Here are the answers with discussion for yesterday’s quiz. The information provided should help you understand the reasoning behind the answers. 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.
I plan to send my final manuscript for my Eurozone book to the publishers tonight. I have some final checks to make on the 390 pages. I hope it will be published in both English and Italian later in the year. Obviously I will promote it here once it is ready. The book contends that the Eurozone is structurally biased towards stagnation because of the neo-liberal rules that constrain national governments from dealing with large spending collapses with appropriately scaled fiscal responses. The crisis in now into its 6th year and there is little sign that the stagnation is over. Indeed, the latest data would suggest that some of its largest economies are going backwards still. Italy has just announced it is back in recession and factory orders to Germany have plunged. I have been saying it for years but repetition is no sin – they should dismantle the currency union in an orderly manner and allow the national governments to return to growth in their own way. The nations are incapable of doing that collectively given the neo-liberal Groupthink that has them in a vice. So, a rogue nation is needed to break out of the straitjacket and provide a blueprint for the others. Italy should be that nation. In many ways it has panache and flair – it is time to show it in this specific way.
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.
I read a book a long time ago (1994) called “The Principle of Duty: An Essay on the Foundations of Civic Order”. I note it was republished in 2009. The book by David Selbourne – who is a British philosopher and these days writes regularly for the British Magazine New Statesman. His latest article (July 24, 2014) – How the left was lost: the need to relearn what true progress means – reprises the argument made in his book. He has been making the argument for a long time, which, in itself is not a bad thing if it a reflection of a good idea being ignored. At the time I read the book the Dark Age of neo-liberalism that we are within was forming but its internal contradictions had not yet manifested fully. But the left had certainly lost direction by then, getting caught up in a Post Modernist haze with career politicians and their union buddies abandoning progressive principles and, instead, adopting neo-liberal economic stances to prove that they were ‘responsible’. The aim – to get power. That was the end game. Selbourne’s book and current article captures a lot of that but, I think, also misses some vital parts of the story.
On Friday, I reported that a senior psychologist working in the off-shore detention centres was alarmed at the growing mental health problems of children of refugee-seeking parents who are detained with their families in these hell-hole prisons that Federal Government has set up in PNG and elsewhere. I noted the doctor had admitted to a National Inquiry that he was told by the Department of Immigration to take out some of the damaging research evidence covering the incidence of mental illness in the off-shore refugee prisons. Here is a followup of how systematic the government is in using its power to repress the release of information that might alter the public perception of its competence and desirability.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the US legislation – Economic Opportunity Act – introduced by Democrat president Lyndon B. Johnson. The law created the so-called local Community Action Agencies, which were directly regulated by the US Federal government. The aims of that legislation were relatively straightforward – “eliminate poverty, expand educational opportunities, increase the safety net for the poor and unemployed, and tend to health and financial needs of the elderly”. The legislation came out of the President’s – State of the Union Address – delivered on January 1964, where he made the famous statement “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America. I urge this Congress and all Americans to join with me in that effort”. The Economic Opportunity Act became known as the – War on Poverty. Times have changed. 50 years later, federal administrations around the World have declared a new type of War! The War on Poverty has become the War on the Poor. In Australia, this has manifested in recent weeks as an outright attack on the victims of mass unemployment – the unemployed. The Australian government has introduced what I have described in a number of press interviews with the national media as advanced psychological torture.
Here are the answers with discussion for yesterday’s quiz. The information provided should help you understand the reasoning behind the answers. 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.
Here are the answers with discussion for yesterday’s quiz. The information provided should help you understand the reasoning behind the answers. 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.
I was thinking over the weekend about the concept of post nationalism in relation to the evolution of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) in Europe. As I complete my current book project on the euro-zone it is clear that by the end of the 1980s, the European financial and political elites were designing a system that they must have known would undermine the prosperity of their own nations. It was obvious at the time that the EMU would fail badly and so the question arises as to what was motivating them to act in this way. The is where ‘post nationalism’ comes into play. Characters such as Jacques Delors had moved from being a major promoter of French interests within the Franco-German rivalry to pushing the interests of international capital by the time he formed the Committee in 1989 to design the EMU. By then Monetarism, which came out of the American academy, had taken over the policy debate and was usurping national economic interests. The EMU was a major vehicle for transferring national income from workers towards capital interests. It allowed the banksters to reap financial harvests that were unprecedented in history. These ideas, which play out in my book, also links in with recent research published by Oxfam on income and gender inequality.
Apparently, the mangy cat that was the Celtic Tiger is about to become the Celtic Tiger again. One of many reports that suggest Ireland is about to have a “here we go again” boom – The mauled Celtic Tiger is ready to roar again (UK Telegaph, July 5, 2014) – claimed last week that while “few Western nations suffered more than Ireland” as the GFC unfolded, it is now “perhaps” about “to stage a convincing recovery”. This statement followed the release of the “latest GDP rebound, driven by a 1.8pc rise in exports over the first quarter and an inventory turnaround”. I am not yet convinced nor should I say was the journalist in question. The so-called recovery is very tentative and domestic demand remains weak. Further, as before the crisis, a substantial portion of the growth is being repatriated offshore to foreign owners of capital. Moreover, a new phenomenon has crept into the picture – the so-called ‘tax inversion’, which makes it harder to disentangle what is actually happening with the Irish National Accounts.
Here are the answers with discussion for yesterday’s quiz. The information provided should help you understand the reasoning behind the answers. 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.
The UK Guardian article – Britain’s economy returns to pre-crisis strength earlier than expected (June 30, 2014) was interesting, especially in the light of the major revisions that the Office of National Statistics has announced, which suggest the loss of real output during the crisis was somewhat less (but still very large) than was previously indicated in the official data. One commentator was quoted as saying that the “recession was still huge even if it has now gone from perhaps 10 to 9.9 on the Richter scale”. But when a national statistical agency makes announcements like that people with vested interests in talking the economy up jump and the Government is no exception. The problem is that while growth has firmed over the last three quarters it is mostly due to an increase in private sector debt and a dramatic drop in household saving. There is still support for growth from the Government, which suggests that the austerity hasn’t been as severe at the macroeconomic level as the rhetoric might have indicated. The growth dynamics in the UK are looking decidedly like the pre-crisis build-up, which doesn’t augur well.
The Bank of International Settlements published its – 84th BIS Annual Report, 2013/2014 – yesterday (June 29, 2014). Their message is that governments (particularly central banks) have been too focused on reducing short-term output and employment losses at the expense of a long-term focus on the financial cycle, the latter, which is in their view, essential to restore “sustainable and balanced growth”. I beg to disagree.
Here are the answers with discussion for yesterday’s quiz. The information provided should help you understand the reasoning behind the answers. 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.
Here are the answers with discussion for yesterday’s quiz. The information provided should help you understand the reasoning behind the answers. 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.
There was a report in the papers this morning about a horrific beating in one of the poorest migrant areas north of Paris. The article – Roma teen attacked: the images that will shock France was really a repeat of a story in the UK Telegraph. I don’t want to go into the details because I don’t know them. But what is apparent in modern day Europe is the increasing breakdown of social stability and an emerging law of the jungle driven by unemployment, poverty and the inevitable social exclusion. I do not accept that migrants have to poor just because they start with nothing and cannot speak the local language with proficiency if at all. What is clear is that austerity is undermining the social fabric of Europe and this shocking incident is just one of many manifestations of that. And it will get worse.
Last week (June 11, 2014), the Australian Treasurer gave a speech at the right-wing Sydney Institute entitled – A Budget For Opportunity. The Treasurer was attempting to spin the impossible – that the May Fiscal Statement was fair (equitable) in that all Australians would be contributing to the deficit reduction. That is patently false. It is clear that the largest burden arising from the fiscal reduction will be borne by those with least income, including those reliant on public income support to scratch out the barest of existences. But in trying to make this impossible case, Hockey also invoked the classic divide and conquer strategy that conservatives use to segment and coopt certain sections of the population into agreeing with policy changes that will not only undermine their own prosperity but devastate the prosperity of other ‘segments’ who they manage to vilify. And while that is going on, the high income earners and wealthy, who are more likely to support the conservative political parties sit back sipping on their gins laughing their smug heads off. What a world it is.
Here are the answers with discussion for yesterday’s quiz. The information provided should help you understand the reasoning behind the answers. 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.
Today is a public holiday in Australia where we go to the football or do other things all in the name of the Queen’s Birthday – the Queen of England that is. It remains an expression of our colonial yoke and our lack of confidence as a nation, which continues to harm us, none more than our indigenous population. Anyway, the workers get to have a day off, which can’t be a bad thing. One of the more amazing frauds that the population is exposed to from our political leaders is the claim that if you impose fiscal austerity growth will spring forth as consumers and firms start spending again because they don’t have to save up to pay for higher taxes in the future. It is a crazy theory without an evidential standing. More evidence from Australia since the release of the Government’s May Fiscal Statement (aka Budget) is very conclusive that consumers and firms do not like announcements of major fiscal cutbacks.
Here are the answers with discussion for yesterday’s quiz. The information provided should help you understand the reasoning behind the answers. 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.