The title is my current working title for a book I am finalising over the next few months on the Eurozone. If all goes well (and it should) it will be published in both Italian and English by very well-known publishers. The publication date for the Italian edition is tentatively late April to early May 2014.
The title is my current working title for a book I am finalising over the next few months on the Eurozone. If all goes well (and it should) it will be published in both Italian and English by very well-known publishers. The publication date for the Italian edition is tentatively late April to early May 2014. The book will be about 180 pages long. Given the time constraints I plan to devote most of my blog time over the next 3 months to the production of the book. I will of-course break that pattern when there is a major data release and/or some influential person says something stupid or something sensible. I hope the daily additions will be of interest to you all. A lot has to be done! Because the drafting has to be tighter than the normal stream of consciousness that forms my usual blogs, the daily quotient is likely to be shorter.
The title is my current working title for a book I am finalising over the next few months on the Eurozone. If all goes well (and it should) it will be published in both Italian and English by very well-known publishers. The publication date for the Italian edition is tentatively late April to early May 2014. The book will be about 180 pages long. Given the time constraints I plan to devote most of my blog time over the next 3 months to the production of the book. I will of-course break that pattern when there is a major data release and/or some influential person says something stupid or something sensible. I hope the daily additions will be of interest to you all. A lot has to be done! Because the drafting has to be tighter than the normal stream of consciousness that forms my usual blogs, the daily quotient is likely to be shorter.
The title is my current working title for a book I am finalising over the next few months on the Eurozone. If all goes well (and it should) it will be published in both Italian and English by very well-known publishers. The publication date for the Italian edition is tentatively late April to early May 2014. The book will be about 180 pages long. Given the time constraints I plan to devote most of my blog time over the next 3 months to the production of the book. I will of-course break that pattern when there is a major data release and/or some influential person says something stupid or something sensible. I hope the daily additions will be of interest to you all. A lot has to be done! Because the drafting has to be tighter than the normal stream of consciousness that forms my usual blogs, the daily quotient is likely to be shorter.
I am not doing much work today. But I was organising some snippets that I collected last week and I thought I would pass this one on – it doesn’t need much analysis – it is from the chief economist at the European Central Bank, Peter Praet who gave an – Interview with La Stampa – last weekend. While the interview was focused on Italy specifically, he presented the sort of message that we are used to getting from him and the ECB in general. A sort of warped triumphalism – extolling the success of the Euro and the role played by the ECB in achieving that success. And then, as is often the case, straying from the brief as a central banker and lecturing all and sundry on the need for more fiscal discipline (meaning increase the vandalism quotient)! It makes me laugh that when it suits them these central bankers cry that they should be independent from government but then at other times of convenience they assume they can use their “official independence” to lecture governments on how to behave. Anyway, Praet thinks the Eurozone is a big success and the policy makers have some “major” and “enormous achievements” under their belts. The interview was in English but not a dialect I understand.
I have very little time today to write, first a very long flight and then preparation for a major release tomorrow of our latest Employment Vulnerability Index (EVI), which measures the risk of localised communities in Australia of unemployment as the economy slows. We have a very neat mapping tool and I will write about that tomorrow once the press launch occurs (first thing). But I am also working on various other papers and, as usual, have become immersed in the Phillips curve. I remember when I first started by PhD at the University of Manchester in the early 1980s, my then supervisor said to me on the first day that once I started modelling inflation and unemployment (the Phillips curve) I would never stop. Among other truths he uttered during my time in that dank part of the world that statement was spot on. Every now and then I return to the topic and update, revise, re-create and (sometimes) even innovate. So today’s blog is just a collection of snippets of the more accessible things I have been working on over the last few days. It starts with a graph that appeared in the IMF’s World Economic Outlook in April 2013. Then follow the graphs. Conclusion: The NAIRU as estimated is a very dangerous concept for the well-being of ordinary people.
During the late 1980s and into the 90s when the Monetarists (mostly holed up in Britain) were boasting that the widespread privatisation and labour market deregulation strategies they had instigated were containing inflation and setting up their economies for sustained growth with reductions in unemployment my response was “what do they do they do for an encore”. It was obvious that if you scorched domestic demand and pushed up unemployment that the inflation rate would drop and the reduced imports would flatter the external balance. The question then was – what do you do next? Once growth returns in domestic demand rises on the back of increased income growth, imports start catching up and workers start demanding wage rises to make up for lost real income during the deflation and you end up with nothing much being achieved except for a extended period of lost real income, and rising inequality given the lower income groups carry the burden of the recession. The conservatives became slightly more astute in more recent years arguing that the recession provided the opportunity for nations to undergo radical restructuring so that growth could be driven by exports as a result of increased competitiveness. That’s the European model at the moment. Is it working? The IMF doesn’t think so.
There is a literature emerging that suggests that a Eurozone nation would be no better off with its own currency then and is within the monetary union. The claim is that these nations have not performed any worse than nations outside the Eurozone during the current crisis. A recent paper by an American economist (Andrew Rose) – Surprising Similarities: Recent Monetary Regimes of Small Economies – is being used as the authority to support this claim. The intent is clear – to deny that the Eurozone as a monetary system is inferior to systems where the nation issues its own currency and sets its own interest rates. However, these studies skate over the currency sovereignty issue and cast the differences between nations in terms of exchange rate arrangements or whether their central bank targets inflation or not. The real issue is whether the monetary system is characterised by the government facing a financial constraint or not in its spending – that is, whether it issues its own currency, sets its own interest rates and resists issuing debt in a foreign currency. Once you consider those basic aspects of the monetary system then it becomes obvious that the Eurozone nations as a whole have performed worse than other advanced Non-Eurozone nations which have enjoyed more fiscal flexibility.
Metaphors! They are more than a fancy way of emphasising some point – that is, their power goes beyond meagre linguistic construction. The research suggests they are part of our deep mental or neural capacity, which we draw on to sort out facts and ideas. They are conceptual devices intrinsically linked to the way we think abstractly. Metaphorical language reinforces our ideology (worldview) and so it is no surprise that political parties have become very interested in framing their messages using simple and common metaphors which resonate with the way we feel about things. George Lakoff, a cognitive linguist, considers we do not make our political choices on the basis of rational dissection of competing facts and arguments but rather respond to central (or grand) metaphors with reinforce our worldview. We thus consider facts or argument within that framework of thought. I am doing a bit of work in this area as a way of understanding why central Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) propositions (which are so patently obvious and have strong explanatory capacity) evade acceptance among people, even those who express liberal perspectives (in this context meaning – are open to new ideas).
In light of the – An Open Letter from Howard Schultz, ceo of Starbucks Coffee Company – which contains “a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas”, I felt it necessary to request that all readers of my blog leave all weapons (guns, rocket launchers and any other armaments that you carry on a regular basis) away from their side when they read my blog. Otherwise, violence might erupt as the arrogance of the neo-liberals scales new heights – five years into the crisis. To get your ire up several notches, you might read the latest article (September 16, 2013) by Greg Palast – Larry Summers: Goldman Sacked (thanks Gustavo). Remember keep your weapons out of reach! Then you might reflect (keeping as calm as you can) on the latest offering from the German Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schäuble in the Financial Times (September 16, 2013) – Ignore the doomsayers: Europe is being fixed. The triumphalism throughout the article demonstrates to me that Mr Schäuble has standards of excellence that lie well below what is conventionally considered to be (barely) reasonable. What he uses as the benchmark for defining mediocrity is beyond imagination. These are crazy times – when these economic criminals walk the streets at large, puffed up by their own arrogance and delusion, slapping themselves and their mates on the back, demanding credit for the human wreckage that their actions created, made worse and ensured will span generations. While we see youth unemployment rates of 62.5 per cent and rising suicide rates, these characters see glory and fulfillment. A most strange period of history and future generations will reflect on these apes poorly.
I have been trawling through the AMECO database for part of today as a means to learn more about what is happening in Europe as austerity continues into its fourth year for most nations. One of the neo-liberal mantras has been that the enduring crisis has been the result of major imbalances in current accounts (trade in goods and services and associated income flows) between the European nations. This reasoning implicates excessive wages growth in highly regulated labour markets, which also undermines the incentives for productivity growth (hence competitiveness declines and export markets shrink and imports become attractive). Alleged fiscal laxity is also implicated – excessive public employment growth, which apparently is less productive and encourages excess wages growth (stronger trade unions, better job protection). Taken together these claims are made about the peripheral Euro nations, which are in such trouble at present. This discussion has underpinned the policy push for austerity and largely denies the alternative view (which I largely adhere to) that the monetary union was ill conceived from day one and its design was incapable of resisting the major negative aggregate demand shock that arose in 2008. There was no federal fiscal capacity and no uniform banking rules. Any way, I am looking into some of the components of the first story – and examining what has been happening to unit labour costs. This blog reports the early stages of that work.
There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal (July 7, 2013) by US economist Alan S. Blinder – The Economy Needs More Spending Now . I am building a little database of what well-known economists said in 2008, 2009 and 2010 at the height of the crisis and in the early days of the fiscal and monetary interventions and what they are saying now. There is a lot of dodging and weaving I can tell you. Stories change, previous prognostications of certainty now appear highly qualified and nuanced and facts are denied. Alan Blinder was worried that the US Federal Reserve rapid building of reserves would have to be withdrawn quickly because otherwise banks would eventually lend them all out and inflation would accelerate. Of-course, banks don’t lend their reserves to customers and the predictions were not remotely accurate. In the article noted, Blinder continues to operate at what I am sure he thinks is the more reasonable end of mainstream macroeconomics. He is advocating more spending as a means of boosting higher economic growth. But when you appreciate the framework he is operating in, you realise that he is just part of the problem and part of the narrative that allows the IMF to talk about “growth friendly austerity” – the misnomer (or outright lie) of 2012-13.
Last week, the Australian government issued an – Economic Statement – which provided updated estimates from Treasury (since the May 2013 Budget) of the state of the economy and the budget position. The good news is that the Government is allowing the deficit to rise after a year of contraction as part of its obsessive and impossible pursuit of a budget surplus this year. The bad news is that the Government is not allowing the deficit to rise enough and as a result unemployment is forecast to rise significantly above its already high levels. The reason? It is still trapped in its obsessive budget surplus mania even though the reality is forcing them to postpone when they claim they will deliver that outcome. The conclusion? The Treasury clearly is reeling from its massive forecasting errors (revenue is $Axx billion down of what they forecast in the May 2012 Budget and $AxX billion down on what they forecast in the May 2013 Budget). It is also realising that they cannot fight against a significant private sector spending slowdown.
The latest Eurostat public finance data for Europe on July 22, 2013 – Euro area government debt up to 92.2% of GDP demonstrates the failure of the Euro policy agenda on its own terms. It is clear the indecency of the policy elites is reflected in the way they use nomenclature. Massive rises in unemployment and poverty is called modernisation or labour market reform. The argument bifurcates at that point. How can you argue with someone who thinks like that? But we all know what a financial ratio is. They are without nuance. A public debt ratio is what it is. And when the leaders say they are doing everything they can to reduce them and the cost all this “modernisation” is a price worth paying to reduce the public debt ratios we can conclude that they are failing if the debt ratios continually rise as they impose harsher austerity (sorry, increase the degree of modernisation). That is what the hard numbers are shouting. And that means that someone in Europe should just blow the whistle and call time is up and get rid of the whole swathe of policy leaders.
The Fairfax press published the latest opinion piece from one of its economics editors (Ross Gittins) over the weekend (July 20, 2013) – The budget facts that Canberra isn’t telling you. If the stated facts are what Mr Gittins thinks apply to a sovereign economy such as Australia, then it is fortunate that Canberra is staying quiet. He claims that the fiscally prudent position is for governments to run a balanced budget on average every decade. He also says that the government doesn’t really have to do anything other than let the automatic stabilisers achieve that outcome once the structural settings are in place. The problem is that these sort of mindless fiscal rules are rarely going to achieve appropriate outcomes, when the latter is expressed in terms of full employment objectives and other real outcomes. In the current context, where there are major private sector balance sheet risks and an ongoing external deficit of around 3.5 per cent, the pursuit of a balanced budget would be an act of vandalism. Further, given the non-government spending dynamics, it is likely that continuous budget deficits will be required into the indefinite future.
When 17 countries together have failed to grow for the last 12 months and each successive quarter has seen the growth rate fall increasingly (-0.1 per cent June 2012, -0.7 per cent September 2012, -1.0 per cent December 2012 and -1.1 per cent March-quarter 2013) and the same 17 countries have seen the collective unemployment rate rise (or remain static) for the last 24 months from 9.9 per cent (May 2011) to 12.2 per cent (May 2013) when is it appropriate to conclude that the macroeconomic policy mix is wrong and substantial changes need to be implemented. Answer: Yesterday! Further, why would those same countries decide to implement further policy changes, which will not only make it harder to grow but go against the whole idea of the collective in the first place? Answer: Besotted by destructive neo-liberalism. Welcome to Europe and macroeconomic conditionality on regional funding.
On Monday (July 8, 2013), the IMF released its “preliminary findings” of the – Article IV Consultation with the Euro Area. The nomenclature and turn of phrase alone are symptomatic of the organisation’s incapacity to come to terms of the problem it is addressing and its own role in creating and perpetuating the problem. On the one hand, they clearly acknowledge that “the economic recovery remains elusive, unemployment is rising, and uncertainty is high”. But on the other hand, they urge more of the same and claim the policies that have created this mess represent “progress”. The Euro area can do two things to improve the situation of citizens who live within it. First, abandon the voluntary fiscal rules which have not theoretical justification and allow nations to expand deficits to address the massive output gaps. If need be, fund the deficits via the ECB. Second, once the crisis is over, create a process whereby the monetary union voluntarily dissolves itself in an orderly manner. That is the only sure way of minimising the on-going damage. Oh, and third, withdraw all funding from the IMF and enter multilateral negotiations to create a new agency that helps poor nations defend themselves against speculative attacks on their currencies. And, while I am at it, fourth, reach an international accord to outlaw any speculative transaction that does not advance the real economy. That will keep them all busy and get the millions of people that the IMF and the Euro elites have deliberately made jobless busy again too.
One despairs when a sober institution gets ahead of itself, usually because they make hiring mistakes, and start to think they know stuff. This is an organisation that is steeped in statistical analysis and should have a very good idea of empirical regularities. They know that interest rates have been “essentially zero” in Japan since the 1990s and they know that what hasn’t happened as a consequence. They know that central banks have been “expanding their balance sheets” (now “collectively at … three times their pre-crisis level”) and what hasn’t happened as a consequence (inflation). But as the neo-liberal paradigm has concentrated its control of the policy debate, this organisation has morphed from playing a useful role as a coordinator of central banking into a propaganda unit pumping out misinformation and outright lies and distorting the public debate. Welcome to the Bank of International Settlements, which is now firmly ensconced with the likes of the IMF, the OECD, the ECB, the EU, the World Bank, and others as being part of the problem the World economy faces.
Mr Barroso, European Commission President has a way with words. In January 2013, he declared “that the existential threat against the euro has essentially been overcome”. More recently (April 3, 2013) he pronounced “that the EU has come through the worst of the crisis”. Really? And, just yesterday he was at it again, lecturing France on the need to hack into welfare payments and worker protections. Meanwhile, Eurostat released the first-quarter 2013 National Accounts publication – Euro area GDP down by 0.2% and EU27 down by 0.1% – a few hours after Barroso was on French radio delivering his threats. The data is shocking which is a euphemistic way of saying _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (fill in your own expletive). There are now 10 Eurozone nations in recession. The overall monetary union has been contracting for six consecutive quarters (that is, 1.5 years). And the situation will deteriorate even further. When does someone conclude that the current policy framework is a total failure and causing massive permanent damage? When will these lug heads in Brussels realise they are not only destroying the fabric of prosperity but also jettisoning their political aspirations – for one Europe? Amazing.
I recall a professor in my student days (formal that is, given we are always students if we remain open) telling a postgraduate class that economic development could only occur if the social democratic pretensions of the left, including tolerance of trade unions, were suppressed – “in the interests of progress”. He laughed and said that it was no surprise that the most right-wing nations grew the fastest. His poster child was South Korea. I recalled that experience when I read two articles recently in the UK Guardian. They are reflections on how neo-liberalism is really the antithesis to democratic ideals. The so-called free markets have nothing to do with freedom or political inclusion.