Apparently the RBA has the interests of the unemployed it is putting out of work at heart. Not!

Economics and business correspondents regularly serve as apologists for poor policy. Their motivation is to file a story and often they take the easy way out by paraphrasing press releases put out by some conservative think tank, or economist, or corporation without any critical scrutiny being applied and then masquerade their article as opinion. The other approach is to rehearse some elementary mainstream macroeconomic textbook and claim the ‘theory’ can be applied to justify decisions taken by the fiscal and/or monetary authorities. Last week (June 24, 2026), the Deputy Governor of the RBA gave a speech to the Economic Society of Australia in Melbourne – “The Straight Line Belongs to Man, the Curved Line Belongs to God” – which tried to justify the unjustifiable rate hikes in the current inflationary episode. The reporting of that speech was lame to say the least. Over the weekend (June 26, 2026), there was one such article published in the Melbourne Age – Why the RBA has been so chill about putting jobs on the line – that just repeats the RBA line and fails to see the actual issue.

Read more

Australian labour market – slight improvement after dismal results in April

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) released the latest labour force data today (June 25, 2026) – Labour Force, Australia – for May 2026 – which showed that the labour market improved slightly in May after a poor showing in the April figures. However, there are now 10.2 per cent of available labour not being used (either unemployed or underemployment), which makes a farce of the RBA’s claims that the labour market is tight. There is substantial scope for more job creation given the slack that is present.

Read more

Replacing Starmer/Reeves with another captive of the finance sector will change nothing

Successive governments in the UK – Labour and Tory – have pushed the nation to the brink where there is little capacity left for progressive policy. And I am not referring to Brexit. Rather, the elevation of the financial sector as a primary force in the economy, dating back really to the Callaghan Labour government and then fast tracked by Thatcher and Blair, has resulted in almost every important part of the economy being devoured by the greed machine. This is relevant to the leadership struggle in the UK Labour government, which should see the lamentable Starmer replaced by the (to be assessed) Andy Burnham. The latter would be the first Prime Minister to hail from Lancashire since David Lloyd George (1916-22) although Harold Wilson came from nearby Yorkshire. The problem the new leader will face apart from his own misguided notions about fiscal capacity and the need for ‘strict’ fiscal rules is that the financialisation of the British economy (like most economies in this neoliberal age) is so pervasive that the spheres of resistance to change are everywhere.

Read more

Towards a progressive rebuttal of the far Right narratives

I saw a clip from John Stewart’s Daily Show yesterday where he showed some Fox News commentators (I think) talking about how they hate ‘woke’ and how they now have to put up with public events featuring “half naked men” (their slight against the gay community). Stewart then showed the next clip – the cage fight at the White House where two half naked men were featured. The way he presented it was (as usual for the show) very funny. Yesterday (June 17, 2026), the leader of the far Right party in Australia (One Nation) gave her first ever – Speech – to the National Press Club in Canberra and apart from several outrageous statements (such as “Businesses also tell me you can’t sack people these days, they’re on their phones, they don’t work, they don’t turn up, they actually are lazy” and the “hoax of global warming”), she announced that Australia cannot be a multicultural society and that “we must be monocultural”. The fact checkers have already exposed her lack of honesty with respect to the actual data surrounding many of her assertions. But the question of culture and national cohesiveness is a subject that I am working on as part of my aim to publish a sequel to my 2017 book – Reclaiming the State: A Progressive Vision of Sovereignty for a Post-Neoliberal World – which I co-authored with Thomas Fazi. The question that the sequel begins with relates to what defines a viable currency area and what legitimates government fiscal policy. I see this issue as a central extension of the work on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) because it provides a sociological basis for currency sovereignty. One needs to develop a concept of the – Demos – to answer that question. I use that concept in the original sense.

Read more

Can capitalism survive? Not if we want to solve the climate and poverty crisis

The opening line of Part II of Joseph Schumpeter’s 1942 book – Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy – was “Can capitalism survive? No, I do not think it can”. His thesis was not that capitalism would perform badly, quite the opposite. Rather the considered that “its very success undermines the social institutions which protect it, and inevitably creates conditions in which it will not be able to live and which strongly points to socialism as the heir apparent.” The climate crisis facing the world is combining with the other outcomes of neoliberalism to create what is now called a poly crisis. Recently, a group associated with the United Nations Human Rights Council has released a – Roadmap for Eradicating Poverty Beyond Growth (published June 10, 2026) – which proposes a series of policy shifts designed to address aspects of the poly crisis. While it recognises that we must “escape the trap of growthism”, it fails to articulate that the fundamental logic of capitalism is capital accumulation that requires growth. To escape the trap, we must move beyond that mode of production. Merely tweaking policy structures within capitalism will not solve the problem.

Read more

Apparently the UK government is about to do the impossible – run out of sterling

Go back to the headlines in 2010 – – “Countries with debt over 90 percent of GDP enter a danger zone”. The 90 per cent threshold entered the media coverage as a result of a paper released by Harvard economists Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart – Growth in a Time of Debt. That paper talked about “debt intolerance limits” arising from “sharply rising interest rates” – and then “painful fiscal adjustments” and “outright default”. It also talked about the “obvious connection” between inflation and high public debt ratios – which had me laughing at the time because no-one has really shown that to be a robust relationship at all. Everyone started quoting the paper, even though at the time it had obvious flaws. The predictions failed to materialise as did all the previous predictions that economists like them had failed. But the press keeps giving their views a public platform because the lurid predictions attract audiences. It is a pity because lame politicians seem to regard the predictions as being based in fact and change policies for the worse. Anyway, Rogoff is back in town predicting that the British government will run out of sterling and be forced to bring in the IMF to address the fiscal crisis. That is what the headlines say. But if you delve more deeply, his position is a little different and exposes the chicanery of mainstream economics which holds itself out as a consistent body of theory but regularly uses that pretence to bully governments into political shifts that help the elites and damage the rest of us.

Read more

Australia’s lowest paid workers enjoy a modest real wage gain courtesy Fair Work Commission

On May 19, 2026, Oxfam Australia’s media release – Australian billionaires’ wealth grows by $50,000 per minute – informed us of the growing inequality in Australia, a country that promotes a ‘legend’ that egalitarianism is at its core. I will discuss their research in detail at another time but the results are stunning. In a population of 28 million, the “20 richest Australians hold more wealth than the bottom three million households”. While most of the population are struggling with “rising rents, grocery prices and energy bills”, the top-end-of-town have had a “bumper year” increasing their wealth by around $A50,000 per minute. That should frame our response to Tuesday’s (June 2, 2026) decision – Annual Wage Review 2026 – by the Fair Work Commission, Australia’s minimum wage setting authority, which increased the National Minimum Wage (NMW) by 6 per cent. A further cohort – those on minimum awards were given a 4.75 per cent increase in their wage. Against the current CPI growth, that increase provides for some modest real wage increase for the lowest paid workers in Australia. Of course, the employer groups are up-in-arms as usual claiming that the increase (and flow-ons – see below) will devastate employment growth and all the usual bunk as they post record profits. Fortunately, the FWC mostly ignored the bleating of the bosses. But compared to what is happening at the top of the income and wealth distribution, this change to the NMW is trivial to say the least.

Read more

Australian national accounts – economy weakened in the March-quarter (and we are yet to see the Trump War impact)

Today (June 3, 2026), the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) released the latest – Australian National Accounts: National Income, Expenditure and Product, March 2026. This data does not really capture the full impact on the Middle East disruptions nor do they capture any interest rate impacts arising from the recent hikes in rates from the RBA. But the economy is slowing and really only being held up by the massive private investment in data centres, which will exhaust in coming quarters. The Australian economy grew by 0.3 per cent in the March-quarter 2026 (down) from 0.4 per cent) and by 2.5 per cent (down from 2.6) over the 12 months. I expect the economy to slow further in the June-quarter 2026.

Read more

Monetary policy is not fit for purpose

I have said this many times – monetary policy is not fit for purpose and central banks should be prevented from having discretionary powers to alter rates at will. There are two levels of justification for that assertion. First, at the ideological level, a major (dominant under neoliberalism) arm of macroeconomic policy should not be outsourced to an unelected, unaccountable body of technocrats. This subverts the operation of democracies by allowing elected officials to depoliticise policy settings through their ‘pass the parcel’ approach – ‘oh the central bank is independent and we never interfere in their decisions’ type narrative. Second, on a technical level, the officials have little idea of when and what the impact will be of their policy changes. There are too many unknowns, mostly relating to the distributional consequences of interest rate changes (creditors win, debtors lose) which make it impossible to predict when the creditors will spend up their gains and debtors cut their spending. As a result, there are many examples in history of central banks moving too early (relative to their stated objective) or too late, with the outcome being that they make matters worse, particularly prolonging recessions. This situation is once again looming up in Japan at the moment.

Read more
Back To Top