It seems my attempt to escape the Lands of Austerity last week unscathed was a pipe dream. I have been slowed over the last days by a European flu of some sort. So I have less energy than usual which doesn’t tell you very much but might explain why I might write less today than on other days. I am also behind in my reading. But I did read a little over the weekend, especially the documents and statements pertaining to the IMF annual meetings, which had the effect of worsening my condition. I also dug out an old 1933 document which helped restore my equanimity. It allows us to frame today’s leadership failure in history.

When the Liberal Democrats went into coalition with the British Tories I was surprised how readily and brazenly their leadership was prepared to compromise the underlying principles of the party for power. While the Party Constitution claims they stand for – “a fair, free and open society” balancing “the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity” and “that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives” it is clear that they have become partners in a policy regime that is the anathema of those ideals. By entering the coalition they have allowed a pernicious regime to be inflicted on the British people – one which is driving unemployment up and incomes down. The Liberal Democrats are having their Annual Conference this weekend in Birmingham and it is clear if the utterances of some of their members are anything to go by that the Party is struggling with their identity. The Deputy Leader for example said (September 17, 2011) that the job of the Liberal Democrats was “to rein in the ruthless Tories”. The reality is that it is the government that is ruthless and the Liberal Democrats are part of that government and give it the air it needs. I was unfortunate to listen to a BBC interview today with Liberal Democrats leader Nick Clegg and it left me with the impression that there is little to distinguish the coalition partners on the main economic issues. Both parties are infested with neo-liberalism and both fail to understand basic macroeconomics – that spending creates income.

Everywhere I look I find examples of politicians and leading lights making macroeconomic statements without understanding macroeconomics. Given that these statements have policy implications that impact on real people making such erroneous statements – no matter how well-intentioned one is – is a dangerous thing that we should avoid. Imagine if I suddenly started to make claims about the strength of bridges such that they would fall down if my advice was taken. There would be a law against that. One notable economist apparently thinks that macroeconomics is not “regular economics” – but rather some far-fetched misplaced set of ideas that would be better forgotten. My view is different. A correctly specified macroeconomics provides a safeguard against falling into logical traps – such as the fallacy of composition. The so-called “regular economics” is a fantasy world where the angels on the pinheads are assumed away into one representative angel who knows all and never makes a mistake (on average). If you want to understand how mass unemployment arises and how it is solved then the mainstream version of “regular economics” will leave you in the dark.

Many people have drawn to my attention in recent weeks the evolution of the Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) Wikipedia entry and raised concern about the criticisms that are now on that site. I thought I better go and read the entry. I certainly have not added material to the site. Having said that I am happy that there is a page available. It seems that the criticisms cited are sourced to blogs by an Austrian Schooler, a graduate student blogger, and Brad DeLong. There does not appear to be an sound academic citation. The critics actually admit to basing their views on a cursory reading of the MMT literature and then only on the blogs that are out there now (including this one). The major claim is that MMT is just an accounting tautology. That just means they have read the first of hundreds of pages of MMT and then probably haven’t really grasped its significance. MMT is in fact an accounting-consistent, operationally-sound theoretical approach to understanding the way fiat monetary systems work and how policy changes are likely to play out.

Paul Krugman (August 20, 2011) was bemoaning the loss of intellectual values in the current debate when he referred to this Wall Street Journal article (August 19, 2011) – Why Americans Hate Economics. On face value I concluded that the WSJ had stumbled onto something – that the mainstream economics profession was not worth its salt. I was wrong though. The WSJ author was making a case that we should return to the economics that dominated the world prior to the Great Depression. The problem is that it is this way of thinking that represents the dominant paradigm today. It is the paradigm which has caused all the problems. It is this mainstream paradigm that people hate. The WSJ author is very confused. But then Paul Krugman’s response is hardly meritorious. So this is why the World hates economics – by which we mean mainstream New Keynesian macroeconomics.

Textbooks get out of date and need revision in the light of recent data or events. Some textbooks are exposed as being just plain wrong and should be re-written completely. Obviously authors in the latter category are reluctant to admit that their textbook is not an adequate description of the way – for example, the economy works – and so they not only resist updating their offering but they also defend it against all the evidence. Anyway, after reading Paul Krugman’s most recent attempt to come to grips with Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) I concluded that it was way past the date that he should be rewriting his macroeconomics textbook. Otherwise he is misleading the students who are forced to use it in their studies. So Paul, its time to update your textbook.

I did some research today on the outstanding US public debt – not because I think it is particularly important but because a journalist asked me yesterday during an interview – how much of the total US Treasury Debt is held by the US government – I said off the top of my head about 42 per cent which was a quick calculation based on work I did about 12 months ago and a rapid adding up off what I remembered from the monthly reports since then with a quick division thrown in. It turns out after I have updated the databases I keep that my “guesstimate” was not misleading (as at March 2011). The journalist then said – “so lets get this straight, the US government owes itself money equivalent to 42 per cent of its total outstanding liabilities?” Answer: yes. He then responded: “to fix the debt problem why wouldn’t they just write it off?”. Answer: I don’t see a US public debt problem. But because you do, then the answer is that for the most part they could just write it off as long as their were some additional legislative changes (for example, they would have to finance the operations of the US Federal Reserve in a different manner). So who owns the US debt?

In the last few days I have read more misinformation and downright lies from financial and economic commentators in the media than I have for the last year. The decision by the irrelevant S&P to get some attention for their corporate profit-making activities by downgrading US government debt has sparked a frenzy of nonsensical “analysis” which is as ridiculous as was the S&P decision. The fact is that the S&P decision is irrelevant as long as the US government makes it so. The danger is that the Government will think there is something to be addressed and the US economy will suffer as a result. As long as the US government realises who calls the shots the S&P decision will be irrelevant.