Senior journalists often do more harm than good when they write about technical issues that they clearly do not understand. In many cases, they rely on the technical knowledge of their favourite economist or the flavour of the month economist and they are not skilled enough to know when their “economist” is also talking rubbish.
The global recession is presenting a new dilemma for the first world which will have significant impacts long after growth has returned. We saw in recent years that the price of oil rose sharply as the demand of energy from emerging nations skyrocketed. While we clearly have a short-term incentive at least for China to redirect its economic energies into domestic growth to give our export sectors a boost there will be implications of this that we might not have bargained for. Do we really want an extra 1 billion or more people to be as rich as us? It is a case of being careful what you wish for …
This is Part 3 in Deficits 101, which is a series I am writing to help explain why we should not fear deficits. In this blog we consider the impacts on fiscal deficits on the banking system to dispel the recurring myths that deficits increase the borrowing requirements of government and that they drive interest rates up. The two arguments are related. The important conclusions are: (a) deficits introduce dynamics which put downward pressure on interest rates; and (b) debt issuance by government does not “finance” its spending. Rather debt is issued to support monetary policy which is expressed as the desire by the RBA to maintain a target interest rate.
Lat night’s ABC 7.30 Report had a segment titled Australian economy resilient in tough times. It was so bad I was prompted to write to the ABC complaining of their neo-liberal bias. All the commentators were the usual coterie of investment bankers and private consultants all of who have particular vested interests which are not disclosed when they are held out by the ABC as so-called experts! Not one independent researcher was included in the segment. In another world, this might have been the way the show evolved.
A good way to understand the origins of the current economic crisis in Australia is to examine the historical behaviour of key macroeconomic aggregates. The previous Federal Government claimed they were responsibly managing the fiscal and monetary parameters and creating a resilient competitive economy. This was a spurious claim they were in fact setting Australia up for crisis. The reality is that the previous government created an economy which was always going to crash badly.
The ABS published the January Labour Force Survey data this morning which is the monthly indication of how the labour market is faring. All expectations were that with other indicators such as the NAB Business Confidence Index and the ANZ Job Advertisements count all heading south very rapidly in the last month that the Labour Force data would be equally grim and signal the slide into recession. How wrong we all were. But should we believe the data?
In an article in the Melbourne Age today (February 11) entitled Taxpayer trillions fuel a monster mess, columnist David Hirst writing on the massive injection that the US Congress has approved quotes President Obama who said
“Only the stimulus package to be approved this week, the $US700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program passed four months ago and $US168 billion in tax cuts and rebates approved in 2008 have been voted on by lawmakers. The remaining $US8 trillion in commitments are lending programs and guarantees, almost all under the authority of the Fed and the FDIC. The recipients’ names have not been disclosed.”
His issue is that the secrecy of the arrangements is troublesome given their magnitude. With that I agree.
Various estimates about the size of the federal budget deficit are starting to emerge. The Government has acknowledged that the data shows that tax receipts have fallen dramatically and now their budget is in deficit. For me that is a time of national rejoicing … finally … the federal government is doing what it should … resuming its crucial role in financing non-government (in this case) domestic private savings. Finally, there is a net injection of financial assets coming from the excess spending over receipts. Finally, the drain on private wealth that the creation of budget surpluses requires is at an end.
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has written an essay extolling the virtues of a new era in public policy which he calls “social capitalism” which is based on a strong guiding role for government and an abandonment of self-regulation by corporate interests which was the hallmark of the neo-liberal era. He sources the current global economic meltdown to the neo-liberal takeover which began more or less in the mid 1970s after the first OPEC oil price rise. The problem is that his new vision is still tainted with the worst elements of the neo-liberal era.
Today in the Fairfax press, economics writer Ross Gittins in an article entitled No good reason to feel depression claims that we should not be too worried about the looming recession because after all things aren’t likely to be that bad. Well from my perspective recessions are episodes that wreak havoc on the most disadvantaged citizens in our society and should never occur.
Australia is not alone in mistreating our disadvantaged and unemployed citizens. As a portent of things to come in Australia after July 2005, tough new labour market reforms came into law in Germany on January 1. The Hartz IU reforms received a bit of European press in the last few days. I read two stories over the last few days, one in the German paper Bild am Sonntag (BamS) under the heading – Hartz-IV-Chaos! Kann ich meine Stütze bar abholen? – and another from the French daily Le Monde that provided some useful insights into the how a country that refuses to provide enough work for its citizens turns on the same.
In the UK Financial Times article by Darryl Thomson, Dollar falls to fresh lows in thin festive trade posted December 24, the continued slide of the USD against the Euro is put down to “disappointing US economic data” (mostly sharp slowdown in new home sales). However, a so-called currency strategist claims it is the “deficits rather than the data which were weighing on investors minds”. The hoary old neo-liberal twin deficits attack on public spending is making a comeback.
Recently released ABS Statistics show that household debt has hit a record $815 billion but the growth is slowing as the property slowdown deepens.
Regular readers will know that I run a bit, like lots. Last week, while I was in Europe, I decided to stay on Australian time, given the brevity of the mission, so I found myself running at midnight or just after awaking at 22:00 or 23:00 (after going to sleep around 14:00). It turned out to be a good strategy because the abnormally (scary) high temperatures during the day last week in Europe gave way to warm nights with just a hint of crispness in the air – perfect running conditions. Yesterday morning, though, I was in Melbourne, Australia and set off on my early run (around 7:00 being Sunday) and I was a bit tired from yesterday’s Parkrun in Newcastle. Yes, I move around a bit. This morning though, I saw more than the usual numbers out and about on the familiar running areas in the park lands of Melbourne and soon came across Run Melbourne, a large event with screaming speakers, ridiculous geeing-up announcers on microphones, and thousands of people blocking the usual serene early morning paths along the Yarra River. I had earlier been re-reading Chapter 13 of Harry Braverman’s colossal book from 1974 (which everyone should read) – Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century – which was published by Monthly Review Press. The words of – Harry Braverman – came back to me as I tried to work out a way around yesterday morning’s mayhem down by the river.
The Chair of the Finance Committee in the Irish Parliament invited me to make a submission to inform a – Scrutiny process of EU legislative proposals – specifically to discuss proposals put forward by the European Council to increase spending on defence. This blog post and the next (tomorrow) will form the basis of my submission which will go to the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation on Friday. The matter has relevance for all countries at the moment, given the increased appetite for ramping up military spending. Some have termed this a shift back to what has been called – Military Keynesianism – where governments respond to various perceived and perhaps imaginary new security threats by increasing defence spending. However, I caution against using that term in this context. During the immediate Post World War 2 period with the almost immediate onset of the – Cold War – nations used military spending as a growth strategy and the term military Keynesianism might have been apposite. These nation-building times also saw an expansion of the public sector, which supported expanding welfare states and an array of protections for workers (occupational safety, holiday and sick pay, etc). However, in the current neoliberal era, the increased appetite for extra military spending is being cast as a trade-off, where cuts to social and environmental protection spending and overseas aid are seen as the way to create fiscal space to allow the defence plans to be fulfilled. That trade-off is even more apparent in the context of the European Union, given that the vast majority of Member States no longer have their own currency and the funds available at the EU-level are limited. We will discuss that issue and more in this two-part series.
Today, I am fully engaged in work commitments and so we have a guest blogger in the guise of Dr Scott Baum, who will soon be joining us at the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE) at the University of Newcastle as a senior research fellow. Scott has been one of my regular research colleagues over a long period of time and we currently hold ARC grant funding together to explore regional disparities as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Scott indicated that he would like to contribute occasionally and that provides some diversity of voice although the focus remains on advancing our understanding of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and its applications. Today he provides analysis of how lost the Australian tertiary education system has become in this neoliberal period. While focused on the Australian situation, the analysis unfortunately has relevance to higher education systems in most countries.
On July 22, 2025, the – 2025 Japanese House of Councillors election – will be held. I have a good friend who is standing for the – Reiwa Shinsengumi – which is a genuine progressive, Left-wing party, not like the fake progressive parties these days that masquerade as social democratic parties (for example, British Labour, Australian Labor, US Democrats, to name a few of many). My friend is the endorsed candidate for the Kyoto Electoral District (頑張ってね、みなこ). One of the major policies that Reiwa proposes is the abolition of the consumption tax. In fact, this election has spawned widespread opposition to the consumption tax from other parties as well. It has been a highly contentious issue in Japan for several decades and its introduction and regular increases to the present level of 10 per cent reflects the dominance of neoliberal misinformation about the fiscal capacities of the Japanese government. Perhaps, this election we will see some more sensible outcomes.
Throughout the recent period of higher than usual inflation, the Reserve Bank of Australia kept telling us that they had to keep hiking rates (even though the inflation trajectory was downward) because they were predicting a wages explosion. Who told them about that? Their so-called business liaison meetings. The business sector is always claiming that a crippling wages breakout is about to happen because they want policy makers to suppress employment growth to give them the upper hand in wage negotiations. Anyway, no such wages explosion occurred. And the latest data shows that things haven’t changed. Today (May 14, 2025), the Australian Bureau of Statistics released the latest – Wage Price Index, Australia – for the March-uarter 2025, which shows that the aggregate wage index rose by 3.4 per cent over the 12 months (up 0.2 points on the last quarter). While most commentators will focus on the nominal wages growth relative to CPI movements, the more accurate estimate of the cost-of-living change is the Employee Selected Living Cost Index, which is still running well above the CPI change. Using that measure, purchasing power of the nominal wages was stable in the March-quarter. There is no wages breakout happening.
Soon after the US President announced – Liberation Day tariffs – I wrote this blog post – US government is pinning its tariff hopes on some unlikely to be realised assumptions (April 7, 2025) – to help readers understand what logic there was, if any, in the decision by the American government to impose wide-ranging and seemingly random tariffs on the rest of the world. The only apparent logic was that his advisors thought that while the tariffs would variously increase the US dollar price on final goods and services available to US consumers via imports, the flood of global investment funds into US treasury bonds, as a result of the heightened global uncertainty would push the US dollar up and offset the tariff impacts on import prices, because all foreign goods would now be cheaper. We now have a few weeks of data available to see whether things are turning out as Trump and his advisors thought. The definitive answer to date is that the opposite trends are emerging which will see the burden of the tariffs borne by the US consumers and producers rather than the presumption of the Administration that the burden would be pushed onto the rest of the world, which would precipitate rapid change in the favour of the US. It seems at present that an ‘own goal’ is being kicked – and – probably a lot of them.
Today, I am fully engaged in work commitments and so we have a guest blogger in the guise of Professor Scott Baum, who will soon be joining us at the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE) at the University of Newcastle as a senior research fellow. Scott has been one of my regular research colleagues over a long period of time and we currently hold ARC grant funding together to explore regional disparities as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Scott indicated that he would like to contribute occasionally and that provides some diversity of voice although the focus remains on advancing our understanding of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and its applications. Today he is going to talk about the dilemma facing Australian voters who will go to the polls at next week’s federal election – the so-called Hobson’s choice facing voters all over the world.