When the early neo-liberal governments in Britain, Australia and New Zealand wanted to craft the public debate so that we wouldn’t realise that privatisation was just selling wealth that we already owned collectively to enrich a few of us as well as all the parasitic lawyers and brokers who managed the sales, they pushed the idea that we were all shareholders now. The old idea of capitalists versus workers was dead because we were all basically capitalists and the wealth would grow accordingly. What a disaster that initial experience with the neo-liberal myth has been. Now, that governments are deliberately creating unemployment and undermining paid-work opportunities with fiscal austerity, the public debate is being bombarded with a variation on that same theme. Now we are being told that it is so passe to think in terms of workers and bosses because in reality we are all basically entrepreneurs. Even the most lowly-paid casualised worker who is unfortunate enough to have to eke out an existence via labour hire companies is cast gloriously as a profit-seeking entrepreneur. The rot is seeping into our educational institutions as well.

I am researching a project at the moment on the role of humanities (and social sciences) in enhancing standards of living and rendering societies open, empathetic (to the disadvantaged) and dynamic. It is in the face of trends within Universities to concentrate funding and attention on the so-called STEM disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) and contract funding for the humanities (and social science). The funding cuts undermine the viability of these areas and whole departments have been closed – having been declared by the bean counters – as being uneconomic. This is reinforced by conservative neo-liberal political diatribes which seek to construct the humanities/social sciences as bastions of “left-wing” radicalism and post-modernist degradation (for example, eschewing studies in sexuality, gender, ethnicity etc). There is strong evidence available to show that studying the humanities is a socially transformative endeavour (for example, the Clemente program). But like all “individual” initiatives, there is a danger that the reasoning used to justify them will fall foul of compositional fallacies. We have to defend the humanities to enrich individuals. But we also have to use that empowerment to challenge the elites on the macroeconomics battleground. The two motivations are self-reinforcing. The former is not a sufficient condition for social transformation.

Yesterday, I indicated that I would comment on an article that was published in the Melbourne Age (December 3, 2012) – Dimming of the light on the hill – which documented the Federal government’s abandonment of any commitment to achieving full employment. The by-line of the article read that “(o)nce it was a political mantra for the Labor Party, but the goal of full employment has dwindled to a distant memory”. This article is one of the first I have seen in years that tackles this question. It is a topic that most regular readers will realise is one that I have spent most of my career promoting for discussion. My Phd is about it. Many of my published articles and books is about it in one way or another. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is about it. But the mainstream media avoids discussing it and, instead, accepts the line peddled by the government and its crony economists that a lie is the truth. That 12.5 per cent labour underutilisation rates are in some way consistent with full employment. Our grasp of history is poor in this nation and this article serves to remind us of what was once a truth. It also reminds us that the abandonment of full employment as a policy objective by our Federal government ranks up there with the other (many) national disgraces, including, for example, our treatment of indigenous Australians and our treatment of refugees. Why do we gain succour from (unnecessarily) treating the most disadvantaged among us so poorly?

Australia is in the grip of a group of mining oligarchs, who are spending enormous amounts of monety to shape the economic debate to suit their own very narrow interests. They are opposed to the mining tax (a resource rent tax) and have in the past denied the state (on behalf of all of us) owns the resources that they plunder for private profit. They have also sponsored national tours of leading climate-change deniers (such as Lord Monckton) who are known to trade on distortions of the truth. Overall, there personal resources guarantee them access to the daily media and they use it relentlessly. They also write books which get national coverage and have a record of suing peope who criticise their views. The result is that there is very little critical scrutiny of the propositions they advance to justify their claims. Some of the propositions are pure fantasy yet they have gained traction with the public who have been too easily duped by the promotional onslaught. Here is a little sojourn into the fantasy world on one such oligarch.

In his – Introductory Statement – at the Press Conference last week (November 8, 2012) announcing the decision of the ECB Governing Council, ECB Boss Mario Draghi provided us with all the evidence we need that the conduct of macroeconomic policy is being based on false premises, which makes it unsurprising that the world economy is enduring slow to negative growth and millions are unemployed. The ECB decision was to keep interest rates unchanged. But that isn’t the point of this blog. We all look to monetary policy to solve the crisis when it is ill-equipped to do so. The reliance on monetary policy and the hostility towards fiscal policy is all part of the same ideological baggage that caused the crisis in the first place. Dr Draghi’s promise that the ECB would buy unlimited quantities of government bonds was held out as part of the solution but in fact only confines the central bank to maintaining solvency, which is intrinsic to any currency-issuing government anyway. But the main Eurozone problem is a lack of aggregate demand. The ECBs action do nothing to resolve that problem. Similarly, the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan and all the rest of the central banks do not have the tools to ensure that the main problem is addressed. The crisis has confirmed that yet so deep has been the indoctrination that we (the collective) still hang on to the idea that fiscal policy is bad and monetary policy has to carry the counter-cyclical weight. The fact is that it cannot.

Yesterday, the Australian Prime Minister launched the latest Federal Government statement, the – Australia in the Asian Century White Paper. The White Paper is full of jargon and superficial tags – such as “Australia’s 2025 aspiration”. While I am not critical of shorthand statements to capture a policy aim, when the substance that lies below the tag is either missing or based on false premises, then the hollowness of the policy statement is revealed. Such is the case in this document. It is littered with neo-liberalism and like previous statements, such as, “by 1990 no Australian child will be living in poverty”, which was made by a previous Australian Prime Minister in 1987 – to his regret ((Source). The pledge was not only impossible to achieve given the scale of the problem faced and the time before the pledge was due but the explicit embrace of neo-liberalism by that government also rendered the goal impossible. Poverty rates and inequality have increased since then as successive governments – Labor and conservative – have abandoned the government responsibility to achieve the related goals of full employment, equity in income distribution and broad social inclusion in economic outcomes. Yesterday’s White Paper release just continues that trend.

There was an article in this morning’s Melbourne Age (September 26, 2012) by former Australian Federal Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner, which talked about the structural decline of social democratic parties around the world. Recently I was in the Netherlands for the Dutch national election and the Labor Party could not gain office and is likely to go into coalition with the Conservatives (what?) – the common bond – their support for the Euro and fiscal austerity. What set of circumstances would see what should be polar opposite political forces in coalition? And then there are the LDP and the Tories in the UK. And the debate in the US is not about a deficit versus a surplus but how quickly to get into surplus. The same goes in Australia. The policy debate is marked by claims from both major parties that they will generate bigger budget surpluses quicker than their opponents. The social democratic political tradition is fading because the parties have become indistinguishable from the conservatives in economic policy. They are all neo-liberals now and that is an ugly option for those with a progressive bent who have traditionally supported the social democratic parties.