Posts about linguistics, framing and the way to present arguments

The Bank of England does not need a tiered reserve system for the Government to avoid austerity

There is an interesting debate going on in the UK at present about the concept of tiered bank reserves. The concept is now being used by commentators to argue that the new British government does not need to inflict the austerity that the Chancellor has now announced (even though she is denying that is what the government is up to) because the government can simply reduce outlays to the commercial banks in order to meet the fiscal rules. The discussion is rather asinine really and features all the missteps that commentators make when trying to appear progressive but falling into the usual mainstream macroeconomic fictions.

Read more

British Chancellor fails the basic test – language is meant to impart meaning

Language is meant to bring meaning to discourse. That means we want to use terms that convey information that is of use to us in making our way in the world. The problem is that economists have perverted that process and introduced a metaphorical language that is intended to persuade the reader/listener to accept a particular view of the world but which undermines their ability to actually understand the phenomenon in question. Marx knew long ago how language could be constructed to advance the interests of the ruling class. The mainstream economics commentary that is also used by politicians falls into this category. Terms are used that have no meaning in an elemental sense but provide support for ideological agendas. We, the public, allow that to happen because we are ignorant about the context. It becomes a vicious cycle of lies and fictions which undermine human and environmental sustainability but certainly transfer income to the top-end-of-town. A recent path setting address to the House of Commons by the new Chancellor is a classic example of this reality denial.

Read more

IMF holds a religious gathering in Tokyo – to keep the troops in line

The IMF joint hosted a conference in Tokyo last week – Fiscal Policy and Sovereign Debt – and the continues its misinformation campaign on the ‘dangers’ of public debt. The conference claimed that it brought together ‘leading scholars and senior policymakers’ and upon examination of the agenda it was clear that there was very little diversity in the speakers. The organ started playing and all sessions sang from the same hymn sheet. That is how Groupthink works. Repeat and rinse, repeat and rinse, and, never confront views that are contrary to the message. Groupthink is about avoiding cognitive dissonance for fear that at least some of the ‘parishioners’ might lose the faith. The famous British economist, Joan Robinson likened mainstream economics to a branch of theology and these conferences that the IMF convene around the world are like evangelical crusades, to keep the troops in line so they can continue to keep all of us in line – for fear that we might all start seeing through the veil and discover the rotten core.

Read more

Government debt fears – more fiction from the mainstream media

After all these years of trying, the insights provided by Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) still haven’t cut through. One doesn’t even need to accept the complete box of MMT knowledge to know that, at least, some of it must be factual. For example, how much brainpower does a person need to realise that a government that issues its own currency surely doesn’t need to call on the users of that currency in order to spend that currency? Even if we could get that simple truth to be more widely understood it would change things. But every day, economists and the journalists demonstrate a lack of understanding of how the monetary system actually works. Are they stupid? Some. Are they venal? Some. What other reason is there for continuing to use major media platforms to to pump out fiction masquerading as informed economic commentary? And the gullibility and wilful indifference of the readerships just extends the licence of these liars. Some days I think I should just hang out down the beach and forget all of it.

Read more

From the archives – my early statements on the need for degrowth and the resistance they received from progressives

As part of a another current project, which I will have more to say about soon, I was trawling through early Internet archives of the Post Keynesian Thought (PKT) listserv archives and was reminded that I began my degrowth journey many years ago. Going back in time and coming across things that one has written is an interesting experience. In this case, I reflected on my changing narrative style, my naivety in places, and the continuity of my thinking over the course of my academic career. The following discussion is the product of my archival research for another project of the Post Keynesian Thought (PKT) discussion list archives. It has been an interesting exercise and brought back interactions, personalities and the like that I have forgotten about. Many on that list have since died (sadly). But what is established is that 30 or more years ago there was widespread resistance still within the progressive economics community to the idea that the destruction of the planet would require major systemic change. This resistance bears on the debates now between the dominant ‘green growth’ group who think capitalism aided by global financial capital can achieve the changes necessary to meet the climate challenge and the degrowth camp who want fundamental system and behavioural change. My writings in 1995 placed me firmly in the latter cohort.

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

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 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

Video conversation – Seeking Full Employment Without Falling Prey to Neoliberal Traps

Given I wrote a detailed CPI analysis yesterday (Wednesday), I am using today as if it was my Wednesday post where I cover a range of topics. I was criticised on social media last week for combining in last Wednesday’s post – Launching the CofFEE Financial Resilience Barometer – Version 1.0 (October 18, 2023) – scientific material (the research project results) with commentary on the current situation in the Middle East (and music etc). I was accused of trying to drum up traffic to the research site by including an unrelated discussion on a topical matter (the situation). The point is that in my usual Wednesday post I just roam free and write about all manner of topics that I have thought about in the previous week and which I don’t want to devote a full post too. I don’t play games such as clickbait etc. Anyway, today, I promote a video of a long interview I did in September that has just been released, talk about some framing issues and provide the usual musical segment to calm us all down.

Read more

The de-risking narrative – another in the long line of neoliberal ruses

There have been several interrelated strands in research and practice associated with the dominance of neoliberalism over the last decades. The problem has been that these approaches have been as much enthusiastically promoted by social democratic or progressive forces as they have conservatives. Indeed, conservative political forces have gone down the ‘Trumpian’ far right sink hole and the social democratic parties have moved into the political space vacated – that is, further right than centre. Over the years we have been confronted with social entrepreneurship, new regionalism, corporate social responsibility and self regulation, volunteerism, light touch regulation and more – as part of a so-called ‘Third Way’ where class divisions are dead and the ‘market’ is supreme. More recently, so-called progressive politicians have been touting the ‘de-risking’ narrative as a way of fixing the mess left by the other Third Way approaches. Accordingly, the role for government is to de-risk the vagaries and flux of capitalism, so the entrepreneurs can make profits with surety and if there are issues the government will bail them out. It is a disastrous denial of government responsibility and will fail just as surely as all the rest of the ruses have combined to create the mess societies are in around the globe.

Read more
Back To Top