Here are the answers with discussion for yesterday’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 billy blog Saturday quiz. The quiz tests whether you have been paying attention over the last seven days. See how you go with the following questions. Your results are only known to you and no records are retained.
When a democratic government fails to deliver on its promises it typically gets tossed out of office by the voters at the next election. Sometimes it takes a few elections for the rot to set in once it becomes clear that the strategy for the nation is not working. Yesterday, the European Union put out its – European Economic Forecast – Autumn 2011 – which categorically demonstrates that after 3 years of crisis and one grand plan after another the leadership is failing. Some of the leadership tokens – the Greek and Italian prime ministers have been pushed aside – but not by the people – rather by the cabal that rules Europe. The situation will worsen while this lot hold the power.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) published the Labour Force data for October 2011 today. The data shows that employment barely grew and thanks to an artificially low labour force growth rate was just sufficient to allow unemployment to fall slightly. However, most of the drop in unemployment was due to a slight decline in the participation rate. The data is not bad but it is certainly not good and points to a weak economy overall. How long that remains is anyone’s guess in these uncertain times where governments have largely abandoned any plans to provide fiscal support to help the economies grow. The recent acceleration of the crisis in Europe should not impact negatively on our labour market if the Government is flexible enough to abandon its obsessive pursuit of a budget surplus. The black spot in the data today is the continued deterioration of the youth labour market. That should be a policy priority but unfortunately the government is largely silent on that issue. Overall, the Australian labour market is just staggering along.
I notice that a speech made yesterday (November 8, 2011) in Berlin – Managing macroprudential and monetary policy – a challenge for central banks – by the President of the Deutsche Bundesbank, Jens Weidmann has excited the conservatives and revved them back into hyperinflationary mode. The problem is that the content that excited them the most is the familiar mainstream textbook obsession with budget deficits and inflation (through the even more obsessed German-lens). That means it is buttressed with misinformation about how monetary operations that accompany deficits actually work. It tells me that the European Central Bank which is the only institution in Europe that has the capacity to end the crisis is in fact a major reason the crisis is deepening.
On May 10, 2011, the Australian Treasurer delivered his Budget Speech 2011-12. At the time I wrote these blogs – Australian Federal Budget – more is not less and Time to end the deficits are bad/surpluses are good narrative. Some 6 months later the Australian government received news (November 07, 2011) – Swan warned on surplus timeline – that indicated the economy was slowing and tax revenue was going to be much lower than estimated. It is becoming obvious to most people now (what was clear months ago) that the Government’s obsession with achieving a budget surplus is undermining the growth prospects of the economy. They should never had withdrawn the fiscal support in the first place but now they should definitely abandon this surplus obsession. The Australian Treasurer was like a wind-up doll yesterday when told the economy was faltering. All he could say was “We will cut harder”. Moronic.
In the wake of the decision by students at Harvard University to boycott an introductory economics lecture conducted by textbook writer Greg Mankiw, I thought this New York Times article (November 5, 2011) – Wanted: Worldly Philosophers – was interesting. It provides a much more reasoned assessment of what the issues might be than the response presented in the Harvard Crimson (the student daily) – Stay in School (November 3, 2011). The latter was signed “The Crimson Staff” and a link took us to an outlined photo of a “male” and the filename was entitled – noface_131x131.jpg. So no-one was even game to own up to the viewpoint. The male photo also suggests some inherent bias. I agree with the Crimson – walkouts should not be about ideology. But they are justified if a lecturer is offering material that is patently false and attempting to hold it out as the way the economy operates. That is why I would encourage students to walk out of mainstream macroeconomics lectures right around the globe. It is a disagreement about facts not ideology.
Here are the answers with discussion for yesterday’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 billy blog Saturday quiz. The quiz tests whether you have been paying attention over the last seven days. See how you go with the following questions. Your results are only known to you and no records are retained.
Several readers have asked me to comment on the recent New York Times Op Ed by Paul Krugman (October 30, 2011) – Bombs, Bridges and Jobs – which outlined the double standards among many conservatives who argue that “government does not create jobs” unless it engaged in military spending but still argued that such spending would be good for jobs and an increase would be welcome. It comes at a time when the new Haitian president is proposing to spend large sums of aid money on restablishing a military force in the nation despite not being able to offer basic housing, sanitation, education or health care. The appeal by the “military-industrial complex” that military spending is good for the economy is long standing and rarely refuted. After all, spending equals income and output which creates employment. But is expanding the military budget or insulating it from cuts the best way to create employment? Should we welcome, as Paul Krugman does, more military spending? The answer is that military spending has positive employment effects which are dwarfed by those pertaining to public spending on education, personal care services and other forms of public infrastructure. Haiti should build houses and schools and forget about the army.