The stories that are headlined on Page 1 of the New York Times in its on-line edition late January 21, 2011 are almost beyond belief and are like spoofs – if only. I must admit the shock factor is diminishing in this neo-liberal era where the most absurd ideas are brush-stroked up to appear normal. Some time ago I would have just laughed and concluded that some extremist or another was getting a moment of airplay – a day in the sun and would then disappear to a dark room where they would continue writing endless handwritten letters to all and sundry outlining their crackpot ideas and schemes for the renewal of humanity – which always seemed to involve some communist purge (the reds are everywhere you know) and handing over authority to citizen militia’s. But these nutty ideas are gathering pace. It seems the deficit terrorists are getting bored with their predictions of inflation (that doesn’t arrive) or rising interest rates (which do not arrive) – so they have to invent even more bizarre angles. They get so far out there that sometimes even I cannot believe they could be serious.

It is a holiday week in Australia – the cricket is on (not interested); the weather is good and it is virtually impossible to get a tradesperson to fix a new electricity connection. But who am I to complain when our fortunes are compared to the costs being endured in other nations where governments have deliberately followed policy trajectories which are designed to inflict damage on their real economies – in the mistaken belief that TINA rules. TINA (There Is No Alternative) is one of those neo-liberal ploys which hoodwinks citizens into believing that gross damage is better than really gross damage but which is really an agenda for retrenching the welfare state and freeing markets up for further private sector rape. There are alternatives to what is going on at present and it requires much stronger public sector intervention. I was thinking about this today when I was reviewing the latest data from Latvia which is now being held out as the “model” for the rest of Europe to follow. It is clear that eventually growth does return to these ravaged economies but that doesn’t validate the policy approach. It just says that business cycles cycle. The real way of assessing the alternatives is to compare how deep the policy-induced damage becomes and how long it lasts. The neo-liberal austerity line does not look good in that regard.

The so-called architect of the euro monetary system – died recently in Rome. I guess architects like to leave behind objects of style and beauty that also function well. There is a huge debate among architects about form and function and whether ornamentation is functional. Form follows function has been the catch cry of modernists in architecture and I am most familiar with the debate when it is applied to software development (and its architectural characteristics). Anyway, the euro architect has left behind a monetary system that neither has form or function. It is an ugly creation that is increasingly revealing its dysfunction. But try telling that to the EU leadership who have just finished another summit in Brussels, where I suppose the cuisine and setting was sumptuous and the wine was top class. And like all previous summits all that was forthcoming was further political rhetoric about the irreversibility of the euro and the political commitment to defend it. In real terms this translates into imposing a state of more or less permanent unemployment and austerity on millions of Europeans. Eventually the gap between the leader’s rhetoric and the underlying reality will become so wide the system will crumble. But in the meantime the EMU is a bankruptcy machine.

The next few days are very tight for me – travel and meetings. So the blogs might be shorter (cheers I hear!). The thing about blogs which I find interesting is that I normally have to write in a very tight fashion (for academic publication) and editorial discrimination becomes paramount. Whereas the blog is a flowing environment and the only limit I place is the time I spend per day. Within that time span I just type and what comes out comes out with only spelling corrections. The grammar is sometimes not as correct and hyperbole and colloquialisms are rife. But that is a liberating offset to my usual literary output each day. Anyway, I thought the quote of the day (actually December 10, 2010) was – The Eurozone in bad need of a psychiatrist. Well perhaps it is the leaders and their hangers-on who need this help. And when the shrinks have finished with Brussels and Frankfurt they can stop in at London on route to Washington. Canberra can follow sometime soon after. The problem is that we have a person-made mess that is relatively easy to address and yet the ideological straitjacket that has been imposed on the solution amounts to cutting the wound wider and deeper so the blood loss is even greater. Madness! And the rest of us go along with it and elect politicians who say they will whip us even harder. Bring in the men and women with the white coats! For everybody …

I have been thinking about changing industrial/sectoral shares today and how it bears on the way we construct macroeconomic policy (spending and taxation). At present, a major debate in Australia is how we are going to deal with the strong growth in the mining sector and the negative consequences this growth is having on other sectors that are not enjoying buoyant demand conditions. The mainstream response – to impose fiscal consolidation and tight monetary policy – is exactly the opposite response to what is required. But the discussion about sectoral change has further application in terms of the long-run movements in demography and shifting demand for health care and other age-related services. It generalises even further if we consider the growing need for environment care services. The upshot is that trends which will require a rising public share of total resource usage should not be seen as financial crises. Rather we should see them as part of the long process of structural transformation in our economies. Once we see it from that perspective, then the ideological nature of the ageing society debate is exposed. But first, Ireland …

It has become like a sporting event. We now have the live coverage with commentators and up to the minute news updates and scores. The only problem is that we are actually viewing the dynamics of a monetary system – in this case, a system so poorly conceived and blinded by ideology and cultural prejudices that it is was certain to collapse. But only 3 or maybe 4 years ago the same ideologues who constructed this failure were telling us that some nations within this monetary system should be the role models for all of us to follow. Now the live coverage is of the crisis that these “role” models are in. It is no surprise though – I disagreed with the entreaties to “believe” in this model when the hype was at its maximum. I wrote several years ago “when this crisis comes it will be very big” in relation to the growing private sector indebtedness and the move to fiscal austerity as the neo-liberal madness climaxed. It was only ever a matter of time. Anyway, live coverage is now on …

The World Bank boss Robert Zoellick claims that we should all return to the Gold Standard to restore economic stability in the World economy. He is crazy. Sorry! The G-20 meeting in Seoul this week will obviously be concentrating on side issues such as the impact of the latest US quantitative easing plans on world inflation and the international currency system which many commentators are now claiming is in turmoil. Zoellick’s proposal will be added to the agenda which will reinforce what a waste of time these meetings are turning out to be. Zoellick’s call for a gold standard is just another one of these conservative smokescreens that attempt to solve the problem by denying it. They are all just expressions of obsessive and moribund fear of fiscal policy and the erroneous allegation that budget deficits cause inflation. So we will get a G-20 communiqué in a few days calling for more international cooperation in trade and currency settings and more fiscal consolidation and the need for on-going discussions about the creation of a new international reserve currency (perhaps a gold standard). But all these words will be in spite of the real policy agenda that is required – more public spending. What will they come up with next?