There are several different strands of mainstream economic thinking and these differences manifest in the way they think about monetary and fiscal policy. The extreme mainstream position is that fiscal policy is ineffective because it 100 per cent crowds out private spending. The only role for aggregate policy then is to allow an independent (politically speaking) central bank to adjust interest rates up and down to regulate inflation (via expectations). There isn’t much for economists to do if that view was accurate. Then there are mainstreamers who think that budget deficits are generally damaging to private spending because they drive up allegedly drive up interest rates and crowd out private spending, the latter which, is considered to be more efficient because it is backed by the so-called wisdom of the “market”. So generally monetary policy should be used to stabilise aggregate demand such that inflation is stable. However, this group of economists find some time for budget deficits when there is a “liquidity trap”. From the perspective of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) – whether there is a liquidity trap or not is irrelevant.

I have been busy today writing computer code to reconfigure a new server to replace our dearly departed main server. Once I get embroiled in that sort of process I recall how much I forget. Fortunately, it comes back. But the good news is that we have a new machine working now and are retrieving material from various backups. Anyway, that seemingly pedestrian activity is, in fact, a pleasant relief from reading what is out there in the economics media masquerading as informed comment. One of the worst articles for 2011 so far was in today’s Wall Street Journal which tried to introduce a new notion of crowding out – that deficits are forcing foreign investment into government bonds at the expense of private capital formation. The authors then applied the usual neo-liberal nonsense that only private markets can allocated financial flows productively to conclude that the deficits are undermining growth in the US and destroying jobs. Their analysis not only stretches the empirical truth but also conceptually gets things back-to-front.

Today will be a relatively short blog as an attempt to honour my Friday promise to myself to make more space for other things I want to do. Further I have had some major hardware crashes at my research centre which have taken time today. But I had to comment on an Op-Ed article in the UK Guardian (June 30, 2011) – Public spending has not been cut, it’s just been stopped from rising – which was written by one Baron Desai. The good Baron tries to give us (and a fellow Lord) a lesson in macroeconomics. Unfortunately, before one starts lecturing they should first understand the topic. In this case, it is all about aggregate demand and the way government spending adds to that (including the operations surrounding government spending).

I am sitting in one of my “offices” – the little nook I have found at Melbourne airport that lets me work while waiting for planes – watching the video fo the US President’s recent Press Conference (June 29, 2011). I have “offices” like this at various airports. In the speech he berates the Republicans for refusing to show leadership in the current budget debate. My assessment is that after reading the full speech (the video goes for 67 minutes and 5 minutes is too long) – is that the US President outlined in the most categorical terms why he shouldn’t be in charge of the largest economy in the World. In the short time I have to write my blog today I will tell you why that is the case. But overall – as I noted the other day – it is looking more every day like a case of RIP USA.

I haven’t much time today. I gave a talk at a conference in Melbourne today (as noted in yesterday’s blog). I will edit the audio soon and post the presentation for those who might be interested. In general I made the obvious point – if you want people to reach their potential and participate in the economy there has to be enough jobs and hours on offer. But the blog topic today relates to a speech made by a senior RBA official in Sydney yesterday which has excited some conservatives. In that speech, the RBA indicated that it would always lend to private banks which had high quality assets (in AUD) but might be experiencing a temporary liquidity problem and were unable to meet its reserve obligations. This function is part of the public good responsibilities of the central bank and does not mean that they prop up failed capitalist businesses. The speech made the valid distinction between illiquid firms and insolvent firms. The point of relevance to Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is that the central bank cannot control the money supply because as part of its commitment to financial stability it must be prepared to provide reserves to the private banking system. That point is in contradistinction to the mainstream macroeconomics which starts by teaching students that the central bank controls the money supply. Overall, the central bank must treat financial stability as a public good and therefore must always guarantee reserves on demand.

I checked my calendar today thinking I must be a few months out. Upon checking I determined that it wasn’t April 1. So what the hell is going on? I refer to the announcement of a senior appointment at the World Bank. They have just appointed to the role of Vice President and Treasurer the former Lehman Brothers Global Head of Risk Policy who then was Lehman’s Global Head of Market Risk Management as they sailed into bankruptcy. Hilarious. As the Twitter-verse noted – Did they also interview Bernie Madoff? Anyway, I saw this news piece come in as I was studying the 81st Annual Report 2010/11 of the Bank of International Settlements – the central bank of the central banks – which was released yesterday (June 26, 2011). My conclusion: BIS = BS – the I is gone and used to stand for integrity