Welcome to The Weekend Quiz, which used to be known as the Saturday Quiz! The quiz tests whether you have been paying attention or not to the blogs I post. See how you go with the following questions. Your results are only known to you and no records are retained.
This analysis is coming from Brussels and the data doesn’t look any better here than it does back in Australia. The situation being revealed is very poor. The latest labour force data released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics – Labour Force data – for February 2017 shows total employment fell by 6,400 and repeats the behaviour of the last few years where it has been zig-zagging around the zero growth line on a more or less monthly basis. Australia’s status as a part-time employment nation continues, despite a modest rise in full-time employment this month. Over the last 12 months, Australia has lost 23.2 thousand full-time jobs (in net terms) and gained 127.8 thousand part-time jobs. Overall, employment has grown by only 104.6 thousand jobs (net) – a very low annual figure. This status as the nation of part-time employment growth carries many attendant negative consequences – poor income growth, precarious work, lack of skill development etc. The failure of employment to keep pace with the labour force growth saw unemployment rise sharply in February 2017 by 26 thousand and the unemployment rate to rise by 0.2 points to 5.9 per cent. Underemployment also rose sharply by 0.3 points to 8.7 per cent and taken together (unemployment and underemployment) there were 14.6 per cent of the labour force counted as broadly underutilised (1,862.7 thousand). The teenage labour market remains in a poor state and deteriorated further in February. It requires urgent policy intervention. Overall, the Australian labour market is weak and showing no signs of improvement. The poor outlook signals the need for a policy shift biased to expansion. It is clear that the current restrictive fiscal policy position adopted by the Federal government is not sufficient to redress the inadequate non-government spending growth.
Last Tuesday, in Maastricht, I gave one of two lectures I presented in a series (the other was on the previous Monday night). The first lecture, which was public, focused on the Eurozone disaster and I outlined why an orderly breakup of the failed monetary union would be in the best interest of all (I will post video of that lecture next Monday). The next lecture, which was to staff and students only, focused on the failure of macroeconomics and I juxtaposed fake news with the fake knowledge of mainstream macroeconomics. I want to expand a little on that topic. The Wall Street Journal published an article last week (March 6, 2017) – Everything the Market Thinks About Inflation Might Be Wrong – which bears on the validity of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) relative to mainstream monetary economics. What I would call actual knowledge (MMT) and fake knowledge (mainstream theory). The article is not without its issues but it correctly notes that the underlying basis of orthodox inflation theory is false and fails to explain movements in inflation.
The tiny nation of Malta (~ 420 thousand population) and the only one of two Eurozone nations that have English as one of its official languages is now hosting the EU Presidency for 2017. This was a function that was established by the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009 and allows a nation to influence the European Union’s agenda. As the rules dictate Malta shares this function with two other nations (Netherlands and Slovakia) to form the so-called Trio Presidency. There will be a lot of talk and papers produced and a lot of flags and posters are appearing in Valletta (Malta’s fortress capital) but don’t expect much to come from it. The other thing about 2017 and the EU is that they are celebrating the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome later this month (signed on March 25, 1957 and operational from January 1, 1958). The European Commission is clearly keen to give the impression that the Treaty of Rome was the first step in the succession of steps that made Europe what it is today. In one sense that is correct. But in a more important sense that claim is nonsense. The reality is that the subsequent revisions of the Treaty (Maastricht and Lisbon) represented fundamental paradigm or ideological shifts in the way Europe was to be governed. The Treaty of Rome recognised that limited economic cooperation could be beneficial to all participating nations as long as it was attenuated or managed by comprehensive system of state intervention. The subsequent treaties represent a shift from the Member States having the capacity to ensure full employment to a situation where the Member States are biased to enforcing austerity and creating persistent and elevated levels of unemployment and poverty at the behest of the ideological masters in the European Commission, who are neither elected by or accountable to the people of Europe they claim to represent. So … why are they celebrating the 60th anniversary of an approach to economic policy making and nation-building that they have now completely rejected?
On March 10, 2017, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released their latest labour market data – Employment Situation Summary – February 2017 – which showed that total non-farm employment from the payroll survey rose by 235,000, which built on the 227,000 net change in January 2016. The unemployment rate fell to 4.7 per cent. The Labour Force also grew strongly as participation rose by 0.1 points. The signs are more positive than a few months ago, even if broader indicators (the U6 measure supplied by the BLS ) suggest caution. Overall, there is a large jobs deficit remaining and previous analysis has shown that the jobs that have been created in the recovery are biased towards low pay. One suspects though that the Federal Reserve Bank will take the chance offered by a stronger monthly result (February) to increase interest rates a notch when it meets this week.
Here are the answers with discussion for this Weekend’s Quiz. The information provided should help you work out why you missed a question or three! 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.
Welcome to The Weekend Quiz, which used to be known as the Saturday Quiz! The quiz tests whether you have been paying attention or not to the blogs I post. See how you go with the following questions. Your results are only known to you and no records are retained.
By the time this blog is published I will be heading to Malta. I will have very little spare time in the coming days so the blogs will be shorter and perhaps non-existent or as normal as the case might be. There was an article in the ABC Opinion series (March 8, 2017) – Donald Trump’s presidency might be short-lived, because ‘something’s gotta give’ – which more or less claimed that the private US Treasury Bond markets had the capacity to bring Donald Trump’s Presidency to a halt. Apparently, if the bond markets form the view that Trump won’t deliver on his promises they can somehow end his term in office. What, by driving yields up? Not likely. And even if there was a way that higher US Treasury bond yields had some link to his political tenure, the central bank could control the yields at whatever level they wanted.
Yesterday (March 7, 2017), I presented the Second Lecture in the 3rd Annual Joan Muysken Lecture at Maastricht University. Unfortunately, the recording from the First Lecture, which I delivered on Monday evening (March 6, 2017) was corrupted but I am told there was an alternative video recorded and I will make it available when I can. The first lecture was a public event and the presentation reflected that. The second lecture was delivered to academic staff and students and so the language was more pitched to an academic audience, although it should be generally accessible. There is a little noise interference at odd times, which I could not get rid of. The audio of the talk runs for 50 minutes and I have interleaved the slides from the lecture in with the sound.
Eurostat released the latest inflation data for the Eurozone last week (March 2, 2017) for February 2017 – Euro area annual inflation up to 2.0%. As the title reveals the Euro area inflation rate rose from 1.8 per cent in January 2017 to 2 per cent in February 2017. The mainstream narrative is already emerging – ‘see we told you that all that central bank bond purchasing would (eventually) be inflationary’ – type of stories. Bloomberg (March 5, 2017) waded in early with the headline – Draghi Seen Keeping Cool on Stimulus Drive Amid Inflation Surge. I expect a bevy of mainstream economists who haven’t worked out yet they have nothing sensible to add to the public debate will chime in like those wind-up toys that children play with and argue they ‘knew it all along’ – QE would be inflationary. Well I am sorry to say that the data tells us if a significant element of the cost structure rises so will inflation – simple as that. The slight uptick in inflation in the Euro area does not support the mainstream argument that building bank reserves will flood the economy with ‘money’, which then drives inflation.