It’s Wednesday and I am flat out finishing things today as I am off to Japan again to work once again at Kyoto University. I will keep you updated on the progress of that work and a public event that we are thinking about in November in Kyoto (or possibly Tokyo or both). For now a few thoughts on current political happenings and some administrative matters.
It’s Wednesday and I am mostly thinking about Japan today. In just over a week’s time, I will once again head to Japan to work at Kyoto University. I will be there for several weeks and will provide regular reports as I have in previous years of what is happening there. The LDP leadership struggle is certainly proving to be interesting and there is now a view emerging that the hoped for break out from the deflationary period has not happened and further fiscal expansion is necessary. This is at a time when the yen is appreciating and the authorities are worried it is making the external sector noncompetitive. That is, light years away from the predictions made by the ‘MMT is dead’ crowd when they saw the depreciating yen during 2022 and beyond. It just goes to show that trying to interpret the world from the ‘sound finance’ lens will generally lead to erroneous conclusions.
For some years now (since the pandemic), I have been receiving E-mails from those interested in the Eurozone telling me that the analysis I presented in my 2015 book – Eurozone Dystopia: Groupthink and Denial on a Grand Scale (published May 2015) – was redundant because the European Commission and the ECB had embraced and was committed to Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) so there was no longer a basis for a critique along the lines I presented. I keep seeing that claim repeated and apparently it is being championed by MMT economists. While there are some MMTers who seem to think the original architecture of the Economic and Monetary Union has been ‘changed’ in such a way that the original constraints on Member States no longer apply, I think they have missed the point. They point to the fact that the ECB continues to control bond yield spreads across the EU through its bond-buying programs (yes) and that the Commission/Council relaxed the fiscal rules during the Pandemic (yes). But the bond-buying programs come with conditionality and the authorities have now ended the ‘general escape clause’ of the Stability and Growth Pact and are once again enforcing the Excessive Deficit procedure and imposing austerity on several Member States. The temporary relaxation of the SGP rules (via the general emergency clause) did not amount to a ‘change’ in the fiscal rules. Indeed, the EDP has been strengthened this year. The Member States still face credit risk on their debt, still use a foreign currency that is issued by the ECB and is beyond their legislative remit, and are still vulnerable to austerity impositions from the Commission and their technocrats. To compare that situation with a currency-issuing government such as the US or Japan or Australia, etc is to, in my view, commit the same sort of error that mainstream economists make when they say that ‘the UK is at risk of becoming like Greece’ or similar ridiculous threats to discipline fiscal authorities in currency-issuing nations.
On Tuesday (September 10, 2024), the UK House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee released their first report for the Session 2024-25 (HL Paper 5) – National debt: it’s time for tough decisions – which was the result of their decision to hold an inquiry – How sustainable is our national debt? – into whether “UK’s national debt is on a sustainable path” and whether “the Government’s fiscal rule regarding the national debt is meaningful”. They didn’t need a large-scale investigation to come up with answers to those questions: Yes and Not meaningful- are my answers based on the reality of the currency status of the British government.
The Reserve Bank of Australia has certainly attracted headlines this last week or so starting with the claim by the Federal Treasurer that the monetary policy stance is “smashing the economy” (Source), while a past Labor Treasurer and now Labour Party National President (Wayne Swan) was much more openly critical of the RBA conduct over the last few years. Things then came to a point when the new RBA governor gave a speech the day (September 5, 2024), the day after the National Accounts came out with the news that the GDP growth rate had slumped to 0.2 per cent for the June-quarter (well below trend), and told her audience (a Foundation that “supports research into adolescent depression and suicide”) that around 5 per cent of mortgage holders were falling behind payments and many would “ultimately make the difficult decision to sell their homes” (Source) as they would be forced into default. Meanwhile, the conservatives (and economists) have claimed the Government is impugning the ‘independence’ of the RBA. It is a case of – The pot calling the kettle black – and demonstrates how ridiculous the policy debate has become in this latter years of the neoliberal era.
Today (September 6, 2024), MMTed releases Episode 5 in the Second Season of our Manga series – The Smith Family and their Adventures with Money. Have a bit of fun with it while learning Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and circulate it to those who you think will benefit …
It seems that since they were elected British Labour, principally the Leader and Chancellor, have thought it necessary to put out ever increasing messages of doom and the need for tough fiscal action – aka austerity – despite them claiming when they were wooing the electorate that they would not pursue that ‘Tory’ option. Of course, they pulled the old stunt that once they were in office and had access to the ‘books’ they discovered, surprise surprise, that the state of government finances were even worse than they had imagined and that meant it was all to play for, which justified them taking tougher than planned actions. Every week passes since, it seems, when the tough talk gets tougher and core promises are abandoned. Tory policies that are the anathema of a progressive policy stance – such as the two-child benefit cap – will remain. And other Tory policies that were more ‘Labour like’ in nature will go – such as the Winter Fuel Payment received subsidy – will be severely cut back. There are many criticisms that I have made of the Chancellor’s stance (see previous blog posts) based on the absurdity of constructing the British government’s finances as equivalent in principle to the finances of a household issue. But, in addition to those more elemental issues, there is another matter that I have not seen addressed by the mainstream media nor the actual politicians relating to the proposed austerity. The whole discussion appears to be waged in a vacuum – context free. It is as if the current policy position, which the Chancellor claims is shocking and unsustainable, is divorced from the current broader economic reality in Britain. And that construction means that poor policy decisions will be made that will damage the material prosperity of the nation.
Today (August 23, 2024), MMTed releases Episode 4 in the Second Season of our Manga series – The Smith Family and their Adventures with Money. Have a bit of fun with it while learning Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and circulate it to those who you think will benefit …
Today (August 9, 2024), MMTed releases Episode 3 in the Second Season of our Manga series – The Smith Family and their Adventures with Money. Have a bit of fun with it while learning Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and circulate it to those who you think will benefit …
The financial markets around the world have over the last week demonstrated, once again, that they are subject to wild swings in irrationality despite mainstream economists holding out the idea that these sorts of transactions exhibit pure rationality. Some of the capital movements are explained by a shift in the interest rate spread between Japan and the US as the former nation decided to increase interest rates modestly. That altered the profitability of financial assets in each currency and so there were margins to exploit. But the big swings came when the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released their latest labour market data last Friday (August 2, 2024) – Employment Situation Summary – July 2024 – which showed payroll employment increasing by only 114,000 (well down on expectation) and the unemployment rate rising by 0.2 points to 4.3 per cent. Suddenly, the headlines were calling an imminent recession in the US and that triggered a flight into safer assets (government bonds) away from shares etc, which drove down bond yields (as bond prices rose) and left some short-run carnage in the share markets. A few days later the panic subsided and one has to ask what was it all about. In this blog post, I examine the labour force data and add some new extra ‘recession predictors’ to see whether the panic was justified. The conclusion is that it was not.
There is an interesting debate going on in the UK at present about the concept of tiered bank reserves. The concept is now being used by commentators to argue that the new British government does not need to inflict the austerity that the Chancellor has now announced (even though she is denying that is what the government is up to) because the government can simply reduce outlays to the commercial banks in order to meet the fiscal rules. The discussion is rather asinine really and features all the missteps that commentators make when trying to appear progressive but falling into the usual mainstream macroeconomic fictions.
Today (July 26, 2024), MMTed releases Episode 2 in the second season of our Manga series – The Smith Family and their Adventures with Money. Have a bit of fun with it while learning Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and circulate it to those who you think will benefit …
In the recent issue of the ECB Economic Bulletin (issue 4/2024) there was an article – Longer-term challenges for fiscal policy in the euro area – which demonstrates why the common currency and its bevy of fiscal rules and restrictions is incapable of meeting the challenges that humanity and the natural world face in the coming years. The ECB article is very interesting because it pretty clearly articulates the important challenges facing the Member States and provides some rough estimates of what the fiscal implications will be if governments are to move quickly to deal with the threats posed. However, it is clear from the analysis and my own calculations that significant austerity will be required in areas of expenditure not related to these challenges. Given the current political environment in Europe, it is hard to see how such austerity can be imposed and maintained in areas that impact the daily lives of families. What is demonstrated is that the architecture of the EMU is ill-equipped to deal with the problems that Member States now face. The common currency and fiscal rules were never a good idea. But as the challenges mount it is obvious that Europe will have to change its monetary system approach in order to survive.
Over time we observe a pattern of idiocy in the financial press, where different fictions, dressed up as allegedly shattering propensities, are regularly cycled through in succession, each one getting headlines for a day or so, only to be replaced by the next sensationalised issue. So-called experts or corporate bosses are wheeled out and make horrendous predictions that one country or another is entering a catastrophe of its own making – too much government spending, too much debt, or some other policy position – is usually fingered as the culprit. None of the predictions ever come to pass and the media never follow up to reflect on why. They are too busy pushing out the next headline and the next issue, which, in turn, will be replaced by something else, and then something else, and so on, until the initial prophesy of dooms is recycled, despite failing dismally to engage with the real world when it was last aired. And this pattern has unfolded over decades. Who ever checks the veracity of the predictions? How does the reputation of these so-called experts survive continual failure? The problem is that most of us believe this fiction and elect politicians and accept poor economic policy based on the fictional world we live in. Anyway, I have a prediction … read on.
After the Far Right National Rally (RN) took the prizes in the recent European Parliament elections and seriously dented the electoral appeal of Emmanual Macron’s grouping, the French President decided to follow the British script and dissolved the French Parliament and called a snap election, the first round of which will take place on June 30, 2024 and the second round a week later. Far right parties also did well in Germany, Italy and Austria, but all the talk of a sharp swing to the right in Europe was overstated, given that in other nations, the Right vote was not as strong. The deals to give the European Commission presidency to VDL for another term were then in full sway. And within days we started to observe some strange behaviour in the bond markets with the 10-year bond spreads against the German bund rising sharply with accompanying warning bells from the mainstream politicians – some even venturing to claim in France’s case that it would experience a ‘Truss moment’ if Macron was not returned to office, despite his government floundering due to its poor policy making. None of this should come as a surprise. The European Union is the most advanced example of neoliberalism, given that the ideology is built into its legal structures and the institutions are required to enforce it. There are countless examples, of the main institutions – the Commission and the ECB – acting individually and together to drive political outcomes that they deem to be desirable from the perspective of maintaining the status quo. All the angst in the last few weeks about interference in the upcoming French election is really surprising given the track record of these bodies. The whole system has been designed and run to maintain the corporate interests of the elites. Pure and simple. The current situation is no exception.
In April 2023, the then governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia gave a speech to the National Press Club in Sydney – Monetary Policy, Demand and Supply = the day after the RBA decided to end (for a month) its rate hikes after hiking the previous 10 meetings of the RBA Board, the body that determines monetary policy settings. The inflation rate had been falling for some months by this time yet the RBA was still hanging on to its narratives that the rate hikes were necessary to “combat the highest rate of inflation experienced in Australia in more than 30 years”, despite, for example, the Bank of Japan holding rates constant and experiencing a more rapid decline in its inflation rate as the supply constraints abated. The RBA had vehemently claimed that wage pressures were mounting, which had to be curtailed and denied categorically that there was any profit gouging or margin push involved in the inflationary pressures. There was no evidence at the time to support their claims about wages and nominal wages growth has remained moderate since. However, there was ample evidence, both in Australia and across the globe that corporations were taking advantage of the supply constraints to push their profit margins out. A recent report released by Oxfam Australia report (June 19, 2024) – Cashing in on Crisis – demonstrates that profit and price gouging was instrumental in creating and sustaining the inflationary pressures. The RBA was in denial all along and demonstrated that they are essentially just part of the ideological machinery supporting neoliberalism and the extraction of greater profits at the expense of workers.
Imagine if you are a UK Guardian reader and wanting to assess the options for an almost certain victory by Labour in the upcoming general election. Your understanding of the challenges facing the next government will be conditioned by what you have been reading in that newspaper. Unfortunately, there have been a stream of articles purporting to provide informed analysis of the challenges ahead and the capacities of the new British government to meet them which make it very hard for any progressive reader to assess the situation sensibly. These articles promote the usual macroeconomic fictions about the need for tight fiscal rules that will help the government avoid running out of money as it tries to deal with the decades of degeneration created by the austerity mindset. It is stunning how so-called progressive media commentators have so easily become willing mouthpieces for the mainstream economic lies which have only served to work against everything they purport to stand for. Business as usual though. Sadly.
The IMF joint hosted a conference in Tokyo last week – Fiscal Policy and Sovereign Debt – and the continues its misinformation campaign on the ‘dangers’ of public debt. The conference claimed that it brought together ‘leading scholars and senior policymakers’ and upon examination of the agenda it was clear that there was very little diversity in the speakers. The organ started playing and all sessions sang from the same hymn sheet. That is how Groupthink works. Repeat and rinse, repeat and rinse, and, never confront views that are contrary to the message. Groupthink is about avoiding cognitive dissonance for fear that at least some of the ‘parishioners’ might lose the faith. The famous British economist, Joan Robinson likened mainstream economics to a branch of theology and these conferences that the IMF convene around the world are like evangelical crusades, to keep the troops in line so they can continue to keep all of us in line – for fear that we might all start seeing through the veil and discover the rotten core.
The UK Guardian published quite an odd article the other day (May 30, 2024) by Mr GFC Spreadsheet Fudge Man Kenneth Rogoff – Why policymakers are more likely to risk high inflation during periods of economic uncertainty – which essentially claims that economic policy has been conducted for several years by institutions that do not meet the essential requirements that are specified by the mainstream New Keynesian macroeconomic approach, upon which the institutions have claimed justification. If that makes sense. He now claims that the eulogised principle of ‘central bank independence’, which is a mainstay of the New Keynesian justification that macroeconomic counter stabilisation policy should be left to monetary authorities and that fiscal policy should play a supporting but passive role, no longer exists as policy makers have had to come to terms with multiple crises. Of course from an Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) perspective such independence never existed and was just a ploy to allow the governments to depoliticise economic policy making and thus distance themselves, politically, from the fall out of unpopular policy interventions. If it wasn’t the IMF to blame, then it was the ‘independent’ central bank for austerity and interest rate hikes and all the rest of it. Now we have a senior Harvard professor admitting it was a ruse and bemoaning the fact.
In the last week, as the Federal government comes towards next Tuesday’s annual fiscal statement (aka ‘The Budget’ although we don’t use that terminology around here, do we?) and the State Government’s are progressively delivering their own Budget Statements (they being financially constrained) we have witnessed the absurdity of the system of public finances that pretends the Federal government is a big household and that somehow monetary policy is the most effective way to deal with an inflation that is sourced in supply side constraints. Earlier this week, the Victorian government released a fairly shocking fiscal statement, which cut expenditure programs in many key areas such as health care (while the pandemic is still killing many people), public education, essential public infrastructure maintenance and upgrades, and more. Why? Because it built up a rather large stock of debt during the early years of the pandemic and is now in political jeopardy because the state debt is being weaponised by the conservatives who claim the government is going broke. Similar austerity agendas are being pursued by other state and territory governments although Victoria leads the way because it provided more pandemic support to offset the damage that the extensive restrictions caused. Meanwhile, the federal government is boasting that it is heading towards its second consecutive surplus, as unemployment rises, hours of work fall, and the planet requires massive investment to attenuate climate change. The madness compounds when we realise that around 85 per cent of all state and federal debt that was issued between March 2020 and July 2022 was purchased by the Reserve Bank of Australia – that is, effectively, by the federal government itself. If citizens really understood the implications of that they would never agree to the swingeing cutbacks in public expenditure and the user pays tax hikes etc, that have been justified by an appeal to the debt build up. Its just madness.