This is the second part of the discussion on Tariffs that I started in – Tariffs and more – Part 1 (March 13, 2025). In the first part I considered some of the historical motivations including the infant industry argument. Today, I plan to expand on that discussion and add further considerations that might help us understand what is going on at the moment.
It is hard to keep track of the major shifts in world politics that are going on at the moment. I am in the camp that saw the extraordinary confrontation between Trump/Vance and Zelensky as demonstrating how embarrassing the US leadership has become. I am not a Zelensky supporter by any means but the behaviour of the US leadership was beyond the pale as it has been since January. I am no expert on geopolitical matters but it seems obvious to me that the US is now opening the door further for China to become the dominant nation in the world as the US sinks further into the hole and obsesses about who should thank them. And the latest shifts are once again going to demonstrate how dysfunctional the EU architecture has become. If it is rise to the post NATO challenge then its obsession with fiscal rules will have to end and they will have to work harder to create a true federation. I am skeptical. The shifts are also once again demonstrating that mainstream economic thinking is dangerous, something I can claim expertise to discuss. The recent decision by the US Administration to hack into the USAid office is probably not the definitive example of this point because it is more about being bloody minded than ‘saving’ money. It will just further open the door for China though. However, the decision by the UK Labour government to reduce Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) to (according to Starmer/Reeves logic) ‘pay’ for a rather dramatic increase in military expenditure is a classic example of how policy goes astray when mainstream economic thinking in general, and the British fiscal rules, specifically are used to guide policy.
The last several decades of what is termed the neoliberal era has led to some fundamental changes in our social and economic institutions. It was led by the interests of capital reconfiguring what the polity should be doing, given that most of the significant shifts have come through the legislative or regulative capacity (power) of our governments. In turn, this reconfiguration then spawned shifts within the political parties themselves such that the traditional structures and voices have changed, in some cases, almost beyond recognition. The impacts of these shifts have undermined the security and prosperity of many citizens and redistributed massive wealth to a small minority. The anxiety created as the middle class has been hollowed out has been crying out for representation – for political support. Traditionally, support for the socio-economic underdogs came from the Left, the progressive polity, which, after all was the Left’s raison d’être. But that willingness by the Left politicians to give voice to the oppressed has significantly diminished as it surrendered the macroeconomic debate to the mainstream and got lost in post modernism. As a consequence, the ideological balance has demonstrably shifted to the Right, and the former progressive parties have been abandoned. My thesis is that the Left has created a burgeoning return of the Right with a daring and resolve that we haven’t seen for decades. The election and aftermath of Donald Trump’s elevation to presidency demonstrates the situation. Last weekend’s general election in Germany demonstrates the situation. And today a poll was released in Australia that suggests the current Labor government, which slaughtered the conservatives in the last election just 3 years ago are now facing a clear loss to the Opposition – that is advocating Trump-style radicalism. As the saying goes – you get what you deserve.
This blog post is a long time in gestation and I could have written in 2009 which is the relevant year of the events that I will document in this two-part series. My conversations with government officials during my working trip to the Philippines last week highlighted several things, including their sheer terror of IMF intervention and the ratings agency. I will write separately about that in a later post. But the IMF watches these types of nations like a hawk and is ready to pounce to enforce their authority at the slightest departure from the neoliberal macroeconomic policy line. As long as these types of nations concede to the IMF bullying they have very little hope of developing towards being advanced states. And IMF bullying is what this blog post is about. This is Part 1 of a two-part story that might be summarised as the ‘Case of the Missing Report’. I will solve the mystery in Part 2, which will be published on Thursday of this week.
Over the past week, I have already indicated that a major climate activist event was going on in Newcastle, Australia, which is the largest coal export port in the world. The event – The People’s Blockade – run by the activist group – Rising Tide, which involved thousands of people concerned about climate change gathering near the harbour and engaging. But it also involved protest flotilla’s launching into the shipping channel of the Port in an attempt to block the coal shipments. The cops were everywhere and were heavy handed acting under the imprimatur of the State government which tried to ban the festival but lost courtesy of a last minute Supreme Court ruling that declared the State’s attempt was illegal. At the same time as this grassroots event was unfolding, the elites of the world gathered in Baku (Azerbaijan) under the banner of the – UN Climate Change Conference (a.k.a. COP29) – which is the main global forum for addressing coordinated strategies for the resolution of climate change. The problem is that the talkfest is really just another cop out. Nothing much was achieved and the mainstream economics fictions were at the centre of this inaction – ‘fiscal space is limited’, ‘debt unsustainable’ and all the rest of the bunk, were rehearsed. And accepting the fiction that most nations can run out of their own currency, then steered the discussions to how private finance can be facilitated by government to stump up financial support for green transitions. And at that point, we know nothing much other than more profit seeking will eventuate.
As I noted yesterday, last evening I accepted an invitation to speak on a panel at a – Rising Tide – event, which is part of the massive – People’s Blockade – of the port of Newcastle that is running from November 19-24, 2024. The Blockade is a threat to the mining corporations and the NSW State Government has introduced pernicious regulative structures in the last week to make it illegal to venture in into the shipping channel to block the coal ships. Heavy fines and an aggressive police force are waiting for any activist who tries. It is an extraordinary overreach by government, who are clearly siding with these corporations. The discussion last night was interesting if only to confirm that this important group of activists have been channelled by poor advice into adopting mainstream macroeconomic frames, which make it very hard for it to broaden its appeal to the rest of the population. Here is my advice to them which will allow them to break out of that straitjacket and become an important educative vehicle for the climate movement.
A while ago, I caught up with an old friend who I was close to during our postgraduate studies. We hadn’t seen each other for some years as a result of pursuing different paths in different parts of the world and it was great to exchange notes. At one stage during the conversation, she said to me that I had become one of the ‘super elites’, a term that evaded definition but could be sort of teased out by referring to lifestyle choices etc. The most obvious manifestation was the fact that she was visiting my new home in an experimental sustainable housing estate, which apparently marked one demarcation between being an ordinary citizen and one of the ‘super elites’. That group also apparently doesn’t have any power in society like the real elites – the old and new money gang – but is privileged nonetheless. I understand the notion even if it somewhat amorphous. I was reflecting on that conversation as I have been trying to understand why the US voters chose Donald Trump over the seemingly more progressive and decent candidate Kamala Harris. I use that description of Harris guardedly, because if one digs below the surface, even just a bit, it becomes clear that the Democrats were not particularly progressive or decent (Gaza!) at all but more interested in lecturing people they look down on as to how they should behave and look. All that stuff about restoring joy – was really what ‘super elites’ think about and is far removed from the aspirations of the voters who went for Trump. Here are some additional thoughts on that topic.
The – Japanese National Institute of Population and Social Security Research – is the go-to place for understanding demographic trends in Japan. The latest revisions to the population estimates (as at 2023) show that the current population of 125.5 million will shrink to 96 odd million by 2060 and then 87 million a decade later. There is a rapid decline after that expected. The male population is shrinking faster than the female population. Much has been made in recent weeks of Japan’s slide down the GDP world ranking. First, China overtook it into 2nd place a few years ago and now Germany is moving into third place. India is projected to push Japan out of fourth place next year. Some have referred to this as “Peak Japan” with the population dynamics likely to push the nation further down the GDP table. There is a lot of anxiety among policy makers here about that ‘fate’. My perspective differs. In fact, I think that the challenge is not to solve the population decline but rather to work out ways to live well with a smaller population, and demonstrate to the world how a planned degrowth strategy can be achieved with minimal disruption to material security.
Sometimes one journalistic piece captures the problem facing those who are trying to change the economics narrative and promote an alternative framing that is ground in the reality of the system rather than one that serves to reinforce the dominant ideology of the elites. The opinion article by Larry Elliot in yesterday’s UK Guardian (October 13, 2024) – Labour’s challenge is complicated by the triumph of finance. That’s bad news for UK plc – is one such article. It summarises how far the progressive debate and the British Labour Party has become trapped by fiction. It demonstrates clearly how if we start off assuming that there is a rigid constraint on decision-making then the bind will lead, invariably, to poor decision making because the opportunity set is so artificially limited by the starting assumption. I am amazed really that progressives in Britain (and everywhere by the way) still adopt this flawed framework for debate and decision-making. So let’s work it out properly.
I am now working in Kyoto again and have a full day’s commitments ahead of me. But as part of my on-going research I have been investigating the conditions under which the IMF extends financial support to the poorest nations. And today I will tell you about the surcharge system which the IMF uses to make it even harder for those nations to repay the already onerous debt obligations that the IMF imposes on them. These surcharges are just another component of the IMF’s extraction system which transfers wealth from the poorest nations to the richest. I have long advocated the abolition of the IMF and a replacement, multilateral institution being created that actually works to help reduce poverty and the redistribute resources from endowed to less-endowed nations without any harsh austerity measures. The challenge is how would that work. I will write more about my ideas on that in due course. But the evidence keeps mounting to justify the abolition. The surcharge system is one part of that evidence suite.
It’s Wednesday and I am flat out finishing things today as I am off to Japan again to work once again at Kyoto University. I will keep you updated on the progress of that work and a public event that we are thinking about in November in Kyoto (or possibly Tokyo or both). For now a few thoughts on current political happenings and some administrative matters.
This week, the Australian government (Labor) did the unthinkable. It approved three thermal coal mine expansions in NSW – the Environment Minister approved the expansion of the Whitehaven Coal mine until 2044, the Mount Pleasant mine until 2048 and the Ravensworth mine until 2032. For a government that claims to hold superior ‘green’ credentials to the main opposition this was a major disappointment and once again demonstrated that the lobbying power of foreign-owned capital, which is only chasing massive profits and care little about the well-being of the environment or its workers, is dominant in public decision-making. It brings into question whether there is a solution to the environmental crisis (the 1.7 times biological capacity problem) while resource allocation remains determined by those seeking private profit, who reluctantly bow to regulative constraints, while continually trying to get around them. In this blog post, the first of a few, I provide some insights drawn from my current research that will come out in my next book (with Dr Louisa Connors) on degrowth and related topics. The question that has to be answered is whether the solution to a sustainable future includes maintaining the capitalist system. Today, I talk about how capacity constraints may prevent full employment from being possible and extend that analysis to the current context where environmental capacity is more important than productive capacity.
It’s Wednesday and I am mostly thinking about Japan today. In just over a week’s time, I will once again head to Japan to work at Kyoto University. I will be there for several weeks and will provide regular reports as I have in previous years of what is happening there. The LDP leadership struggle is certainly proving to be interesting and there is now a view emerging that the hoped for break out from the deflationary period has not happened and further fiscal expansion is necessary. This is at a time when the yen is appreciating and the authorities are worried it is making the external sector noncompetitive. That is, light years away from the predictions made by the ‘MMT is dead’ crowd when they saw the depreciating yen during 2022 and beyond. It just goes to show that trying to interpret the world from the ‘sound finance’ lens will generally lead to erroneous conclusions.
On Tuesday (September 10, 2024), the UK House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee released their first report for the Session 2024-25 (HL Paper 5) – National debt: it’s time for tough decisions – which was the result of their decision to hold an inquiry – How sustainable is our national debt? – into whether “UK’s national debt is on a sustainable path” and whether “the Government’s fiscal rule regarding the national debt is meaningful”. They didn’t need a large-scale investigation to come up with answers to those questions: Yes and Not meaningful- are my answers based on the reality of the currency status of the British government.
Earlier this week, the German statistical agency, De Statis released – Press release No.316 of 19 August 2024 – which confirmed that Germany continues to run policy settings that undermine the viability of the common currency. During the pandemic, Germany’s trade surplus declined significantly and the mainstream commentariat all pronounced that Germany had shifted direction and had finally learned that running an obsessive, export-led strategy that relied on suppression of domestic demand and increasing trade deficits elsewhere was fraught. Such a strategy had ensured the GFC was worse in Europe than elsewhere. The problem with that narrative is that it was wrong. The declining trade surpluses were driven by the temporary cost increases (mostly energy) that followed the pandemic and the price gouging by OPEC. The latest trade data shows that the economy has absorbed those shocks and is once again moving into large export surpluses that not only violate EU rules but also will further promote defensive strategies among its trading partners.
It’s Wednesday, so a few topics. Tomorrow, I plan to address the issue that the US economy is heading into recession. The short assessment is that it doesn’t look like it to me despite the relatively poor labour market data that came out at the end of last week. But there is certainly a lot of fluctuating fortunes being recorded around the globe at present. Recent Japanese data is quite interesting and I discuss it in what follows. We should also remember that yesterday was the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing – a very sad day in human history. Constantly reminding us of the damage that the US bombing caused should warn us off war altogether and nuclear weapons and technology specifically. Unfortunately, the trends are working against such a view. And we also have some music to listen to while cogitating over those issues.
There is an interesting debate going on in the UK at present about the concept of tiered bank reserves. The concept is now being used by commentators to argue that the new British government does not need to inflict the austerity that the Chancellor has now announced (even though she is denying that is what the government is up to) because the government can simply reduce outlays to the commercial banks in order to meet the fiscal rules. The discussion is rather asinine really and features all the missteps that commentators make when trying to appear progressive but falling into the usual mainstream macroeconomic fictions.
Language is meant to bring meaning to discourse. That means we want to use terms that convey information that is of use to us in making our way in the world. The problem is that economists have perverted that process and introduced a metaphorical language that is intended to persuade the reader/listener to accept a particular view of the world but which undermines their ability to actually understand the phenomenon in question. Marx knew long ago how language could be constructed to advance the interests of the ruling class. The mainstream economics commentary that is also used by politicians falls into this category. Terms are used that have no meaning in an elemental sense but provide support for ideological agendas. We, the public, allow that to happen because we are ignorant about the context. It becomes a vicious cycle of lies and fictions which undermine human and environmental sustainability but certainly transfer income to the top-end-of-town. A recent path setting address to the House of Commons by the new Chancellor is a classic example of this reality denial.
I am still catching up after being away in the UK last week. I will reflect on that trip in another blog post. So, today, we have a guest blogger in the guise of Professor Scott Baum from Griffith University who has been one of my regular research colleagues over a long period of time. He 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 income tax cuts and cost of living relief. Over to Scott …
In our new book – Modern Monetary Theory: Bill and Warren’s Excellent Adventure – which will be launched in the UK next Wednesday, we devote a chapter to what we refer to as the Japanese irony. This relates to the fact that while the conduct of policy in Japan is justified in mainstream terms, the more extreme policy settings that emerge produce outcomes that expose the deficiencies of the mainstream theories. At present, we are observing more examples of this. The latest matter of interest in Japan (from my watch) is the pressure the three megabanks are putting on the Bank of Japan policy makers to push up bond yields and interest rates. There is no reason based in financial stability concerns or community well-being for the Bank of Japan to agree to their demands. They just amount to special pleading from Japan’s fossil fuel financing megabanks for more corporate welfare to boost their profits.