In recent days there has been some discussion about the way different Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) thinkers might see the development of the paradigm. There has be some remarks that MMT should be explained in little steps and only then presented as a menu of policy choices so that all ideological persuasions might embrace it. There have also been statements that my US-based colleagues have agreed to that strategy and are now discounting any advocacy of full employment because the US population en masse (allegedly) find such notions repugnant. I disagree with all of those propositions. I consider that a sovereign government, which is not revenue-constrained because it issues the currency, has a responsibility for seeing that the workforce is fully employed. If they don’t take that responsibility and use the fiscal capacities that they have courtesy of their sovereignty, then there will typically be mass unemployment. An understanding of MMT makes that clear. The discussion also has raised questions about the purpose of my blog and I reflect on that in what follows.

It is now 2.15 am in Boston on a Thursday morning (16:15 Thursday afternoon in Australia East Coast). I always try to stay on Australian time when I make these short trips. It is hard while you are away but easier to adjust back when you get home. No real jet lag. Yesterday (Wednesday) I gave a Teach-In on the concept of fiscal sustainability to an interesting group of participants ranging from those with an active role in the financial markets to those with more general business interests. The participants came from all around as far as I can gather – many from New York which is a fair hike for a single day workshop. The discussion that followed my presentation was very interesting and while the concerns reflected the usual issues – solvency, exchange rates, intergenerational issues – the standard of debate was civilised. I don’t know how many Warren and I convinced to probe deeper but I hope we planted some seeds of doubt in the minds of the audience that the mainstream macroeconomics position is wrong and therefore untenable. After the Teach-In I read the BIS Annual Report 2009/10 – which signalled to me that they are now firmly part of the problem that we face when dealing with the task outlining fiscally sustainable policy positions.

I read a 2006 research paper from the New York Federal Reserve today entitled – Why Is the U.S. Treasury Contemplating Becoming a Lender of Last Resort for Treasury Securities?. The article bears on the discussions recently here about the motive for issuing bonds and the likely consequences of not issuing them. It also brings back the memory of how the Australian government was duped by financial markets into continuing to issue debt even when they were running surpluses. That single act demonstrated beyond doubt that that public debt-issuance isn’t about funding net public spending. Rather, the continued issuance of public debt is a form of corporate welfare which makes the task of making profits through trading financial assets in private captial markets that much easier. Typically, it is the top-end-of-town who complain about welfare payments making the poor lazy. Well, the on-going issuance of public debt makes the private users of the same lazy because they do not have to create low risk products themselves. It is a total con job!

I have been trying to maintain a theme focusing on the absurdity of our economic systems and the way in which governments allow themselves to be held to ransom by a small group of largely unproductive financial traders and the associated institutions (credit rating agencies). I was reminded of this again today when I read a report on growing murders of trade union officials and the purging of working conditions in various countries as the economic crisis worsened. When you juxtapose this sort of news – about things that really matter – with the nonsensical antics of the financial markets in Europe you realise we have totally lost any notion of priority.

It is interesting how the big neo-liberal economic organisations like the IMF and the OECD are trying to re-assert their intellectual authority on the policy debate again after being unable to provide any meaningful insights into the cause of the global crisis or its immediate remedies. They were relatively quiet in the early days of the crisis and the IMF even issued an apology, albeit a conditional one. It is clear that the policies the OECD and the IMF have promoted over the last decades have not helped those in poorer nations solve poverty and have also maintained persistently high levels of labour underutilisation across most advanced economies. It is also clear that the economic policies these agencies have been promoting for years were instrumental in creating the conditions that ultimately led to the collapse in 2007. Now they are emerging, unashamed, and touting even more destructive policy frameworks.

When I saw the headline on this article – Time to plan for post-Keynesian era – in the Financial Times yesterday (June 7, 2010) I wondered which Keynesian era we were talking about. It was written by Jeffrey Sachs who is well-known for his anti-stimulus viewpoints. The upshot of his argument, however, is that he recommends deficit reduction strategies because the bond markets will get upset otherwise. At the same time he advocates medium-term investments in green technology and education which I support but which will not be consistent with deficit reductions.

Today I am writing about child cruelty. We would all react to child cruelty in the same way – it is repugnant and undermines the chances of the child maturing into a fully functional adult replete with capacities that promote self esteem and allow meaningful and enduring relationships. So what would we think of child cruelty when a high level government agency is engaged in it? What would we think of a government that was poisoning the minds of the young? Many Americans write to me accusing me of being a communist sympathiser and claiming that freedom was subjugated under those regimes via brutal indoctrination mechanisms embedded in their societal infrastructure. Maybe it was. But the Americans don’t actually have to look very far nor resort to history to find regimes that use indoctrination to oppress their citizens’ free spirits, including the intellectual development of their children. On Thursday, June 3, the Director of the US Congressional Budget Office wrote his Letter to a Seventh Grader. It contains pure indoctrination designed to develop fears about budget deficits at an early age.

I have been writing a fiction novel lately in my spare time (which is when I don’t sleep)! It is about the usual themes – individual struggle, tragedy and perhaps realisation. I haven’t yet conceived how it is going to end yet but it will either be very grim or full of splendour. Black and White I am! The interesting part of the exercise is trying to define one’s style separately from one’s academic style. I read a biography of Jack Kerouac recently and it talked about how he obsessed about trying to develop a unique style but kept falling back to be like one or another of the great authors of the day. It was only once he typed a lot that he started to find his own distinct identity as a writer. For me, the blog helps develop alternative ways of writing outside the terse cloistered world of technical economics. Anyway, I didn’t write much fiction today (yet) but I sure did read a lot of it.

I have returned from the US after participating at the Fiscal Sustainability Teach-In and Counter Conference held in Washington D.C. last week. It was a good event and has stimulated a host of follow-up blogs from the activists who promoted the event. On the way home, I read the most recent report from Citi Group (who were saved from bankruptcy by public funds – they were among the first to have their hands out) which is predicting major sovereign defaults. It was clear that Citi Group was advocating very harsh fiscal austerity measures. How often have you heard the statement that the current economic crisis is evidence that “we are living beyond our means” and that the policy austerity that has to be introduced to “pay back the debt” is an inevitable consequence of our proliflacy – both individual and national?

Australia is becoming caught up again by the rhetoric flowing from the minerals lobby that we are about to enter the “mother of all mining booms”. Almost every day now, the politicians, business spokespersons and the media are beating up this story. The minerals lobby has achieved spectucular success over the years in inflating its importance such that people genuinely believe our prosperity comes from this sector. Somehow we believe that this sector is our vehicle to Shangri La. Corresponding to all this hype is a growing push for significant cuts in public spending to “make room” for the mining boom. The debate is interesting because, like the intergenerational (ageing population) debate, it demonstrates how erroneous understandings about the monetary system and the role of the government within it lead to spurious conclusions. And all the while – labour underutilisation rates remain high.

Today I am writing about the sectoral balances which are derived from the national accounts. A recent article in the Financial Times uses these balances to demonstrate that attempts to reduce the UK public deficit can only be successfully achieved by engineering growth in non-government spending. That is an insight that is core to Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) but typically escapes the understanding of most commentators. The article is interesting because it shows how the sectoral balances – which are accounting statements and thus true by definition – can be interpreted in different ways and influence different policy strategies. But the fundamental understanding you gain from knowledge of these balances is that at present public deficits are here to stay … and if you don’t like them … you better get used to it!