In my travels today, I have hour-to-hour commitments (sort of like wall-to-wall) and so I have called in our guest blogger, Victor Quirk to provide some further fuel for debate in my absence. I will be back in my office on Monday although the Saturday quiz will appear tomorrow sometime. So today Victor is talking about how we go about challenging a paradigm from his perspective as a political sociologist. Over to him.
I am travelling for most of this week with a very disrupted working routine – in between commitments. So this blog is shorter than usual and also somewhat unfinished in its conception. But the topic is the current call for the American Economic Association to introduce a code of ethical conduct for professional economists in the light of revelations in recent years about the abominable behaviour that many (academic) economists have displayed where they provide expert opinion in public in their guise as an independent economist but at the same time are being paid stipends of one form or another by corporations who would be affected by policy changes that the economists are talking about. This is usually in the context of such economists calling for more extensive deregulation. My view is that a more serious challenge to my profession has to be made. A code of conduct is fine but when the whole carcass of the profession is corrupted and rotten something more comprehensive is required – a major rethink about how we teach economics – nothing short of a scientific revolution is required. The whole body of mainstream economics needs to be trashed.
A debate in development economics concerns the role of cash transfers to alleviate poverty. This was reprised again in the New York Times article (January 3, 2011) – Beat Back Poverty, Pay the Poor – which I hopefully began reading with employment creation schemes in mind. I was wrong. The article was about the growing number of anti-poverty programs in the developing world, particularly in the left-leaning Latin American nations, based on conditional cash transfers. There is no doubt that these programs have been very successful within their narrow ambit. They also are used by some progressives to argue for an extension of them into what is known as a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG). For reasons that are outlined in this blog I prefer employment guarantees as the primary way to attack poverty. I think the progressives who advocate BIGs are giving too much ground to the conservatives.
You know something is wrong when the unemployment rate in major holiday destinations persist at high levels. Typically, these areas have what economists refer to as seasonal unemployment – so that during the off-season (when the holiday makers are back home) there is very little labour market activity but once the vacation period begins there are many jobs and people. I have lived in various surf locations for many years and one such location had a steady-state population of 1000 or so residents and on Boxing Day this swelled to 25,000 and that new population endured for the ensuing holiday period (until the Australia Day weekend – January 26). Many of the surf crew and musicians would take jobs during this period and work very long hours (the surf was typically bad during the summer anyway) and use the savings to eke out an existence for the rest of the year – sometimes also accessing unemployment benefits sometimes not. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics published a bulletin (September 7, 2010) for the Cape Cod area which is one such major holiday region in the US. The situation there is dire and requires an immediate policy response from the US government. Unfortunately, this issue appears to be off the policy agenda. Well, until this week at least. A Democrat from Ohio has introduced a “full employment bill” which aims to eliminate the US central bank (good) and restore the US government’s currency sovereignty for keeps. The problem is that it goes down some dead-ends and avoids facing up to the real issues. So it is a well-motivated full employment bill – sort of!
I am working on a book at present on the way recessions entrench growing disadvantage beyond the costs that the actual crisis period imposes on the unemployed and others. The idea is that the neo-liberal era has systematically been associated with a trend towards erosion of working conditions and a rising inequality in outcomes far beyond anything that could remotely be justified by disparate individual or sectoral productivity trends. It is clear that the rise of the financial sector has been generated a massive redistribution of national income in most countries away from workers and productive sectors. As part of this research I am delving beyond the usual “economic” analysis that I might take of recessions. I am also trying to document how recessions occur and how the recessions of the last 40 years have reflected a growing disregard by our governments for their legitimate responsibilities to advance public purpose. In turn, this disregard has seen them turn a blind eye to corruption and incompetence in the private sector while we were being told that by privatisation and deregulation they had solved the macroeconomic problem and we would enjoy unparalleled prosperity. It was a con job of major proportions and now the question should be who is going to pay for all the damage they caused?
I have been thinking about changing industrial/sectoral shares today and how it bears on the way we construct macroeconomic policy (spending and taxation). At present, a major debate in Australia is how we are going to deal with the strong growth in the mining sector and the negative consequences this growth is having on other sectors that are not enjoying buoyant demand conditions. The mainstream response – to impose fiscal consolidation and tight monetary policy – is exactly the opposite response to what is required. But the discussion about sectoral change has further application in terms of the long-run movements in demography and shifting demand for health care and other age-related services. It generalises even further if we consider the growing need for environment care services. The upshot is that trends which will require a rising public share of total resource usage should not be seen as financial crises. Rather we should see them as part of the long process of structural transformation in our economies. Once we see it from that perspective, then the ideological nature of the ageing society debate is exposed. But first, Ireland …
Yesterday I wrote, in part, about the way in which the term long-run is mis-used by the mainstream economists to assert “natural rate” theories, which essentially deny a role for government macroeconomic policy in stabilising the business cycle and reducing mass unemployment. I also get asked by readers (several times now) to provide some discussion of what were known as the Cambridge capital controversies in the 1960s and 1970s. They are related in fact to the notion of the long-run. These were rather esoteric debates which are now largely ignored by the mainstream despite the fact that the results of the debate showed, beyond any shadow of doubt, that the whole body of neo-classical distribution theory (that is, marginal productivity theory) is plain wrong. MPT was developed to justify the claim that capitalism delivers “fair” income distributions because everybody gets back what they put in. The Cambridge debates killed the legitimacy of those claims. But my profession continued oblivious because the results would have meant that a major part of the mainstream apology to capitalism would have to be jettisoned. Who understood the debates anyway? It was easy to just sweep the results under the carpet. I still plan to provide some commentary in this regard as I used to teach a course in capital theory covering these debates. But in thinking about them I started thinking of prior questions which also feed into a policy debate in Australia at present. It relates to educational outcomes and class.
I followed the US mid-term election campaign as best I could – being an outsider. Sometimes the level of debate appeared to be below that which I imagine the primates engaged in back then. I don’t intend to become a psephologist (not qualified) but I am interested in exploring why these witless conservatives have made ground. In Australia’s recent national election where the so-called progressive Labor Party (not!) lost office in their own right the swing was to the Greens rather than the conservatives. This does not appear to be the case in the US. So there are two questions I am interested in. First, what role did the neglect of the unemployed play in the election results? Second, do the result really amount to an endorsement of the neo-liberal economic approach? But the reality is that the US political debate has become so divorced from reality – which in my parlance means that it has totally failed to provide a vibrant debate about the options that the monetary system offers government to improve the lives of the citizens. Instead, candidates who have no understanding at all have been elected on the basis of a pack of lies and only demonstrate total ignorance when it comes to informed debate. In that sense, the mid-term elections have foisted a number of very dangerous individuals into office. Sad day for America!
Today’s blog might appear to be something different but in fact is more of the same. There was an article in the New York Times recently (October 10, 2010) – The Crisis of the Humanities Officially Arrives – by US academic Stanley Fish, which discussed the growing demise of the humanities in our universities. While the debate is about the role of the humanities specifically, the points Fish makes about how we appraise the value in education resonates more broadly to a consideration of the role of educational institutions and human activity in general. One of the vehicles the neo-liberals use to promote their anti-intellectual agenda is the false claims that governments are financially constrained. By appealing to this myth lots of questions about motivation are avoided. They promote the myth that some activity is “too expensive” or “not productive enough” and we are thus shoe-horned into that way of thinking. But I feel good knowing there are libraries full of books of poems and plays and stories and I know that sovereign government are not financially constrained. I might not be able to defend the quality of a poem but I can certainly explain how the monetary system works. So you poets and playwrights under threat – come aboard and learn about fiscal policy and the monetary system and spread the word.
I am travelling today and have a full schedule ahead and haven’t much time to write anything. But it just happens that the multimedia presentations and documentation for the Fiscal Sustainability Teach-Ins and Counter-Conference which was held at the George Washington University, Washington DC on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 have just been made available by the team which organised the event. The Teach-In was a grass roots exercised designed to counter the conference organised by the arch deficit-terrorists at the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which was also held on April 28 in Washington D.C. – just across town from our event. While that event also chose to focus on “fiscal sustainability”, the reality is that it will merely rehearsed the standard and erroneous neo-liberal objections to government activity in the economy. Given my time constraints today I thought it was serendipitous that this material became available overnight. So the following blog provides access to video and all the documentation for my session. Very special thanks to Selise and Lambert (and their team) for taking the time to document and prepare all this material.
I happened to re-read an article from the 1960s today – The paranoid style in American politics – written by Richard Hofstadter which was published in the November 1964 edition of Harper’s Magazine. It is one of those articles you should re-read from time to time to remind yourself that not a lot changes. What we call the deficit terrorists now were alive and well then and predicted that anything government amounted to a descent into communism with accompanying mayhem. The facts are clear. The US and most of the world enjoyed positive contribution from government net spending (budget deficits) for most of the post Second World War period and managed to avoid becoming communist (although they might have been better off if they had!). Today, the same paranoia is evident in the interventions into the policy debate from the deficit terrorists. They are so anxious. But underlying their alleged anxiety is a visceral hatred of anything government (except when the handouts are in their favour). None of the calls for fiscal consolidation are based on any firm understanding of how the monetary system works.
Answer: out towards the far right. Today’s blog adds to my previous posts where I consider so-called progressive interventions in the policy debate and show that they are really nothing more than attenuated forms of neo-liberalism. The evidence is that what goes for progressive input these days bears no resemblance to what we used to consider represented progressive thinking. The way the population has been inveigled into accepting policy positions and justification that are represented as “centrist” but are, in fact, what we used to call right-wing positions is one of the success stories of the neo-liberal era. The tendency of so-called progressive organisations to mimic the language and concepts of the right is one of the main constraints on advancing a solid attack on the conservative orthodoxy that created and perpetuated the crisis and which is setting nations up for a repeat in the coming years.
Today I provide some alternative insights to to recent (not so) Nobel prize awards in Economics. It is claimed that the work of the three winners has “conferred the greatest benefit on mankind” (being the criteria for the award). The reality is that the major insights to be drawn from this trio is that mass unemployment does not exist and that unemployment is largely voluntary or a function of over-generous income support policies by “misguided” governments. The policy recommendations to be drawn from their work focus on cutting the meagre benefits that governments provide to the unemployed in times of strife. The winners’ work tells us that they think workers are lazy and do not search effectively enough, in part, because they have it too good in their jobless state. I rank their work among the most distressing and obscene of all the disgraceful con jobs that the mainstream of my profession has deliberately foisted on the public policy process.
Today I am heading into the lands of austerity – those scorched, barren places where people with increasingly hollowed out faces are being forced by their misguided polities to forego wages and conditions and pensions and their happiness because some neo-liberal told them that government deficits were bad and all that. I am off to London this afternoon (I am typing this on the train to Sydney) and then to Maastricht University where visit each year and my colleague Joan Muysken is located. I have been thinking about various efforts that have emerged in the recent period suggesting that a new progressive agenda (narrative) is required to reverse the onslaught of neo-liberalism. This is clearly a topic close to my own heart. I have been thinking about the development of an alternative economic paradigm for my whole academic career. So whenever I see some progressive efforts I am always interested. This blog considers that question. So now a long flight then I will report on how hollow those faces are becoming.
When I give public lectures about economic policy I often pose the question – how should we judge the effectiveness of public policy? I pose a simple rule of thumb! I judge whether social and economic policy is effective not by how rich it makes society in general but how rich it makes the poor! I see richness in broad terms which embrace both economic and social valuations. Applying this rule of thumb has led me to conclude that the majority of nations in the advanced world are now failed states with run-down and corrupted public institutions. The conclusion is more stark when applied to less developed nations suffering under the neo-liberal yoke imposed on them by institutions like the IMF and the strong donor nations. But the rising poverty in the advanced world as a result of the extended current crisis is making it clear that our economic systems and the policy regimes that are being imposed on them by the neo-liberals are no longer delivering satisfactory outcomes. There needs to paradigm change – urgently.
I read the headline in the UK Guardian from yesterday (September 15, 2010) – Unemployment claimant count rises unexpectedly which apparently confounded forecasts. The hopes for an export-led recovery as the expectations of the forthcoming public austerity damage private spending plans took a further hammering with the data release showing the “highest balance of trade deficit on record” in Britain and “surveys of the services and construction sectors showing employer sentiment deteriorating sharply”. Why is this surprising? The fact that the so-called analysts and the press are surprised only tells me that they do not understand the way the macroeconomic system works. When there are already severe aggregate demand constraints and the government announces that soon enough they will brutalise public spending what would you expect but a further decline in economic activity? When the rest of the world is easing the fiscal stimulus under the concerted attack by the deficit terrorists why would you expect the balance of payments to dramatically improve? None of this surprises me at all. It is exactly what an understanding of the monetary system would lead one to predict.The reality is that to lower unemployment you need to spend more. There are no surprises in that.
Yesterday, two public statements were made which caught my roving eye. First, the British Government claimed they were going to cut harder than planned to weed out the unemployed who took income support payments to support their “lifestyles”. That was the approach the previous conservative government took in Australia between 1996 and 2007 and so we have experience with it. It failed dismally to achieve anything remotely positive. Second, the OECD released their Interim Assessments to update the May Economic Outlook publication. It showed that the GDP growth forecasts for 2010 and beyond were being revised sharply downwards. The OECD now claims there are many negative indicators and that governments should not push ahead with their austerity plans if the world economy is really slowing. The British government has used the earlier May EO forecasts (which were overly optimistic) as authority to justify their proposed cutbacks. Well now that authority is gone. However, their proposal to further cut back public spending would seem to be in denial of what is now obvious to even the right-wing hacks at the OECD. It is time for George to admit his austerity push is purely ideological in motivation.
Answer: Probably not! Elections bring out all sorts of revelations and epiphanies. We have seen that in spades in the last few weeks as the two main parties, both rejected as viable governments by the electors have struggled to lure the all important casting vote from the independents who are not only identifiable for the first time (there are even cartoons about them now) but who have taken advantage of their day (or 3 years in the sun) to lever as much out of the parties as possible. So last night, with the government returned as a minority operation at the behest of the vote of three independents and a Green MP, we suddenly see a renewed interest in regional development, public education and parliamentary process. The US President has also found a path to Damascus or at least he is trying to convince voters that he has – even making speeches to industrial workers with his sleeves rolled up. The reality is likely to be different but at least the topic of unemployment is centre stage for a day or so. And dare I add – with some support from the IMF.
I read a brief report from the US Tax Policy Center – The Debate over Expiring Tax Cuts: What about the Deficit? – last week which raises broader questions than those it was addressing. I also note that Paul Krugman references them in his current New York Times column (published August 22, 2010) – Now That’s Rich. The point of my interest in these narratives is that I have been researching the distributional impacts of recession for a book I am writing. The issue also bears on the design of fiscal policy and how to maximise the benefits of a stimulus package.
I have been reading a lot of psychology research in recent months which is a very broadening experience. Mainstream economists rarely include research from the wider social sciences. However, I have always been interested in finding out what other social scientists are up to and how their work bears on the human society that I have spent a career studying. At present, the neo-liberals are on the rise again and are driving governments to introduce harsh fiscal withdrawals using the supposition that this is fiscally responsible behaviour. Their position is unsupported by credible logic or empirical research. In fact, the overwhelming body of evidence rejects the theoretical models they parade to defend their positions. One of the under currents of their proposals is that by cutting public welfare payments and support governments can not only “save” money (and reduce their deficits) but also free the welfare space for private charity. They eulogise the benefits and virtue of private charity but demonise public support for disadvantage. So today I read an interesting article from some psychologists who have examined whether those with economic resources are generous or not. The results of their work are that the poor are more generous and compassionate than the rich. Another evidential flaw in the neo-liberal mantra that should worry all of us.