There was an interesting Working Paper issued by the ILO – Is aggregate demand wage-led or profit-led? – last year, which finally received some coverage in the mainstream economics press this week. The Financial Times article (October 13, 2013) – Capital gobbles labour’s share, but victory is empty – considered the ILO research in some detail. That lag is interesting in itself given that it was obvious many years ago that the trends reported in the ILO paper and the FT article were part of the larger story – that is, the preconditions – for the global financial crisis. If you look back through the Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) literature, dating back to the 1990s, you will see regular reference to the dangers in allowing real wages to lag behind productivity growth. It seems that the mainstream financial press is only now starting to understand the implications of one of the characteristic neo-liberal trends, which was engendered by a ruthless attack on trade unions by co-opted governments, persistent mass unemployment and underemployment, and increased opportunities by firms to off-shore production to low-wage nations. Better late than never I guess.

In the last week, Australians have been reminded yet again of the corruption that exists in the ranks of the corporate sector. Over the last few years we have been following the – unfolding evidence – of illegal practices (including bribery, UN-sanction busting) by companies (Note Printing Australia and Securency), which are owned by our central bank (RBA). Now, we have learned that one of our largest constructions companies appears to be corrupt to the core. They have been accused of “paying kickbacks to Iraqi officials in return for receiving lucrative contracts from the Iraqi regime” (Source). There are a myriad of examples of corporate fraud around the world (I just thought of Enron – “Burn, baby, burn. That’s a beautiful thing”). And then there was the global financial crisis with the cocktail of out-of-control investment banks, ratings agencies and whoever else with very long cheating snouts getting as much as they could for themselves, laws or no laws. And now we learn that a significant proportion of government procurement contracts in Europe are subject to corrupt behaviour. While, this tells me that the processes of government oversight need reworking in significant ways. But, further, it tells me that the root cause of the corruption is not the fact that governments are too big or spend too much money. Rather, an unfettered capitalism will pursue an agenda of greed and corruption and the idea that self-regulating markets (devoid of public oversight) are the best way to organise economic activity is a myth. The “market” is rife with corruption and inefficiency.

Writer of popular textbooks on macroeconomic myths, N. Gregory Mankiw has just put out a paper – Defending the One Percent – which is due for publication in the Journal of Economic Perspectives. The paper presents a narrative about the shift in the US personal income distribution (sharply towards higher inequality) since the 1970s in terms of rewards forthcoming to exceptionally skilled entrepreneurs who have exploited technological developments to provide commensurate added value (welfare) to all of us. As a result, rewards reflect contributions and so why is that a problem? In other words, the “left” (as he calls the critics of the rising inequality) are wrong and are in denial of reality. That view is unsustainable when the evidence is combined with a broad understanding of the research literature. Ability explains the tiniest proportion of the movements in income distribution. Social power and class, ignored by the mainstream economics approach, provides a more reliable starting point to understanding the rising inequality.

We will start with a quiz question today. Its a very hard question so you will have to think long and hard to get the right answer. If you were the government and had the choice of spending $A114,975 per annum (or $A315 per day) to derive zero benefit and cause significant harm to both society and individuals or spending $A63,074 per annum (or $A173 per day) to derive significant benefit with virtually zero harm being caused which option would you take? While the dollar figures are calibrated for the Australian situation, neo-liberal governments around the world have been able to convince us that the first option is superior. There is no logic to it but reflects the extension of the logic that individuals are responsible for themselves and there is no such thing as a macroeconomic or systemic constraint on individual choice and behaviour. It is that folly that is causing all the strife at present and will ultimately bring the system down.