outlook in that regard is highly pessimistic (40 per cent good Germany, 29 per cent France). Yet, the Far Right party in Germany – Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) – which as a result of the national election on February 25, 2025 gained the second highest number of votes (20.8 per cent of total) and improved its voting outcome by a staggering 10.4 per cent. Interestingly, from my perspective, AfD is now the leading voice in Europe against the euro, while other Far Rights voices are no longer (Rassemblement National) or never have (Fratelli) advocated abandoning the euro in favour of a return to national currency sovereignty. So while most Germans like the euro, more are voting for AfD who want it scrapped. That tension is what I am researching at the moment among other things.