There was an interesting if not ego-centric interchange last week involving the New Keynesian economist Paul Krugman and others about whether the sort of macroeconomic policy positions one takes is more motivated by ideological motives (about the desirable size of government) rather than being evidence-based. Apparently, if you support austerity it is because you really just want smaller government and vice versa. This is an oft-stated claim made by conservatives. That if you support fiscal stimulus and government regulation that you are automatically in favour of big (intrusive) government. The point is not valid. Whether one supports a larger proportional government or smaller is a separate matter to understanding how the monetary system functions and the capacities and options available to the government. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) provides the basis for that understanding but not a prescription for a particular size of government.

I get several E-mails (regularly) from so-called Georgists who want to know how the Single Tax proposal of Henry George, outlined in his 1879 book Progress and Poverty, fits in with Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). I have resisted writing about this topic, in part, because the adherents of this view are vehement, like the gold bugs, and by not considering their proposals in any detail, I can avoid receiving a raft of insulting E-mails. But, more seriously, I see limited application. In general, the Georgists I have come across and the literature produced by those sympathetic to the Single Tax idea, is problematic because there is a presumption that national governments need tax revenue to fund their spending. Clearly, this is an assertion that MMT rejects at the most elemental level. But there is some scope for considering their proposal once one abandons the link between the tax revenue (which they call rent) and government spending capacity. The question that arises, once we free ourselves from that neo-liberal link, is whether a land tax has a place in a government policy portfolio with seeks to advance full employment, price stability and equity. The answer to that question is perhaps. I am writing about this today and tomorrow (with an earlier related post – Tracing the origins of the fetish against deficits in Australia) as part of my research into the life of Clyde Cameron, given I am presenting the fourth Clyde Cameron Memorial lecture tomorrow night in Newcastle. I hope this three-part blog suite is of interest. In some parts, the text is incomplete.

Last week (June 11, 2014), the Australian Treasurer gave a speech at the right-wing Sydney Institute entitled – A Budget For Opportunity. The Treasurer was attempting to spin the impossible – that the May Fiscal Statement was fair (equitable) in that all Australians would be contributing to the deficit reduction. That is patently false. It is clear that the largest burden arising from the fiscal reduction will be borne by those with least income, including those reliant on public income support to scratch out the barest of existences. But in trying to make this impossible case, Hockey also invoked the classic divide and conquer strategy that conservatives use to segment and coopt certain sections of the population into agreeing with policy changes that will not only undermine their own prosperity but devastate the prosperity of other ‘segments’ who they manage to vilify. And while that is going on, the high income earners and wealthy, who are more likely to support the conservative political parties sit back sipping on their gins laughing their smug heads off. What a world it is.