The IMF recently released an interesting Working Paper – Okun’s Law: Fit at 50? – which considers the relationship between the unemployment rate and real GDP growth. I mentioned Arthur Okun in yesterday’s blog. The paper is useful because it debunks a lot of recent research from mainstream economists which claimed that real GDP growth did not bring unemployment down (or not by much). The arguments were then part of the general attack on fiscal activism. The IMF paper finds that the output gaps created by the GFC in the US were so large, that the recovery had to be stronger than usual to eat into the massive buildup in unemployment. The fact that the output gaps have persisted well into the recovery means that fiscal policy has not been aggressive enough in the US. The large output gap that the GFC created needed a very large fiscal response.The bottom line is that shifts in the unemployment is driven by changes output (with the other cyclical adjustments noted above which mediate this relationship). Not a lot has changed – spending equals income which drives employment growth and leads to reductions in unemployment. The neo-liberals can deny that until the cows come homebut those of us who read understand the evidence know they are lying. The message just needs to spread.

The Australian version of the “fiscal cliff” is about poor people living on income support waking up on New Year’s Day when everyone is full of bonhomie for their fellow Australian and finding out that recent legislative changes made by the supposed pro-disadvantaged government, which have now become active, will leave them, in some cases, $A120 worse of a week. That is, they are losing a considerable proportion of their income. The way I judge public policy is not by how rich it makes the highest earners and asset holders in our midst but how rich it makes the poorest members of society. A policy framework that deliberately targets the most disadvantaged and makes them poorer is a sign of a failed state. The recent legislative changes reinforce the Australian government’s refusal to provide sufficient income support for the unemployment despite it being widely accepted that they are being forced to live well below the poverty line. The Government’s justification is that they need to pursue a budget surplus and have deliberately undermined the capacity of the economy to generate enough work as a result. The relentless attacks on the poor in this country violate my pubic policy assessment rule and indicate we are indeed a failed state.

Despite my constant utterances about short or relatively short blogs, today will truly be a short blog although I am aware that that descriptor is at all times relative. Is a short blog a few lines (which then raised the question of what is a Tweet) or a few paragraphs or what? Anyway, here are some thoughts that came out while I have been reading today.

Today (December 19, 2012), the economics editor for the Sydney Morning Herald (Ross Gittins) wrote an Op Ed piece – It’s the weak recovery that worries, not surplus – which urged his readers to reorient their thinking about the Federal government’s obsession with achieving a budget surplus in the coming year. In that sense, it was welcome article from an influential journalist. But closer reading demonstrates that the writer is straddling the line between comprehension and myth-perpetuation. Many readers have asked me to pin-point the strengths and weaknesses of the article for their own edification. So lets proceed. The key point is that the budgets of currency-issuing national governments bear no relation to household budgets. If we do not jettison that myth then very little progress can be made on the more complex parts of the narrative that leads to the conclusion that such a government can never run out of money and all the negative consequences that are alleged to necessarily follow the use of budget deficits (higher interest rates, inflation, eventual insolvency) are lies, which aim to perpetuate a dominant paradigm rather than advance the welfare of all of us.

Sometimes there is serendipity in a researcher’s life. Usually not. But sometimes. The last few months I have been investigating the question of how to effectively design fiscal policy interventions. It is an important issue because there are multiple goals that need to be satisfied. Two clear goals can be identified to simplify matters. First, fiscal policy has to be designed and implemented in a way that ensures there is sufficient aggregate demand in the economy relative to its real productive capacity so that full employment is achieved and sustained. Second, it should be designed and implement so as to reduce inequality. The two goals are interdependent despite the myths that economics students learn about the trade-off between efficiency and equity. It is now clear that rising inequality harms the prospects for sustainable economic growth. The evidence is now starting to come in that during the neo-liberal era, fiscal policy was actively used to reduce its redistributive capacity and its capacity to reduce market-generated inequality was severely compromised. Not eliminated but substantially reduced. That is what this blog is about.

Regular readers and those who hear me in the media regularly will know I talk and write a lot about unemployment. I do so because it is a principle cause of poverty and disadvantage. It is also the tip of an iceberg of lost economic, social and personal opportunities. But we should not forget about trends in employment especially the rising incidence of the working poor. I raise this issue today because on Sunday the British celebrated the start of the – Living Wage Week – which runs from November 4-10. There are celebrations in all the major British cities and both sides of the labour market – workers and employers – are urged to embrace the notion that paying a living wage is not only ethical but also good for worker productivity and morale, and, hence good for private businesses.

With the natural disaster in the US now in its clean up stage the discussions have turned, in a predictable way, to “how will the US pay for this especially when it has huge deficits and debts and has to fall off a fiscal cliff anyway to stop the sky from falling in” – and narratives like that. Remember when Hurricane Irene struck in 2011? The resurgent Republicans tried to push through bills, which would have required matching cuts in other federal spending. The other Sandy reminder is that when the chips are down who do we all turn to? Government. What do you think would have been the current state, if the Republican contender was President and followed through on his promise to scrap FEMA and put emergency relief in the hands of the private sector, which apparently does things better? Chaos at best is the answer. The fact is that the federal government will be able to provide whatever financial assistance is required beyond private insurance payments. The only constraint that might hamper the recovery is the availability of real resources, which can be brought to bear. Further, it seems that the whole fiscal crisis beat up, even with the terms of the mainstream paradigm, is a beat-up, courtesy of some spurious work done by the Congressional Budget Office, that much-quoted, but seemingly, errant organisation.