The Politics of Envy – that old chestnut from the neo-liberals – is bandied around every time there is any insinuation that the capitalist system produces distributional outcomes that are not remotely proportional to the effort put into production. Whenever governments challenge the distributional outcomes – for example, propose increasing taxes on the higher income recipients (note I don’t use the word “earners”) there is hell to cry and the defense put up always appeals to the old tags – “socialist class warriors undermining incentive”, “envy”, etc. In the 1980s, when privatisation formed the first wave of the neo-liberal onslaught, we all apparently became “capitalists” or “shareholders”. We were told that it was dinosauric to think in terms of the old class categories – labour and capital. That was just so “yesterday” and we should just get over it and realise that we all had a stake in a system where reduced regulation and oversight would produce unimaginable wealth, even if the first manifestations of this new “incentivised” economy channelled increasing shares of real income to the highest percentiles in the distribution. No worries, “trickle-down” would spread the largesse. We know better now – and increasingly the recognition, exemplified in 2006 by Warren Buffett’s suggestion that “There’s class warfare, all right … but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning” (Source), is that class is alive and well and in prosecuting their demands for higher shares of real income, the elites have not only caused the crisis but are now, in recovery, reinstating the dynamics that will lead to the next crisis. The big changes in policy structures that have to be made to avoid another global crisis are not even remotely on the radar.

Republican Presidential (Bush) and Presidential hopeful (Romney) advisor and a principal deficit terrorist, Glenn Hubbard has once again re-cycled his obsession about the apparent necessity for the US to pass a balanced budget amendment which would require governments to eschew their fiscal responsibility and behave like automatums irrespective of the state of the cycle or the behaviour of the other sectors (external and private domestic). In his latest New York Times article (August 11, 2013) – Republicans and Democrats Both Miscalculated – (with T. Kane), we see a tired conservative hack, worn out from repeated failed attempts to push a balanced budget amendment into US law, wimpering about the need for another vote on this issue, but signifying a boring lameness that is being overtaken by the duration of time that has elapsed without the doomsday arriving and more recent evidence refuting the position outright.

There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal (July 7, 2013) by US economist Alan S. Blinder – The Economy Needs More Spending Now . I am building a little database of what well-known economists said in 2008, 2009 and 2010 at the height of the crisis and in the early days of the fiscal and monetary interventions and what they are saying now. There is a lot of dodging and weaving I can tell you. Stories change, previous prognostications of certainty now appear highly qualified and nuanced and facts are denied. Alan Blinder was worried that the US Federal Reserve rapid building of reserves would have to be withdrawn quickly because otherwise banks would eventually lend them all out and inflation would accelerate. Of-course, banks don’t lend their reserves to customers and the predictions were not remotely accurate. In the article noted, Blinder continues to operate at what I am sure he thinks is the more reasonable end of mainstream macroeconomics. He is advocating more spending as a means of boosting higher economic growth. But when you appreciate the framework he is operating in, you realise that he is just part of the problem and part of the narrative that allows the IMF to talk about “growth friendly austerity” – the misnomer (or outright lie) of 2012-13.

There was an article in the New York Times at the weekend – Warren Mosler, a Deficit Lover With a Following – which seems to have attracted some attention. The attention has spanned from the vituperative personal attacks on the article’s subject, all of which would seem to be factually in error, to claims that proponents of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) are “just nuts”. The latter assessment apparently was drawn after a few minutes consideration by a US economist. I don’t think one learns very much in a few minutes. But the output over the years of the particular economist quoted by the NYTs tells me he hasn’t learned much after presumably many hours of study. I suppose that if you are mindlessly locked into the mainstream macroeconomics textbook models then that is to be expected.

It been quite a few weeks for the prophets of doom. R&R revealed they can’t handle a simple spreadsheet competently, and then try to claim a positive number is really a negative number. And who said they said there was a threshold of debt anyway? They now deny there is a threshold. History tells us this is a new denial. Then their Harvard colleague, the so-called historian throws himself off a cliff – again – with his remarks about JMK. Again? Joe Weisenthal has – Ferguson’s Horrible Track Record on display. He reports that Ferguson has “self-immolated a number of times trying to fight an ant-Keynesian battle”. What is it about Harvard? Has there been an internal inquiry set up to consider whether R&R committed academic fraud or were just incompetent? Why do they still continue to employ Ferguson after his homophobic remarks? It is not as if he displays any acumen when it comes to economic commentary. How much does he receive in appearance fees for telling all and sundry what is not going to happen, even though he says it will? I guess as an historian, Ferguson might know one thing. Fools have a habit of reappearing and repeating the nonsense that prior fools claimed was the truth.