On September 7, 2013, the federal election in Australia saw the incumbent Labor Party deposed in fairly categorical terms and replaced by the “born-to-rule” conservative coalition (Liberal and Nationals). The Labor Party had been in power for two terms since 2007 after defeating the conservatives even more categorically, who had, in turn, been in power for 11 years. The Labor Party stormed to office in the 2007 federal election, taking 22 seats of coalition (and a further 1 from an independent) to hold 83 seats (primary vote 43.38 per cent, and two-party preferred 52.70 per cent). The conservative coalition was reduced to 65 seats (in the 150 seat lower house). The conservative Prime Minister lost his own seat so great was the rout. Between 2007 and 2013, the Australian Labor Party squandered that lead and in the process we had three Prime Ministers (2 different) as the Party factions conducted an internecene war. After last Saturday’s defeat, one of the Labor Prime Ministers (who had been deposed in June 2013 as a result of her total failure to win electoral appeal) wrote her assessment of the state of Labor as a result of the electoral defeat. The article – Julia Gillard writes on power, purpose and Labor’s future – is an extraordinary exercise in self-denial, despite much of it providing an assessment that I would agree with. But in the big issue – of economic credibility, Ms Gillard demonstrates why her Party was unfit to govern and why the conservatives are back in power and beginning yet another period where the rights and outcomes of workers will be attacked and dragged down. But this has only happened because of the monumental failure of the Labor Party to present a progressive alternative at a time when they had the Australian voters eating out of their hands.

There was an interesting article in the Washington Post over the weekend (September 7, 2013) – Why Keynes wouldn’t have too rosy a view of our economic future – written by – Mike Konczal. It broaches the topic of self-adjustment in capitalist monetary economies and the divide within the economics profession with respect to that topic. It also introduces the issue that the long-run trajectory of the economy is dependent on the short-run path taken (the so-called hysteresis hypothesis), which is largely ignored by those who advocated fiscal austerity. What is typically denied is that the costs of fiscal austerity are more than a temporary increase in unemployment and lost income. The intergenerational consequences and the impact on the capacity of the economy are likely to be massive.

Australia is in the final stages of a federal election campaign and it is likely that the conservatives will be returned to power after being out of office for eight years. The current government, allegedly non-conservative, is so close in most respects to the conservatives that it is hard to distinguish between the two. One significant point of difference over the last several years relates to the effectiveness of the fiscal stimulus that the current government introduced in late 2008 to attenuate the consequences of the global financial crisis. The conservative opposition claimed they would not have allowed the budget to move back into deficit during this period. Given the scale of the crisis, they would have had no choice anyone because the cyclical impacts via lost tax revenue would have been sufficient to drive the budget into deficit irrespective of the discretionary stimulus packages that were introduced in stages by the current government. Both major parties are obsessed with pursuing budget surpluses without the slightest recognition that in current circumstances such a policy orientation is destructive to growth and employment. I was examining some data relating to the construction industry today for another project, which demonstrates why the introduction of the 2008-09 fiscal stimulus packages were extremely effective in reducing the output and employment losses that might otherwise have occurred. The future under a surplus-obsessed conservative government for workers looks rather bleak. Here is some evidence.

There were two interesting articles I read (among others) in recent days that attack mainstream economic analysis in different ways. The first, published August 18, 2013 – Removing deadweight loss from economic discourse on income taxation and public spending – is by Northwestern Economics Professor Charles F. Manski. He wants our profession to dump all its negative welfare analysis about the impacts of taxation (as “deadweight losses”) and, instead, focus on the benefits that come from government spending, in particular, highly productive infrastructure provision. So, an attack from the inside! The second article was a Bloomberg Op Ed (August 21, 2013) – Economists Need to Admit When They’re Wrong – by the theoretical physicist, Mark Buchanan, who has taken a set against my profession in recent years. Not without justification and with some panache, one should add. They both add up to the same conclusion – mainstream economics is defunct and we should decommission teaching programs throughout the world and introduce new progressive approaches to the discipline that will produce a new bread of useful Phd graduates, rather than the moribund graduate classes that get rubber-stamped out of our higher education institutions, ad nauseum, at present.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics released the – Household Wealth and Wealth Distribution, Australia, 2011-12 – today, which is drawn from the bi-annual Survey of Income and Housing (SIH),first published in for 2003-04. My interest is in how the distributions changed during the period of the crisis and the fiscal stimulus. We are currently working on an update to our – Employment Vulnerability Index – which we hope to release sometime next week. The preliminary results suggest that the fiscal stimulus significantly reduced the risk of job loss in the period after the crisis. But more on that when we have analysed our results more carefully. Today’s data shows that wealth inequality is rising slowly in Australia but will accelerate if the proposals to further demolish the income support system and increase tax breaks for the wealthy are introduced after the next election.

Japanese economist Richard Koo recently (July 9, 2013) published his latest report on the world economy – Japan, US, and Europe face different issues – which updates some of the latest data available from the economies listed in the title. I am sorry that I cannot link to the Report as it is a subscription service (thanks to Antoine for my copy). I discussed some of Richard Koo’s ideas and how they sat with Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) concepts in this 2009 blog – Balance sheet recessions and democracy. While the basic concept of a balance sheet recession is important to grasp and the policy prescriptions that flow from it clearly point to the need for more fiscal stimulus, once you dig a little deeper into Koo’s conceptual framework you realise that he is very mainstream – more insightful than the average mainstream economist, who typically fails to even grasp the reality of the current situation, but mainstream nonetheless. And that means there are some things in his theoretical framework that are plain wrong when applied to a modern monetary economy

I wrote about the way the recent neo-liberal narrative in the UK, that constructs the unemployed as gaming the income support system and about how they need to be weeded out by harsher activity tests etc, is a theme Australians will be familiar with in this blog – The victims become the perpetrators – the neo-liberal smokescreen. The discussion touched on the way we abstract from the human suffering that accompanies mass unemployment and how the dominant paradigm seeks to construct the unemployed as an “Other” different to ourselves and accountable for their own state. Unemployment is not seen as a violent act deliberately perpetrated by us (through the agency we give our governments – the “mandate”) but rather as a chosen outcome, a rational end of an informed choice. Perhaps not one we would take ourselves but rational nonetheless and therefore of no further concern. I have been reading some relatively oblique philosophical literature lately centred on conceptions of ethics and the way historical temporality forces us to take a moral perspective whether we like it or not – that is, denial of past action is a particular moral perspective. It bears on some work I am doing in remote Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory at the moment as well as broader debates that exist in society. Here are some notes and thoughts that arise from this sort of reading and reflection.

Australia is in the midst of a federal election campaign (the election is September 7, 2013), which while short by, say US standards, is no less asinine. The sophistication of economic commentary from both sides of politics is non-existent even though every day there is a mountain of such commentary. It is a very trying period and I have been trying to avoid engaging with it as much as possible bar the almost daily press interviews about the latest announcement of release. Here are a few examples of what a sane economist like me has to put up with. The problem, of-course, is not that my sensibilities are being upset. Precious me! The real problem is that the public are continually being confronted by economics editors, professors and others who provide misleading and/or incorrect economic analysis, which distorts the way in which peope (who vote) think and act. We are really in flat earth territory at the moment and the future generations will not think of us very kindly for both our ignorance and the damage we leave for them.