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.

I guess I had to write something about the “compromise” aka cave-in yesterday in the US capital. You can only conclude that the US President wanted this agenda and needed a smokescreen (mad Republicans) to put it in place. There is a lot of evidence that Obama wanted to attack pension and medical entitlements. Now he can. Not for long though – he is a one-term president in the making. When you put all the elements together sometimes compromise is the worst thing.

I would have thought the role of a Professor of Journalism at a university would be to teach students how to write copy and to research issues in the field of journalism. I would not assume that such a person would claim expertise in macroeconomics and start pontificating about national economic policy. But I was wrong – again. In this article (July 31, 2011) – American dream comes with a heavy cost – which was published in the Melbourne Age (but previously the UK Guardian) one Rosalind Coward proves how little she knows about economics. Contrary to the sway of media opinion from these “tin pot” experts – there is no federal public debt problem in the US.

The Sydney Morning Herald disgraced itself today (July 28, 2011) with two very poor articles about the current debt debate in the US. The ratio of articles on the “conservative-do-not-know-what-the-economics-is-about” side of the debate to the alternative is infinite. There is no progressive commentary at all. Two articles today – Clever money haunts the US and Drowning in red ink – reveal how easy it is to call yourself an expert and get people to listen to you. They are full of misrepresentations, misunderstandings and plain factual errors.

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.

There are several different strands of mainstream economic thinking and these differences manifest in the way they think about monetary and fiscal policy. The extreme mainstream position is that fiscal policy is ineffective because it 100 per cent crowds out private spending. The only role for aggregate policy then is to allow an independent (politically speaking) central bank to adjust interest rates up and down to regulate inflation (via expectations). There isn’t much for economists to do if that view was accurate. Then there are mainstreamers who think that budget deficits are generally damaging to private spending because they drive up allegedly drive up interest rates and crowd out private spending, the latter which, is considered to be more efficient because it is backed by the so-called wisdom of the “market”. So generally monetary policy should be used to stabilise aggregate demand such that inflation is stable. However, this group of economists find some time for budget deficits when there is a “liquidity trap”. From the perspective of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) – whether there is a liquidity trap or not is irrelevant.

I am travelling today and so have to steal time to write this blog between other commitments. Later this week I am presenting a paper at a workshop on stock-flow consistent macroeconomics and I was thinking over the weekend just gone what I would do with the time I have for the presentation (1 hour). I started putting together a database of IMF forecasts out to 2016 for various nations and simulating the implications for the sectoral balances. Then I thought I would discuss the internal inconsistencies of those forecasts from a stock-flow perspective and the implications of those inconsistencies. I will write a blog later in the week on that once I have finalised the presentation. But the preliminary thinking led to today’s blog. In policy you have to wish for the possible.

I have been travelling the last few days and while sitting at the airport on my way home I have been catching up on all the snippets of text and links I accumulate each day. While the current generations are living through the “digital revolution” we should not forget that 50 odd years ago humans went to the Moon – which at the time was an ingenious demonstration of our capacity for technological marvel. The motives for this feat which were tied up in the Cold War paranoia were clearly suspect but I recall at the time as a young high school student, as all the classrooms were mustered in a TV viewing room to watch the landing, that we are a clever lot. I no longer think that.