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 five questions. Your results are only known to you and no records are retained.
I was pleasantly surprised this week when I received a telephone call from a reader wanting to chat about the current state of policy in Australia and the available options. We discussed a range of options and agreed that it didn’t make much sense to cruel the emerging economic growth in Australia while there were 12.1 per cent of available labour resources currently idle (either unemployed or underemployed). With world demand for our exports strong it seemed a perfect opportunity to really eliminate the pool of idle labour and return to full employment – a state that Australia has not been close to since the mid-1970s. The period since that time has been dominated by neo-liberal policy makers who have abandoned the responsibility that was previously vested in our macroeconomic policy arms (RBA and Treasury) to achieve and maintain full employment. We agreed that deliberately restricting growth just as it was gathering pace was a very restricted vision of national potential. The upshot of our discussion was that we agreed that fiscal policy could be targeted to redistribute the growth (to avoid specific sectors from overheating yet maintaining a growth stimulus to other sectors) and that monetary policy was too blunt an instrument to manage this process. But with growth emerging it is a case that policy makers should recite a daily mantra – when you are on a good thing, stick to it – rather than cutting it off at its knees before the benefits have spread widely throughout our nation and its people.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) released the Labour Force data for November 2010. As usual the bank economists got it wrong and underestimated the growth in employment. The data shows that the labour market is improving – employment growth positive and biased towards full-time jobs; a rising participation rate; and falling unemployment – the troika we look for. The commentators are almost demanding that the RBA increase interest rates sooner rather than later. But that would be a very stupid thing to do. The growth we have seen in November is required to be sustained for an extended period to ensure that we continue to eat in to the pool of unemployment and underemployment. Deliberately curtailing that growth with contractionary policy initiatives would be an act of vandalism and would deny those workers who remain idle (12.4 per cent of available labour) the chance to enjoy income earning opportunities. The data definitely doesn’t support the claims by the Government and the RBA that there is an inflation threat building. There is still plenty of slack in the Australian labour market and for the first time in several months the degree of slack fell marginally. I am not complaining – just cautious.
“The freer the market the freer the people”. This is one of the questions that you are asked to assess in the the questionnaire designed by the Political Compass to determine where you stand on the economic continuum (left/right) and the social values (authoritarian/libertarian) continuum. I was reminded of this proposition when I read the latest Bloomberg opinion piece (December 7, 2010) – China Needs a U.S. Lesson – written by Alberto Alesina (Harvard) and Luigi Zingales (Chicago). They claim that the lack of freedom in China is to blame for the world crisis. They ignore the failure of the capitalist bosses and the bankers to behave honestly and competently. They ignore the wilful neglect of “free” governments who became captive of the self-regulation is good mantra proposed by the “free market” supporters. No, China is to blame because it is communist. The evidence would suggest otherwise. That is what this blog is about.
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 in Sydney today for Day 1 of the Australian Society of Heterodox Economists’ (SHE) Conference. I always go down as a solidaristic gesture but I admit to not being fully engaged in some of the topics given there is an underlying hostility among many heterodox economist to getting the macroeconomics right before you delve into various microeconomics topics. I do not find it appealing to analysing demographic cohorts distinguished by sexuality, gender, race as if they are “independent” and can be understood without recourse to acknowledging their relationship to capital and without understanding the macroeconomic constraints that bear upon their decision-making environment. But during the day I was thinking about why societies voluntarily go along with state imposed restrictions on their freedoms which clearly entrench the disadvantage of individual members within these societies. I was thinking of this within the context of the choice nations have to exit the euro and the pressure being put on such nations to remain within the zone even though the status quo is devastating private well-being. I was also thinking about the forces that are working within the US to misrepresent the true nature of the financial crisis and allow government support for the elites who have committed gross fraud to override basic job creation support for the unemployed. I was also thinking about this in the context of the debate about the morality of WikiLeaks and the growing government attacks on that organisation.
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 five questions. Your results are only known to you and no records are retained.
It was the last day of the 12th Path to Full Employment Conference/17th National Unemployment Conference in Newcastle, which I host. The papers were interesting all day and I will report on some of them another day. But overnight, the big news was that the US Senate has finally succeeded in forcing the US Federal Reserve Bank to release details of more than 21,000 transactions it made as a reaction to the rapidly escalating global financial crisis. The lending rose to $US3.3 trillion at its peak and dwarfs the volumes involved in QE1 and QE2 amounts. This is relevant to a debate in the banking literature about the separation of monetary policy functions (setting interest rates) and the broader monetary interventions we have been witnessing in this crisis, which bear close similarity to fiscal policy functions. The question is which macroeconomic policy functions should be accountable to the ballot box. My view is all of them!