I was talking about economics at lunch-time today (as you do) and my company was irate about a TV interview that aired last night on the national public broadcaster (the ABC). The source of the angst was the increasing tendency of interviews on the ABC (and other media outlets) to express ill-informed opinions that serve to bias the interview and reinforce the dominant neo-liberal ideology. Such behaviour conditions the public to accept highly contestable propositions as fact, constructions of which, then defines the “solutions” and leave off the discussion table alternative scenarios and propositions that, in fact, represent the responsible policy options given the circumstances. This bias is part of a more general syndrome that defines the neo-liberal era, which is the equivalent of denying gravity. We are now fed a string of statements that parade as authoritative commentary or evidence that are, in fact, total fabrications and deny basis relationships that are at the heart of our monetary systems. This denial of “gravity” has become an art form and is used to bully us into accepting outcomes that advance the interests of the elites and undermine broader social welfare. It is a most extraordinary conflation of values and lies.

This is Part 3 (and the final part) of my mini-series of blogs – “Learning Standards in Economics”. In this blog I consider the way in which learning standards have evolved in the United Kingdom. I propose that they privilege the curriculum development in favour of a monistic approach – which biases programs to advance the competiive, neo-classical model as the way the real world operates. These standards deter universities from offering pluralistic approaches to economics that promote its broad social science qualities. The narrow monist approach, of-course, serves to reinforce the neo-liberal dominance in economic policy making. Such an approach has been one of the principle reasons the world is mired in financial and economic crisis and doesn’t appear to be able to find a way out. The policy framework being imposed by governments is closing the door to growth and increasing unemployment and poverty rates. It is based on the mainstream textbook models that dominate economics education. I hope the Australian exercise in developing so-called “learning standards in economics” will reject the neo-classical textbook monistic approach and come out in favour of a radical rethink of the way economics is taught in Australian universities. However, given the real politic that surrounds these exercises and the bodies that are key players in the development of the standards I won’t be holding my breath on that one.

Today is Part 2 of my little mini-series on “Learning standards in economics”. It might appear to be a break in continuity from yesterday’s blog but when I get around to Part 3, I think you will see the way in which today’s discussion fits well. Last month (January 24, 2013), the Peter Peterson Foundation – which is just a propaganda front for people with too much money and influence designed to advance spurious ideas about the economy – released a statement – College Students Launch Campaigns Across the Country to Activate a New Generation on the Nation’s Fiscal Challenges. When I delved into what it was about the story became very mirky indeed. Teams of students are being assembled under the banner of what we might call the “we are self-important and want to show it” banner and being coaxed into action The essential part of education – the search for knowledge – is the missing part. The myth that the US government is going broke is the starting point not the enquiry.

The Australian government is demonstrating to all of us that they are mishandling fiscal policy. The background is simple. Australia saw its growth vanish and unemployment start rising in December 2008 as the financial crisis spread into the real economy. The government responded, mostly correctly, and introduced a swift and significant fiscal stimulus. The economy resumed growth, the rise in unemployment was pegged (although there wasn’t enough done to generate sufficient jobs growth), and the budget deficit rose. Before the private sector had demonstrated it could take up the spending slack and support the growth process, the Federal government became obsessed with “returning the budget to surplus”, erroneously thinking that this would separate them, politically, from the Opposition. They were wrong. The imposition of fiscal austerity has caused economic growth to slow and tax revenue growth to fall well below projections (declining world commodity prices have also not helped). First, the government abandoned their surplus promise realising that the revenue side was not going to improve sufficiently. Now, they are implying they need to hike income taxes to cover the “revenue shortfall”. If they ever had any credibility as responsible fiscal managers then it is safe to conclude they have none now. Their continued claims about maintaining a “strict fiscal policy” (read: procyclical fiscal stance) are not only moronic but they are also leading to policies which are killing growth and employment.

I have spent almost the entire time I have been in academic life – from the time I was a fourth-year student, onto Masters, then PhD and subsequently as an teaching and research academic – studying, writing, publishing, and teaching about the Phillips curve and the link between labour markets and inflation. I have published many articles on how full employment was abandoned and how it can be restored taking care to consider how an economy that approaches high pressure might cope with the increasing nominal demands on real output. I have advanced various policy options to resolve the problem of incompatible nominal demands on such output and provided the pro and con of each. I have published some very detailed papers on those questions and my recent book – Full Employment abandoned – went into all the tedious detail of how inflation occurs and what can be done about it. But, apparently, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) ignores “the dilemmas posed by Phillips curve analysis” as one of its many alleged sins. I wonder what the hell I have been writing all these years