Regular music spot and other commentary
Here is Episode 8 in our weekly MMTed Q&A series. In this episode, my special guest was Warren Mosler. We talked about the difference between issuing bonds and overt monetary financing, and issues related to those concepts and practices. And when your done with that you can enjoy some great Latin Jazz from the Monterey Peninsular – from 1959 (a good vintage).
Here is Episode 7 in our weekly MMTed Q&A series. This is the third- and final part of my discussion on the Job Guarantee with Dr Pavlina Tcherneva and in this episode we discuss the applicability of Job Guarantee to nations that have both fiscal and external deficits and are exposed to international currency markets. While such a nation faces somewhat different pressures from their external sector, the point remains that if they have their own currency, they can always ensure that all the available productive resources at their disposal can be fully employed. The catch is that that level of activity may not deliver a high standard of material prosperity. We discuss examples such as Indonesia, Pakistan, South Africa and Argentina.
Here is Episode 6 in our weekly MMTed Q&A series. This is the second-part of my discussion on the Job Guarantee with Dr Pavlina Tcherneva and in this episode we discuss the central role that employment buffer stocks play in Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), a point that is often missed by those who think it is just a job creation program and of secondary (and dispensable) importance to the ‘banking’ aspects of MMT. As you will hear (and see), the Job Guarantee is an integral part of MMT and that status is derived from the elemental insights that MMT offers about the way a currency works. If a person thinks the Job Guarantee is an unnecessary add-on to MMT, then they haven’t understood the basics of MMT. It is as simple as that.
Here is Episode 5 in our weekly MMTed Q&A series. And when you are done with the answers you can Zoom some mates and have a dance party to the music that follows. This week we further reduced the length of the Episode and focused on one big issue with a special guest.
Here is Episode 4 in our weekly MMTed Q&A series. There will also be some music for those who like to find some different music. This week we experimented with a different format and further reduced the length.
I am going to use the Wednesday blog post for the time being as the place I publish our weekly MMTed Q&A series. There will also be some music for those who like to find some different music. I have just published – MMTed Q&A Episode 3 – on the MMTed YouTube channel (see overleaf). We covered some interesting questions and I hope you find it interesting. This episode is considerably shorter than the first two as we experiment with formats and improve the editing process.
I am going to use the Wednesday blog post for the time being as the place I publish our MMTed Q&A series. There will also be some music for those who like to find some different music. I have just published – MMTed Q&A Episode 2 – on the MMTed YouTube channel (see overleaf). We covered some interesting questions and I hope you find it interesting. The program this week goes for 38 minutes. I am not a very good studio producer (given the aim is to keep it down to 30 minutes).
Some Wednesday snippets today. Tomorrow, I will write about what I have been thinking about the Eurozone. There has been a lot of hot air about the Franco-German accord that Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel came to recently. Hot air is the operative term. The fault lines in the Eurozone continue to widen and the policy dissonance is becoming more acute as they deal, not only with the health crisis, but also the 19 economies that have been starved of investment and infrastructure development. This Saturday (May 30, 2020) marks the 75th Anniversary of the release of the famous ‘White Paper on Full Employment’, which outlined the responsibilities that the Australian government took on to ensure there were jobs for all workers who were wanting work. This White Paper really defined the Post-WW2 consensus and began a period of low unemployment, upward social mobility, the development of public education and health, declining income and wealth inequality and stable wage shares as real wages kept pace with national productivity growth. It wasn’t nirvana because lots of issues were still in need of solutions (for example, gender attitudes, indigenous inclusion, etc). But it was a blue print for an inclusive society with growing material prosperity. The vision was abandoned sometime in the 1970s as neoliberalism took centre stage and political parties on both sides of the fence gave up talking about full employment. To restore full employment as a primary social goal and government responsibility is an agenda I have pursed all my career. We should all read the ‘White Paper’ and recast it in modern terms and fight like hell for a similar vision that is apposite for the times and crises we now face.
It is Wednesday, so only some snippets today as I have deadlines and some travel to deal with. We have been finalising a Report on our latest estimates of the investment required to introduce a full-scale Job Guarantee in Australia. As part of that work, I have been going back through my NAIRU (Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment) estimates and updating data. I am also going to talk about that a bit in my presentation to the Economic Society of Australia tonight. That talk is about ultimately aimed at explaining the inflation fighting mechanisms inherent in the Job Guarantee, which is a centrepiece of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). But to understand why that option is superior in efficiency terms, one has to know what the alternative buffer stock mechanism is. And that, of course, is the NAIRU orthodoxy. Also today, I am announcing some more detail about our plans to launch MMTed Q&A, as a weekly live program that will help people interested in our work to achieve better understandings. And some RIP style music with a suprising inflation result! Who could ask for more on a Wednesday. Tomorrow, the ABS release the Labour Force data and we will see how bad things have become in the Australian labour market over the month (more or less) just gone.
It is Wednesday so music and some snippets. I have updated the US unemployment claims data with a new map and state table. Shocking. We are working on updated estimates of what the Australian government would need to invest to run a Job Guarantee. We haven’t done that for a while because I didn’t want the press to get obsessed with dollar amounts. But as I am currently talking a lot about the Job Guarantee in the media, I thought some numbers would be useful as a comparative exercise against the JobKeeper wage subsidy, which is the central stimulus plank of the Australian government. The current estimates suggest that to create around 685 thousand jobs might require an outlay of $34 billion over the course of a year. That got me thinking. The main response of the Australian government is the $A133 billion over 6 months JobKeeper wage subsidy scheme. The Treasury claims it will be the difference between an unemployment rate of 10 per cent and 15 per cent. That difference is 685 thousand jobs. Then start doing some division and multiplication and you start to see that this doesn’t make sense as I explain below.