Here are the answers with discussion for yesterday’s quiz. The information provided should help you understand the reasoning behind the answers. If you haven’t already done the Quiz from yesterday then have a go at it before you read the answers. I hope this helps you develop an understanding of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and its application to macroeconomic thinking. Comments as usual welcome, especially if I have made an error.
I have been studying the Great Depression intensely lately to gauge the similarities in conservative narratives at that time in relation to what we have to put up with now. Several so-called conservative historians have in the recent crisis endeavoured to reinvent history. The problem for conservatives is that the lessons of history are firmly supportive of the view that when non-government spending growth lapses, growth can be engendered with an increased contribution from government net spending. It is a proposition that is glaringly obvious in concept and stands the test of time. The conservatives hate that reality. So instead, they have only one recourse to attempting to match the facts with their erroneous theories about fiscal policy. They have to reconstruct the facts – a process that includes leaving important facts out and focusing on irrelevant correlations; fabricating facts; using definitions that no-one else would consider reasonable and then blurring the definition – and more. It is really quite pitiful.
I have been reading about the Great Depression lately and comparing the sort of pressures that governments were placed under during that time to cut deficits which were rising on the back of a collapse in economic activity to what is going on today. There are many interesting parallels and déjà vu experiences. That research took me into some literature on the way the governments bow to industry demands as aggregate demand collapses. In turn, that led me to the way the military-industrial complex operates. Which took me into another literature on the role of the military-industrial complex in creating wars to provide markets for their goods – the merchants of death. And so it goes. That is the nature of research – it just takes one on a journey and usually to destinations previously not imagined. But this journey also clarifies some issues that readers regularly write to me about. The relationship between Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) as a macroeconomic framework and issues that issues that lie below the aggregate level – such as distributional issues. There are links clearly (for example, income distribution affects aggregate demand) but in other ways what is “good” at the macro level may well be downright disastrous at the micro level. But in dealing with the disaster at the micro level, we always have to be mindful of the way dealing with that disaster impacts on the aggregates. This is particularly important in considering issues relating to trade. The military-industrial complex is an excellent case study of these challenges. Here are some early thoughts.
I was going to write about military expenditure today in the light of large cuts to defense spending that the Australian government made in last week’s Budget and the decision by the Obama Administration to make it easier for American firms to export military equipment (to who knows where!). The concept of the military-industrial complex is interesting and, to some extent, the issues that are being raised by the US decision were discussed during the Great Depression (I have been reading a lot of material from the 1930s lately). While some might (from a micro perspective) conclude that reducing spending on the military is a good thing (less violence etc) they also have to be mindful of the macro perspective which considers a $ spend on a tank to be equivalent in its impact on aggregate demand as a $ spent on public education – well nearly. But I will write about that tomorrow. There were two interesting interventions into the public debate in Australia yesterday from the current Treasury boss and the recently departed Treasury boss which have general application everywhere. While they are current I thought I would consider these general points today.
I read the latest “fiscal stimulus has not made a jot of difference” Op Ed from Harvard’s Robert Barro as a classic example of how mainstream economists manipulate data that few understand well to support a case that is the opposite of the facts. nd wondered why he bothers. My profession are experts at either denying that facts are facts (the “when all else fails” strategy – that is, if the facts are inconsistent with the theory then the facts are wrong) or using data selectively when they know most people interpret economic data in a superficial and intuitive manner that often leads to wrong conclusions. The Wall Street Journal article (May 9, 2012) – Stimulus Spending Keeps Failing – which carried sub-title challenge “If austerity is so terrible, how come Germany and Sweden have done so well?” was typical Barro. I realise he cannot perform a detailed data analysis in a standard Op Ed (which is one of the great advantages of blogs). But with the sparse word-limit available in an Op Ed, the writer should also stick to the facts and draw relevant rather than spurious conclusions from the facts presented.
Here are the answers with discussion for yesterday’s quiz. The information provided should help you understand the reasoning behind the answers. If you haven’t already done the Quiz from yesterday then have a go at it before you read the answers. I hope this helps you develop an understanding of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and its application to macroeconomic thinking. Comments as usual welcome, especially if I have made an error.
Today’s release by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) of the Labour Force data for April 2012 reveals a weak labour market with the employment gains being confined to part-time work and workers dropping out of the labour force due to the limited available vacancies. While unemployment fell by 28.8 thousand, the drop in participation accounted for 26 thousand of that – meaning the Australian economy has been busy over the last month converting the official unemployed into hidden unemployed. This is not a “good” outcome as some in the media and the Government are claiming today. The outlook is also not very positive either given the Federal government’s obsessive pursuit of a budget surplus which will cut economic growth by some percentage points. They are even boasting that if growth falls short and tax revenue shrinks they will impose even further cuts on spending and/or increases in taxes. At that point the word idiocy comes to mind. The most disturbing aspect of the labour market data remains the appalling state of the youth labour market. This should be a policy priority for the government. But they have gone missing in action – lost in their surplus mania. My assessment of today’s results – very subdued indeed. I will be on ABC Radio National Drive program tonight from 18:15 talking about today’s data! Live Feed.
Last night’s Federal Budget in Australia proved once again how dominant the macroeconomic myths are in policy development. You can read my pre-Budget comments – Budget 2012: a recipe for disaster – and apart from the 2011-12 deficit being larger than the Government planned as a result of the slowing economy undermining its estimated tax revenue (in other words, the Government was overly optimistic in its forecasts last year) I would not have written much different after seeing all the Budget documents. It remains the largest fiscal consolidation attempted in one fiscal year (equivalent to 3 per cent of GDP) at a time that GDP is growing around 2.5 per cent.and I cannot see private spending growth picking up to fill the gap. Outcome – a movement towards recession. Conclusion – poor fiscal management. But the Budget Papers that the Government releases are always interesting reading and one day I plan to trace the evolution of the shifts in macroeconomic ideology through the way the papers are presented (format, tables, and narratives). There you learn what the economists in Treasury think and the ideas espoused are generally applicable to the international debate given that the tentacles of the dominant paradigm of the day spread widely. In Budget Paper No 1, Statement 4 – Building Resilience Through National Saving we are provided with a demonstration lesson of how a fiat monetary system does not work and a classic depiction of the way the mainstream narrative deceives the citizens.
Last week (May 4, 2012), the US Bureau of Labor Statistics released its latest – Employment Situation Summary – for April 2012. The data revealed that employment growth in the US is now slowing but remains positive (payroll data) although the household survey data (which uses a broader concept of employment) revealed a fall in total employment. More indicative of the state of the US labour market was the decline in the participation rate as workers once again gave up looking for jobs that were not there! While the official unemployment rate fell by 0.1 percentage points to 8.1 per cent in April, the reality is that the labour supply contraction disguises the true picture. If we added the workers who dropped out of the labour force back into the unemployment numbers then the unemployment rate would have risen to 8.4 per cent. The US economy is thus at another turning point. Private spending growth does not appear capable at present of filling the gap left by a declining public spending contribution. Unless the government provides a renewed stimulus it is likely the US economy will head backwards and unemployment will rise.
Today has been a busy pre-Budget night day (the Treasurer delivers the 2012-13 Budget tomorrow night). I was invited to write an Op Ed for the ABC’s The Drum – a site which explores news and analysis in more detail than the usual 750 word newspaper column. The Drum column is reproduced below. I have also been wondering about the implications for Europe and beyond of the election outcomes in France and Greece. I suspect the latter will be more interesting given Hollande will be unlikely to rock the boat too much. But I need to read more of the French literature that has emerged in the last 24 hours to really get a feel for what is likely to happen there. I will have more to say about the Australian federal budget when it is actually unveiled tomorrow night but it looks like being the case that Australian government is about to deliver a 5000-odd word suicide note.
Here are the answers with discussion for yesterday’s quiz. The information provided should help you understand the reasoning behind the answers. If you haven’t already done the Quiz from yesterday then have a go at it before you read the answers. I hope this helps you develop an understanding of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and its application to macroeconomic thinking. Comments as usual welcome, especially if I have made an error.
I regularly check the data for Ireland to see how she is going, given that the Irish government was the first to impose the austerity solution in early 2009 – that is, three years ago. I read yesterday that “of the countries that were in trouble, I would say Ireland looks as if it’s the best at the moment because Ireland has implemented very heavy austerity programs, but is now beginning to grow again”. That created some cognitive dissonance for me. Was I dreaming when I last looked at the Irish national accounts data? Surely, I hadn’t made a mistake when I concluded that the last two quarters of 2011 recorded negative growth as Irish exports slowed in the wake of the emerging double-dip recession in Britian? When I reviewed the data today, it seems that Ireland is still going backwards and people are becoming poorer. Claims that Ireland’s austerity approach provides a model for other nations to follow because it produces growth cannot be sustained from the data. But if only it were true … Oh Ireland, if only you were growing.
My friend Sean Carmody, sometime commentator and always obstinately objective, introduced me to this work – The Debunking Handbook – written by a physicist and psychologist. It serves to focus thoughts because it considers the pitfalls that arise in an exercise aimed at debunking myths and strategies that might be deployed to effectively achieve this aim. The authors appear to be motivated by the climate change debate but the discussion is equally effective in the context that I work within – how to convince people that mainstream macroeoconomics is largely devoid of meaningful content and predictive capacity.
Last night I gave a keynote presentation in Melbourne at the – Can the Eurozone survive its Crisis? – which is hosted by the Monash University European Union Centre. The event was well attended and the chaired by the Ambassador and Head of Delegation of the European Union to Australia and New Zealand David Daly. He closed the night by saying that we shouldn’t judge the Eurozone because it is a “work in progress” and the elites are on the case. The question of-course, is – how long must the millions of unemployed and disadvantaged wait? How many more well-catered for Summits in Brussels must the citizens tolerate? The discussant for my paper was a free market self-confessed right-winger who ended up agreeing that the Eurozone is doomed. Along the way he demonstrated a lack of understanding of basic economics and eventually had to raise Weimar as his major attack on government spending. Apparently, he also thought full employment was undesirable. A picture of Von Hayek appeared at one point. The other panel member was Dr Natalie Doyle who is currently acting as the Head of the Centre and an authority on European culture and politics. I have been travelling today and so have had little time to write. But I thought I would just share a few things with you that arose from last night’s seminar.
I have been reading the latest report from the International Labour Organization (ILO) – World of Work Report 2012 – which documents the disastrous trends in employment that are expected as fiscal austerity grinds economies into the ground. The ILOs Social Unrest Index has risen in 57 out of 106 nations and negatively related to employment fortunes. The ILO also found that “deregulation policies … fail to boost growth and employment” and “there is no clear link between labour market reforms and employment levels”. They conclude that the “austerity trap” is destroying jobs and that concerted effort is needed to ensure that “wages grow in line with productivity” and that there should be a “coordinated increase in the minimum wage”. I will analyse this report in more detail another day because it is schizophrenic in approach reflecting the struggle within the ILO between the neo-liberal influences that have grown over the last few decades and the more balanced labour market understandings that come from a thorough understanding of the importance of labour market institutions and government oversight and a keen appreciation of the empirical dimensions. But today I am going to briefly reflect on an extraordinary interview – Former Reserve Bank Governor bemoans state of politics and inequity – on the ABC current affairs program – 7.30 – last night, where the former RBA governor let fly at budget surplus obsessions and demanded more expansionary fiscal and monetary policy interventions at a time when demand is faltering and growth falling. And some other snippets appear afterwards.
The US Bureau of Economic Analysis released the first-quarter 2012 National Accounts data for the US last week (April 27, 2012) – see the News Release which showed that the US economy has slowed in the last three months, largely due to a decline in the government contribution. Annualised Real GDP growth was 2.2 per cent down from 3 per cent in the December 2011 quarter. The economy is now growing under trend and the signs are not good. If the politicians actually get around to imposing austerity then the US economy will join the UK in its race to the bottom with the other competitor being the Eurozone. The latest news from the Eurozone is that Spain will become the epicentre of the crisis in the coming weeks/months. Greece is yesterday’s news and the continuing deterioration of the Spanish economy – one considerably larger in importance than Greece – is focusing minds. The problem is that the reaction of the Euro elites is to inflict more austerity onto Spain which will – as night follows day – cause the situation to worsen. But still we read from leading US government officials that budget deficits are like cancer and will destroy countries “from within”. The only thing I can say about that astounding demonstration of ignorance is that I cannot think of a situation where cancer is good. But generally, budget deficits generate benefits to the nation that is enjoying them.
Here are the answers with discussion for yesterday’s quiz. The information provided should help you understand the reasoning behind the answers. If you haven’t already done the Quiz from yesterday then have a go at it before you read the answers. I hope this helps you develop an understanding of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and its application to macroeconomic thinking. Comments as usual welcome, especially if I have made an error.
I am still in Darwin today and have limited time to write. It seems, however, that the Euro bosses have gone all growth on us. For non-English speakers – going all growth on us – is terrible slang meaning are they becoming enamoured with the idea that growth is important. Apparently, austerity is “so yesterday”, if not “last week” and the mantra is now about “growth compacts”. Forget the fiscal compact which most of the EU states have signed up for which if realised will drive their economies into the ground so harsh are the proposed rules on budgets and public debt. Now there is a growth compact proposal – which Mario has suggested Europe follows. Angie is right in behind him – has Madame Austerity – has gone all growth on us too?. It has been a bad week for the Troika (IMF, ECB, EU) – what with the UK now officially in a double-dip due to the deliberate strategy of its government (emulating the EMU) and across the Channel, the impending success of François Hollande is now becoming obvious. Merkoz will now have to morph into Mollande. And while on “olland”, the Dutch government also collapsed as a direct result of the backlash over the fiscal austerity. Apparently, the likely new French president is not particularly keen to join the fiscal austerity conga line although all his public statements to date would suggest he is committed to the SGP principles. So what is this all about? Are the Euro bosses going “all growth on us”? Answer: there will be no “growth compact” other than in the title of some EU Summit paper. The growth spin is mounting but the EU elites remain firmly wedded to doing everything they can to undermine growth.
It is a public holiday in Australia today remembering our First-World War soldiers who died during the ill-fated invasion of the Gallipoli peninsular in Turkey. Anzac Day is part of the Australian legend about heroism and the ideals of mateship that are (dubiously) prominent in our culture. However, this part of our history (and legend) is now being scrutinised by historians and more documentary evidence emerges and it is clear that the conventional history of the campaign that Australia was fighting a heroic struggle in service of the British Empire is not supportable (for example, see this Op Ed for one of the alternative viewpoints that make the Gallipoli story rather mirky). I also have a lot of travel coming up later today and so my blog will be relatively short. I have been rounding up the latest data – surveys, national statistical office releases, bank statistics – from Europe and the UK, to see how the fiscal austerity experiment is actually going. The neo-liberal proponents of austerity all promised us that the private sector was ready and willing to fill any spending gap left by government net spending cuts (and then some) so that the austerity would actually increase growth. Any reasonable person disputed that promise pointing out that spending equals income and private spending was going no-where fast. The evidence is increasingly supporting the latter view. The question is – given the massive damage the austerity policies are having is – when does the experiment end?
The Australian Bureau of Statistics released the Consumer Price Index, Australia data for the March 2012 quarter today and the inflation rate has plummetted in the face of a slowing economy. The trend over the second half of 2011 was for inflation to ease. But the plunge in the first three months of 2012 that today’s data reveals is pointing to a very sick economy. The annual inflation rate is now estimated to be 1.6 per cent with a downward trend. As I noted last September if the trend that was apparent then continued, then the annualised rate would fall below the Reserve Bank of Australia’s (RBA) lower inflation targetting bound. That has now happened in today’s data, which means that the RBA has to consider inflation to be “too low” now and significant monetary policy easing (via their own logic) should be forthcoming next Tuesday when the RBA Board meets again. You might ask whether the “bank economists” (the private sector mavens who always think inflation is about to accelerate out of control) predicted that the March quarter inflation rate would be 0.1 per cent. The answer is that they predicted that inflation for the March would be running at 7 times the actual rate (0.7 per cent), which raises the question yet again – why does the mainstream media rely on their input to guide the public on where the economy is heading. Today’s data signals that the Australian economy is not in robust shape and the major cause of this slowdown is the irresponsible fiscal policy obsession that the Government has with achieving a budget surplus in the coming fiscal year. It is an act of vandals.