Despite my constant utterances about short or relatively short blogs, today will truly be a short blog although I am aware that that descriptor is at all times relative. Is a short blog a few lines (which then raised the question of what is a Tweet) or a few paragraphs or what? Anyway, here are some thoughts that came out while I have been reading today.

Last week marked a turning point in Australian politics when the Australian government finally admitted that they had made a monumental political misjudgement by promising to deliver a budget surplus in the next fiscal year despite an economy that was not capable of generating sufficient revenue to render that promise realistic, much less, economically responsible. They didn’t actually admit all of that but that is what has happened in the last week. The Government has abandoned its promise to deliver a budget surplus in the coming fiscal year as tax revenue collapses around them. The reasons for that collapse relate to the slowing Australian economy, due in no small measure to the fiscal contraction already forced on the expenditure system. There was never a need for that fiscal contraction and it was obvious that the Government would fail to achieve its promised surplus. That was obvious. But the problem was that in trying to pursue the surplus they have undermined our prosperity and caused labour underutilisation rates to rise with the commensurate lost national income. They are now being pilloried on the political front for breaking their promise. The fact they made that promise suggests their political acumen is as bad as their economic management.

I was looking back through snippets I save (like a magpie) today and remembered that I hadn’t written anything in response to this Financial Times article (October 12, 2012) – UK needs to talk about helicopters – which demonstrates that a good argument can be housed in a faulty analytical structure. The reference to helicopters comes from Milton Friedman and is popularly known as “printing money” and dropping it on the populace from high. The practice – is described as the ultimate heresy for central bankers. From an Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) perspective, there is clearly no need for a sovereign government to issue debt to the private sector. Given the political issues relating to debt buildup, it would be preferable if governments moved away from that practice altogether. Whatever accounting arrangements they put in place with the central bank to ensure that its spending desires were reflected in appropriate credits going into the banking system are largely irrelevant. The inflation risk is in the spending not the monetary operations that might accompany it.

Today (December 19, 2012), the economics editor for the Sydney Morning Herald (Ross Gittins) wrote an Op Ed piece – It’s the weak recovery that worries, not surplus – which urged his readers to reorient their thinking about the Federal government’s obsession with achieving a budget surplus in the coming year. In that sense, it was welcome article from an influential journalist. But closer reading demonstrates that the writer is straddling the line between comprehension and myth-perpetuation. Many readers have asked me to pin-point the strengths and weaknesses of the article for their own edification. So lets proceed. The key point is that the budgets of currency-issuing national governments bear no relation to household budgets. If we do not jettison that myth then very little progress can be made on the more complex parts of the narrative that leads to the conclusion that such a government can never run out of money and all the negative consequences that are alleged to necessarily follow the use of budget deficits (higher interest rates, inflation, eventual insolvency) are lies, which aim to perpetuate a dominant paradigm rather than advance the welfare of all of us.

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.

Last week (December 10, 2012), the Bank of International Settlements released a working paper – The financial cycle and macroeconomics: What have we learnt? – which not only recognised that the accepted mainstream macroeconomic theory is critically deficient but also implied that the response to that failure in the context of the global financial crisis is not likely to be satisfactory. Faced with a major credibility crisis at the onset of the GFC, there has been a mad rush by mainstream economists to add financial sector to their models. It might surprise you that the major models used to teach students and motivate research in macroeconomics didn’t even have financial sectors included, among other glaring deficiencies. Now there is a flurry of work to address that deficiency. The problem is that all this effort, which will produce countless papers at academic conferences, will not address the fundamental issue – the mainstream macroeconomics framework is rotten to the core. The BIS paper provides some insights into that issue. When it comes down to the fundamental question: What have we learn’t? If the we is referring to the dominant body of macroeconomists that teach in universities, publish research in the journals and occupy key positions in policy-making bureaucracies, then the answer is simple: Nothing! (thanks Roger). But we have also learn’t that Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) has demonstrated itself to be a credible framework.

Last week the former RBA governor, Bernie Fraser said that Australia was suffering from the “stupidity of government” by pursuing a budget surplus in present circumstances. He described our fiscal policy approach as being “just plain dumb”. It seems that the politicians are reflecting the standards that are now apparent in our educational system. The nation was shocked today with the news that we are not as smart as we like to make out. This Sydney Morning Herald story (December 12, 2012) – Australia’s disaster in education – is representative of many articles and discussions across today’s media offerings. The reports said that our children achieved “disastrous results in the latest international reading, maths and science tests”. The shock that the nation is experiencing is large today, about as large as the collective indifference to the damage that two decades or more of poor fiscal policy practice has been. We have allowed our governments to run down public infrastructure in pursuit of budget surpluses. We have let them deliberately reduce the capacity of our schooling system so that we can no longer keep pace with international standards. We have believed that this strategy exemplified responsible fiscal policy. It just shows how dumb our society has become. It also reveals, once again, the failure of the neo-liberal policy regime that dominates.

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?

When recessions become prolonged and long-term unemployment rises, the conservative denial machinery always scapegoats the most disadvantaged by recommending cuts to welfare to make people more desperate. This is dressed up in terms that attempt to make this sort of policy sound reasonable – like we should all be adventurous and entrepreneurial. The facts are that mass unemployment represents a macroeconomic failure that can be addressed by expansionary fiscal and/or monetary policy. It has nothing to do with the provision of the miserly amounts that are given to the unemployed via income support arrangements. Cutting those benefits will not cure involuntary unemployment. In all likelihood, cutting benefits will make the aggregate demand shortfall that caused the unemployment to worsen. The result is that the cuts will only make the lives of the unemployed more desperate than they already are. It is time that the conservatives learned about macroeconomic constraints.