I have been following the Occupy Wall Street developments with interest because ultimately I consider the only reasonable way entrenched elites become unseated is if there is mass action by citizens. I do not think military coups are a very sound way to lay the groundwork for grassroots democracy. I also like the idea of a “leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions” although politics doesn’t take long to creep in and steer movements like these in particular ways. In the last day or so I have become aware that there is some notion among the “occupiers” that the evil they are opposing is fiat currency rather than corporate power particularly that of the financial monoliths. While power does lie in the monetary system the only way of ensuring that this power is democratised is if the currency-issuing entity is freely elected and accountable to us. That is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the advancement of economic development. My input to the OWS movement is by understanding Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) we can appreciate how governments are necessary for the development process and that we have to concentrate on making the fiat currency system work for us and prevent it from being hi-jacked by the so-called 1 per cent.

Last night, I was listening to the ABC Current Affairs program PM and they were running a segment – ‘Occupy Wall Street’ protest growing and they were interviewing American journalist Jeff Madrick. At one point in the interview he said: “I hope the American establishment has the courage to ask one fundamental question; what is Wall Street for? What are they supposed to do?” The answer to those questions are in order: not much that is worth anything; and not what it was created to do.

George Osborne, Britain’s vandalising exchequer gave his Conservative Party Conference speech yesterday in Manchester. The Transcript is courtesy of the New Statesman. Like everyone I scanned the speech for signs that the British Government was prepared to suspend its ideological arrogance for the sake of the economy, which the people had entrusted them to revive. No such luck. Instead the nation was presented with a self-satisfied denial of the basic problem that is sending the British economy into reverse gear after showing some signs of recovery about the time the national government changed hands. The problem for Britain is that the Government has outlined the wrong problem and proposed the wrong solution.

On Monday, September 26, 2011 the British Shadow Chancellor gave a speech (his first major speech in that role) to the Labour Party Conference in Liverpool. The Full Transcript of the Speech is courtesy of the New Statesman. Balls ended his speech by saying “There is a better way” and I agree – the current macroeconomic policy settings in the UK are destructive and will be regretted. The problem is that Balls’ path to prosperity is not that better way which means the British people are in the same boat as a lot of electorates – caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. Playing Ball is not a better way.

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.