ECB research shows huge output gap and need for fiscal expansion

Last week, I reported on some claims by Australian private sector economists that the Australian government was deplete of policy tools (“run out of ammunition” was the cute term used among these self-serving characters) and would not be able to handle the Brexit fallout – see When journalists allow dangerous economic myths to pervade. It was obvious that the statements were nonsensical and only reflected the dangerous neo-liberal ideology that discretionary fiscal policy should be constrained to the point of being not used! In the last week, some major central bankers around the world have given speeches which suggest they also understand that fiscal policy has come to the fore and provide some certainty to the world economy. The latest estimates from the ECB of the Eurozone output gap certainly provide the evidence base to justify a major expansion of fiscal deficits across the Eurozone. The research is suggesting that there is a significant output gap which is evidence of insufficient aggregate spending rather than any structural shifts in potential GDP. I guess they are warming the Member States for more expansionary action although the message is very clear – the European Commission has to abandon its austerity mindset and provide some old-fashioned deficit stimulus – quick smart!

Read more

Bias toward low-wage job creation in the US continues

Last Friday (June 6, 2016), the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released the latest – Employment Situation Summary – May 2016. I analysed that data release in this blog – The US labour market continues to weaken. The message from the data is that while the unemployment fell to 4.7 per cent, employment growth is virtually non-existant and the unemployment rate fell to 4.7 per cent only because the participation rate fell by 0.2 percentage points (in other words, hidden unemployment rose as people dropped out of the labour force). The sharp slowdown now evident in the US labour market has meant that the US Federal Reserve Bank will have to rethink their so-called interest rate normalisation strategy. In the downturn that began in January 2008, there were 8.7 millions jobs lost (up to December 2009) and 86 per cent of them were in sectors that paid above average weekly earnings. Since the recovery began in January 2009, the US labour market has added 14.1 million jobs (in net terms). The question this blog explores is whether these jobs have been predominantly low paid jobs or not. I found that the jobs lost in low-pay sectors in the downturn have more than been offset by jobs added in these sectors in the upturn. However, the massive number of jobs lost in above-average paying sectors have not yet been recovered in the upturn and do not look like being so, given the labour market is slowing again. In other words there is a bias in employment generation towards sectors that on average pay below average weekly earnings.

Read more

The US labour market continues to weaken

Last week (June 3, 2016), the US Bureau of Labor Statistics published the latest – Employment Situation – May 2015 – and the data shows that “nonfarm payroll employment changed little (+38,000)” in May, while the “unemployment rate declined by 0.3 percentage point to 4.7 percent”. The lack of net job creation has been described as a ‘bombshell’ and commentators are claiming it will put an end to any interest rate rise ambitions that the US Federal Reserve Bank might have harboured for this month. Additional poor indications came from the falling participation rate, which fell by 0.2 percentage points and “has declined by 0.4 percentage points over the past two months”. In other words, given the parlous employment growth, the unemployment rate would have been much higher had the supply contraction not occurred. Broad measures of labour underutilisation also indicate a worsening situation. Underemployment (persons employed part time for economic reasons) rose sharply by 468,000 in May. In the recovery, there was a bias towards low-pay jobs – see blog US jobs recovery biased towards low-pay jobs – now there is a dearth of new jobs being created.

Read more

The US government view of the 1976 sterling crisis

This blog continues the discussion of the British currency crisis in 1976. Today we discuss the way the US government was constructing the crisis. They had previously seen Europe in terms of military and political threats and had clearly developed a range of interventions in Europe (NATO, military bases etc) in response to their fear of Communism. But, it was clear that the US began to believe that the on-going financial turmoil that accompanied the OPEC oil shocks at a time when the world was trying to adjust to the collapse of the Bretton Woods system (and the Smithsonian agreement reprise), was undermining what they called their “assumptions of political stability” and increasing, in their paranoiac minds, the threat of the spread of communism. They considered that the IMF would have to be ‘steered’ to take a larger role in this period of turmoil to restore financial stability – a precondition for political stability (in their eyes). And if they couldn’t directly order the IMF to act in the perceived interests of the US government, then they would do it informally – through “‘conversations’ rather than meetings”. It is a very interesting period because the US clearly wanted to use the IMF to influence “the future shape of the political economy of Great Britain”. The ‘crisis’ was, in effect, manufactured to give those ambitions ‘ground cover’. At least, that is one plausible perspective of what happened in 1976.

Read more

The Wall Street-US Treasury Complex

Today I am in Barcelona, Spain after travelling from Trujillo (in the western part of Spain). Today’s blog continues the analysis I have been providing which aims to advance our understanding of why the British government called in the IMF in 1976 and why it fell prey to a growing neo-liberal consensus, largely orchestrated by the Americans. Yesterday, we analysed the way in which the IMF reinvented itself after its raison d’être was terminated with the collapse of the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate system. Today’s part of the story, is to trace the growing US influence on the IMF and the way it manipulated that institution to further its ‘free market’ agenda on a global scale. We will consider what Jagdish Bhagwati called the “Wall Street-Treasury complex”, which referred to the way in which financial market interests in the US combined with (pressured) the US Treasury Department to advance the myth that liberalisation of global capital flows would deliver massive benefits in the post-1971 period after the convertible currency, fixed exchange rate system collapsed.

Read more

The metamorphosis of the IMF as a neo-liberal attack dog

Today I am in Granada, Spain having an interesting time. Nothing public to report. I will be here until Thursday morning upon which I travel back to Madrid and the public events begin (see below). Today’s blog continues the analysis I have been providing which aims to advance our understanding of why the British government called in the IMF in 1976 and why it fell prey to a growing neo-liberal consensus, largely orchestrated by the Americans. The current book I am finalising with my Italian colleague Thomas Fazi, is tracing the way in which the Right exploited the capacities of the ‘state’ to advance their agenda and how they duped the Left into believing that globalisation had rendered the nation state powerless. There were several turning points in this evolution, and one of those key moments in history, was the assertion by British Labour Prime Minster James Callaghan on September 28, 1976 that Britain had to end its ‘Keynesian’ inclinations and pursue widespread market deregulation and fiscal austerity has been taken to reflect a situation where the British government had no other alternative. His words have echoed down through the years and constituted one of the major turning points in ‘Left’ history. Successive, so-called progressive governments and politicians have repeated the words in one way or another. The impact has been that they have forgotten that their were options at the time that the British government rejected, which would have significantly altered the course of history. Today, we consider the role way in which the IMF reinvented itself after its raison d’être was terminated with the collapse of the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate system. The next part of the story will examine the growing US influence on the IMF and the way it used the IMF to further its ‘free market’ agenda on a global scale.

Read more

US economy – slowing down – fiscal stimulus needed

Last week (March 25, 2016), the US Bureau of Economic Analysis released their ‘Third Estimate’ of – Gross Domestic Product, 4th quarter 2015 – which showed that the US economy slowed rather appreciably in the last three months of 2015. The BEA said that real GDP growth was “increased at an annual rate of 1.4 percent” after having increased by 2 per cent in the third-quarter of 2015. Two things stand out from the data: (a) Private consumption expenditure, while still relatively strong continues to slow. The main drivers of consumption expenditure are recreation and health care services and durable goods; (b) Capital formation (investment) declined for the second consecutive quarter, signalling a lack of confidence in the medium-term outlook by business firms. However, residential investment was relatively strong as was federal government spending. The BEA also reported that corporate “profits decreased by 7.8 per cent at a quarterly rate”. The data release provides no succour to those who think the Federal Reserve Bank should continue to hike interest rates. Inflation is still well below the implicit central bank target rate (2 per cent) and growth is faltering.

Read more

US labour market weaker now

Last week, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released the latest – The Employment Situation – February 2016 – and the data shows that “Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 242,000 in February, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 4.9 percent”. The BLS noted that employment growth “occurred in health care and social assistance, retail trade, food services and drinking places, and private educational services” and “Construction employment continued to trend up”. Most other industries (mining excepted) showing “little change over the month”. However, other indicators were mixed. While the Employment-Population ratio and the Labour force participation rate “edged up” (“Both measures have increased by 0.5 percentage points since September”). The BLS estimates of hidden unemployment (discouraged workers) has fallen over the last year but underemployment “has shown little movement since November”. Broad measures of labour underutilisation indicate no significant improvement in the latter part of 2015 in the US labour market. Further average hourly earnings were static and of not risen as strongly as in previous recoveries. The participation rate was unchanged at 62.4 per cent and remains well below previous peaks. As I have shown before, despite the employment growth over the last year, there is a bias towards jobs at the lower end of the US pay distribution (see blog – US jobs recovery biased towards low-pay jobs. The US Federal Reserve Bank’s – Labor Market Conditions Index (LMCI) – changed by 0.4 index points (down from three consecutive months where the average change was 2.7). This signals a weakening situation. I also updated my gross flows database today. The transition probabilities that I derived to February 2016 suggest that that while there has been improvement in the US labour market in the last year, in recent months that improvement is slowing.

Read more

Democrats in glass houses – you know the rest!

So-called US ‘progressive’ economists arena flap at the moment after Gerald Friedman, an academic economist at UMass released a report on January 28, 2016 – What would Sanders do? Estimating the economic impact of Sanders programs – which suggested that the US economy could perform significantly better and deliver substantially improved outcomes for those disadvantaged citizens with Bernie Sanders in the White House. When I say progressive, I mean those who would consider themselves Democrat Party insiders (former Chairs of the US Council of Economic Advisers under previous Democratic administrations). Last week (February 17, 2016), they created a special Internet site to publish – An Open Letter from Past CEA Chairs to Senator Sanders and Professor Gerald Friedman – which claimed that “no credible economic research supports economic impacts” proposed by Friedman and that “Making such promises runs against our party’s best traditions of evidence-based policy making and undermines our reputation as the party of responsible arithmetic”. As if the policy-making and arithmetic of these attention-seeking (neo-liberal) Democrat insiders is anything to be guided by.

Read more

The European circus continues

Yesterday, I briefly examined how a pack of big-noting financial market traders were trapped in stupidity by patterned behaviour and self-reinforcing group dynamics (aka Groupthink). Today, we consider the neo-liberal Groupthink that continues to trap political leaders and policy makers in Europe into a web of denial and stupidity.

In both case, innocent people have suffered huge negative impacts while, by and large, the idiots have escaped fairly unscathed. The recent data from Eurostat shows that growth is fairly flat in the Eurozone and industrial production is in recession. It also shows that the banking system is in deep jeopardy and the so-called reforms that were introduced post-GFC are not considered robust by investors. With massive bank deposit flight going on and banking share prices plunging, it is clear that the ‘markets’ have lost faith in the financial viability of the Eurozone. Meanwhile. Mario Draghi winds the key up in his back and tells the world that everything is fine and the ECB is on top of the situation. With chaos descending on the monetary union again, the ECB cannot even achieve its single purpose – a stable 2 per cent inflation rate. It has failed to even achieve that over the last four years. One couldn’t write this sort of stuff if they were trying.

Read more
Back To Top
Close mobile menu