Today we examine two propositions: (a) 100-percent reserve banking; and (b) national government spending without taxation and debt issuance. Believe it or not the two propositions have been related in the debates over many years. Modern monetary theory (MMT) is agnostic to the first proposition although individuals within the paradigm have diverging views. However in the case of the second proposition it is central to MMT that a currency-issuing government has no revenue-constraint and should not issue debt to match net spending. Further, taxation is an effective tool for attenuating overall agggregate demand rather than raising revenue for a government that can spend regardless.

Today the Australian Bureau of Statistics released the November Retail Sales data, which is being seen as a likely signal as to whether the RBA will increase interest rates when it meets next in February. The data shows that retail sales are holding up as the fiscal stimulus targetted at consumption gives away to a focus on public infrastructure investment. However, there are other signs that the Australian economy is not yet out of the danger zone.

What do you do when your government is selling you out? Get the titular head (president) to intervene. That is what seems to be happening in Iceland at the moment. While the president is being accused of being an old political hack who longs to be back in the limelight, the more accurate interpretation is that he is reflecting the mood of the population which have been abandoned by a government intent on big-noting itself on the world stage by pushing for EMU admission. The sources of the problems in Iceland mirror those that have been at work globally to undermine the stability of the financial system and plunge real economies into deep recession – a religious belief in the efficacy of unregulated markets and the efficiency of entrepreneurial zeal. Both beliefs are now in shatters along with many economies not the least being Iceland. It is time that Iceland invoked its status as a modern monetary economy whose government has sovereign status in its own currency and started showing leadership to advance public purpose.

In yesterday’s blog, I discussed one of the more novel ways that the conservative lobby against government spending is mobilising to present their case. In that paper, it was argued that spending “funded” by taxation is always captive to political lobby groups who ensure the government will waste spending and undermine the productivity of the economy. Alternatively, the author claimed that government spending should be disciplined by financial markets who would reduce the waste that is inherent in public outlays. While there were several flaws in the argument the one that we deal with today focuses on the assumption that financial markets allocated resources optimally.

Today I was reading some academic articles on the implications of budget deficits. In general, the amount of effort that goes into these articles doesn’t match the quality of the argument. They all have predictable formats – some proposition, then invoke neo-classical assumptions, do some mathematics (mostly second-rate in quality), then make a conclusion that was given anyway by the structure of the exercise. As a consequence there is no information content at all in these articles. Just gymnastic exercises. However, one article I read presented a new slant on the case against government spending. It also resonated with my reaction to the release of a major report on executive salaries in Australia today, which quashed hopes that shareholders would have more say in disciplining the companies they own. The debate generalises and points to the conclusion that financial markets are mostly unproductive and have conned us into thinking otherwise.

In a sea of conservative media, two articles stood out this weekend which captures a debate that should be raging but will be quickly buried under the re-emerging neo-liberal hubris unless significant new alliances are formed. In recent weeks, as different economies are showing some signs of recovery, some key players within mainstream economics have been coming out in defence of the profession. They have been accusing critics of misunderstanding what economics is all about and saying that economists have actually saved the world. I covered some of this sort of positioning in Friday’s blog. In this blog I continue that theme but from a different angle. The conclusion is that if we want real change then “one should become more radical as one grows older”. We will see what that means as we go.