Everywhere I look I find examples of politicians and leading lights making macroeconomic statements without understanding macroeconomics. Given that these statements have policy implications that impact on real people making such erroneous statements – no matter how well-intentioned one is – is a dangerous thing that we should avoid. Imagine if I suddenly started to make claims about the strength of bridges such that they would fall down if my advice was taken. There would be a law against that. One notable economist apparently thinks that macroeconomics is not “regular economics” – but rather some far-fetched misplaced set of ideas that would be better forgotten. My view is different. A correctly specified macroeconomics provides a safeguard against falling into logical traps – such as the fallacy of composition. The so-called “regular economics” is a fantasy world where the angels on the pinheads are assumed away into one representative angel who knows all and never makes a mistake (on average). If you want to understand how mass unemployment arises and how it is solved then the mainstream version of “regular economics” will leave you in the dark.

Many people have drawn to my attention in recent weeks the evolution of the Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) Wikipedia entry and raised concern about the criticisms that are now on that site. I thought I better go and read the entry. I certainly have not added material to the site. Having said that I am happy that there is a page available. It seems that the criticisms cited are sourced to blogs by an Austrian Schooler, a graduate student blogger, and Brad DeLong. There does not appear to be an sound academic citation. The critics actually admit to basing their views on a cursory reading of the MMT literature and then only on the blogs that are out there now (including this one). The major claim is that MMT is just an accounting tautology. That just means they have read the first of hundreds of pages of MMT and then probably haven’t really grasped its significance. MMT is in fact an accounting-consistent, operationally-sound theoretical approach to understanding the way fiat monetary systems work and how policy changes are likely to play out.

Paul Krugman (August 20, 2011) was bemoaning the loss of intellectual values in the current debate when he referred to this Wall Street Journal article (August 19, 2011) – Why Americans Hate Economics. On face value I concluded that the WSJ had stumbled onto something – that the mainstream economics profession was not worth its salt. I was wrong though. The WSJ author was making a case that we should return to the economics that dominated the world prior to the Great Depression. The problem is that it is this way of thinking that represents the dominant paradigm today. It is the paradigm which has caused all the problems. It is this mainstream paradigm that people hate. The WSJ author is very confused. But then Paul Krugman’s response is hardly meritorious. So this is why the World hates economics – by which we mean mainstream New Keynesian macroeconomics.

Textbooks get out of date and need revision in the light of recent data or events. Some textbooks are exposed as being just plain wrong and should be re-written completely. Obviously authors in the latter category are reluctant to admit that their textbook is not an adequate description of the way – for example, the economy works – and so they not only resist updating their offering but they also defend it against all the evidence. Anyway, after reading Paul Krugman’s most recent attempt to come to grips with Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) I concluded that it was way past the date that he should be rewriting his macroeconomics textbook. Otherwise he is misleading the students who are forced to use it in their studies. So Paul, its time to update your textbook.

I did some research today on the outstanding US public debt – not because I think it is particularly important but because a journalist asked me yesterday during an interview – how much of the total US Treasury Debt is held by the US government – I said off the top of my head about 42 per cent which was a quick calculation based on work I did about 12 months ago and a rapid adding up off what I remembered from the monthly reports since then with a quick division thrown in. It turns out after I have updated the databases I keep that my “guesstimate” was not misleading (as at March 2011). The journalist then said – “so lets get this straight, the US government owes itself money equivalent to 42 per cent of its total outstanding liabilities?” Answer: yes. He then responded: “to fix the debt problem why wouldn’t they just write it off?”. Answer: I don’t see a US public debt problem. But because you do, then the answer is that for the most part they could just write it off as long as their were some additional legislative changes (for example, they would have to finance the operations of the US Federal Reserve in a different manner). So who owns the US debt?

In the last few days I have read more misinformation and downright lies from financial and economic commentators in the media than I have for the last year. The decision by the irrelevant S&P to get some attention for their corporate profit-making activities by downgrading US government debt has sparked a frenzy of nonsensical “analysis” which is as ridiculous as was the S&P decision. The fact is that the S&P decision is irrelevant as long as the US government makes it so. The danger is that the Government will think there is something to be addressed and the US economy will suffer as a result. As long as the US government realises who calls the shots the S&P decision will be irrelevant.

Last night we were watching the ABC news on TV and there was a story about American airports not being able to afford to pay security staff because the federal body who pay the bills had run out of money. I have been reading regional newspapers in the US which report on things like street lights being rationed not on environmental grounds but because the local authorities are starved of funds. Police beats are being trashed as rapes rise in the darkened, unpatrolled streets. Schools are being closed. People will die this coming northern winter because the governments have cut heating subsidies to the poor. Workers who saved all their lives then became unemployed in 2008 are still unemployed and have exhausted their life savings and are staring at poverty. And all of this is because the conservatives and the dullard progressives who have fallen into line lock-step have convinced us that our governments – which issue the currency we use – have run out of money. The people who are being most damaged by the fiscal austerity are the front-line troops in the conservative army attacking governments. It doesn’t make sense at all. For all the human achievements we are really a very dull lot. Governments have all the capacity to maintain adequate levels of spending and employment growth to allow the private sector to sort out their debt issues. This is a totally confected crisis which doesn’t mean that it isn’t real nor incredibly damaging.

I was looking at yields today and you cannot help noticing that bond markets are become more attracted to government debt each day. So much for the arguments we have been hearing ad nauseum over the last few years that governments were about to feel the cold hand of the markets who would punish them by dumping their debt unless they imposed harsh austerity. The problem is that the attraction of government debt does not signify that markets are rewarding governments for their fiscal austerity efforts. In fact, it is exactly the opposite. The markets are realising that austerity is now undermining economic growth and the claims by politicians and economists that we would enjoy a “fiscal contraction expansion” if only the government got off the backs of the private sector are now being revealed as lies. The world economy is tanking. Day by day the evidence mounts. The safest place to be when the economy heads south is in cash or government bonds.

I have noticed some discussions abroad that criticise Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) on the basis that none of the main proponents have ever actually worked on the operations desk of a central bank. This sort of criticism is in the realm of “you cannot know anything unless you do it” which if true would mean almost all of the knowledge base shared by humanity would be deemed meaningless jabber. It is clearly possible to form a very accurate view of the way the monetary system operates (including the way central banks and the commercial banks) interact without ever having worked in either. However, today, I review a publication from the Bank of International Settlements which dovetails perfectly with the understandings that MMT has provided. It provides a case for why we should abandon mainstream monetary textbooks from the perspective of those who work inside the central banking system.

With all eyes on the US wondering what would happen if the debt ceiling is not lifted you would think that bond markets would be losing interest in US government debt. If we trawled back through the debate over the last few years we could find many instances of commentators claiming interest rates would soar once bond markets ran out of patience with the rising US government debt. It was either that prediction or the other one – that all the “money” swishing around the system would cause inflation. Like some cult leader there was one self-styled US financial expert claiming that the Endgame was nigh. As the world didn’t slide into a void nor the debt-burdened US economy hyperinflate the date was shifted. Once, twice, thrice. Further, trying to overlay what is happening in the EMU at present onto US, UK, Japan or other sovereign nations is invalid. The monetary systems in place, in say the US, is vastly different to the system the ECB oversees when we focus on the member state level of the Eurozone. So it serves to remind people that none of the predictions the deficit terrorists have made have come true. The ideologues respond that it is only a matter of time. My reply, when might that be?

My time is short today so an early post. I am catching up on my reading and had time to study the evidence given by Simon Johnson to the Joint Economic Committee of the US Senate on June 21, 2011. There are many such committees within any national government and at present they are being bombarded with analysis from so-called experts who assume a non-problem, call it THE problem, then propose various solutions to the problem (that is, non-problem) which all in various ways would make the real problem even worse. That is the state of the public debate.

On the first day in her new job the IMF boss was interviewed by the in-house survey unit and asked to outline her agenda. She clearly thinks the IMF remains a centrepiece of the international monetary system. The evidence would suggest otherwise. The conduct of the IMF over its long history has not advanced prosperity and once the fixed-exchange rate system collapsed as unworkable the rationale for the IMF also disappeared. In trying to reinvent itself over the last 40 years, the IMF has become an exemplar of neo-liberal free market thinking and action and caused many of the larger crises that have evolved during this period. Its role in the current crisis exemplifies its culpability. It turns out that a leading mainstream economists also thinks it is time to shut the doors at 700 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20431.