The ABC News today reported that – Newcastle hosts frisbee championships – which means the national frisbee championships will be in my town this week and I will be around. Apparently the championships involve “flinging a frisbee between players on a pitch similar to a football or soccer field” and then “catching the disc in the endzone”. I suggest the Australian Prime Minister take up the sport. It seems an innocuous pastime and she surely couldn’t be any less skilled at it than she is at managing the economy. Her speech yesterday in Perth certainly established she has no understanding of macroeconomics or if she does, then she is deliberately misleading us. Her Finance Minister was also fully engaged in the misinformation exercise about the state of the budget. But then she is in solid company. The German Bundesbank has made public statements telling nations crippled by self-imposed fiscal austerity to forget about growth and balance their budgets. The ugly German stereotype is unfortunately reinforced by these sort of public interventions. And, finally, we have the genius who yesterday was advocating widespread cuts in welfare entitlements today out in the Op Ed pages suggesting that countries who exert their sovereign rights over multinationals are committing suicide despite the particular country in focus having real GDP growth rates that most other nations envy. Its all in a day of neo-liberal madness.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) released the latest – Building Activity data today (April 18, 2012) which shows that in the December 2011 quarter real activity continued to contract. This is the most recent data release that reinforces the conclusion that the Australian economy is starting to slow down and is now well below the pre-crisis trend growth rates of somewhere between 3 and 3.5 per cent. Within this environment we would expect the federal government as the currency-issuer to be showing leadership and providing fiscal stimulus to support higher growth and allow the private sector to continue deleveraging given their excessive debt levels. The problem is that governments these days do not seem to know what good economics is. Our government thinks responsible fiscal management is to deliberately undermine spending growth (when inflation is falling) and push unemployment up. The only thing that we can say about that is that they are in good company. The governments that are imposing damaging fiscal austerity on their economies are in the same mindless club.

I have had very little time today (worse than usual). I gave a 3 hour lecture today on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and unemployment to a final-year class in the Social Work program at the University of Newcastle. It was interesting trying to work out how to explain all these concepts, which are intrinsically hard, to a group that has no background in economics. Just the language we use is not universal and so I spent quite a bit of time working out how to communicate. Anyway, the following blog is short as a consequence. But knowing I didn’t have much time, and the blog I am thinking about will require some more digging, I decided to take the chance today to write an Op Ed that was requested from a newspaper in Buenos Aires and which I am late in delivering. They only wanted 5,000 odd characters so it forced me to be disciplined. It is about fiscal austerity and will be translated into Spanish for their readers.

In yesterday’s blog – A nation cannot grow without spending – I challenged a view that dominates the European debate which says that fiscal austerity (choking discretionary net public spending) supplemented with vigorous so-called “structural reforms” (aka ransacking wages and working conditions) will promote growth. The corollary of this view is that fiscal austerity alone will fail and the reason Europe is going backwards is not because of the austerity but rather, because the structural reforms process has not been implemented quickly or deeply enough. In all of this there is a basic denial of the fundamental macroeconomic insight – spending equals output which equals income. An economy can only growth if there is spending (aggregate demand) growth. That requires a demand-side solution irrespective of the state of the supply side. Supply improvements might reduce the danger of inflation or improve the quality of output but people still have to purchase the output for growth and innovation to persist. A related argument is that fiscal stimulus aimed at fostering growth will cause inflation and be self-defeating. This view prevails in mainstream macroeconomics as taught in the universities of the world. Some mainstream economists do qualify this view and give conditional support to the fiscal stimulus solution by appealing to what they term the “liquidity trap”. This blog is about that argument.

On Saturday (March 24, 2012), the Sydney Morning Herald published an article by University of Chicago economist John Cochrane – Austerity or stimulus? What’s needed in the US is structural reform. Earlier, on Thursday (March 22, 2012), Bloomberg published an Op Ed by Cochrane – Austerity or Stimulus? What We Need Is Growth. Different title but same article. However, the title, in each case, conveys a very different message to the reader. In either case, though, the content is the problem. A nation cannot grow without spending.

On Wednesday, we learned that the real GDP growth rate had halved in the December 2011 quarter (to 0.4 per cent) and business investment had contracted. Next day, we learned that the Australian labour market has deteriorated with employment contracting, unemployment rising and since November 2010, 140 odd thousand workers have left the labour force, presumably because employment growth had stalled. We already know that 2011 was a jobless year. Today, the Australian Bureau of Statistics released their International Trade in Goods and Services for January 2012, which shows that our trade balance went from a $A1325 million surplus to a $A673 million deficit (a “turnaround of $1,998m”). Unless that changes in the coming months, the contribution to growth from net exports will be solidly negative. All of these events have reduced the tax revenue for the government. But the response of the Government, which is pursuing a budget surplus this year at all costs, is that they will now have to cut their spending harder. Last year, the Treasurer claimed the authority for this pursuit was none other than John Maynard Keynes. More recently, the British Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills claimed – Keynes would be on our side – in relation to the imposition of fiscal austerity. The reality is otherwise – Keynes would not support fiscal austerity under the current circumstances. The strategy is bereft of any credible authority and is being driven, variously, by politics and ideology.

I was at a social function last weekend and the conversation turned to economics – surprise surprise. I was the only professional economist in the group. I try very hard to avoid discussing economics in these circumstances because experience tells me that misunderstandings quickly occur as the “intuitive” or “common-sense” economists seek the floor. I would much rather talk about weeds growing than the sustainability of budget deficits in times like that. But, alas, someone said “but we’ve got a 50 million-dollar deficit who is going to pay for that?” Another member of the group, who is very articulate and fairly well-read in Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) but not a professional economist stepped in to save the day. She proceeded to explain how common sense is a dangerous guide to reality and that not all opinions should be given equal privilege in public discourse. The conversation deteriorated because the “deficit worrier” and others immediately personalised this observation and considered it to be a attack on their life’s experience. Notwithstanding the tenseness of the situation, it was an interesting demonstration of the flaws in logic that govern the way people think about economics and the way politicians exploit our (flawed) reliance on common sense. Our propensity to generalise from personal experience, as if the experience constitutes general knowledge, dominates the public debate.