Sydney Morning Herald journalist Adele Horin article in the SMH today – Here’s a stimulating idea: create jobs – challenges the Federal Government to get it priorities right. She writes:
If employment is the primary concern, there are surer, more direct ways than cash payments to ensure bosses hire rather than fire. If not now, a debate on the hoary old topic of direct job creation may be just around the corner.
Yesterday the Government announced its latest fiscal response to the rapidly worsening economic situation. They will spend $42 billion (mostly in 2009 and into 2010 to shore up aggregate demand. They estimate this will underwrite 90,000 jobs in the economy. That is not new jobs but existing jobs. They also estimate that the unemployment rate will rise to 7 per cent over the coming year which is around 300,000 people extra who will be without work. That will take unemployment towards 850,000 and underemployment will certainly rise in lock-step (already around 600,000) so you see the scale of the deterioration.
However, while I think the package is a step in the right direction, the Government has failed to really target jobs. If the Government had have introduced a Job Guarantee and paid the workers the current national minimum wage (with holiday pay etc) it could have hired 557,000 full-time equivalent workers for around $8.3 billion per year. Where does this figure come from?
In the New York times article (December 26, 2004), from Larry Rohter – Argentina’s Economic Rally Defies Forecasts – it is reported that the Argentinian economy has made a surprising comeback. Rohter writes “When the Argentine economy collapsed in December 2001, doomsday predictions abounded. Unless it adopted orthodox economic policies and quickly cut a deal with its foreign creditors, hyperinflation would surely follow, the peso would become worthless, investment and foreign reserves would vanish and any prospect of growth would be strangled. But three years after Argentina declared a record debt default of more than $100 billion, the largest in history, the apocalypse has not arrived. Instead, the economy has grown by 8 percent for two consecutive years, exports have zoomed, the currency is stable, investors are gradually returning and unemployment has eased from record highs – all without a debt settlement or the standard measures required by the International Monetary Fund for its approval.”
In the New York Times, December 27, Brent Staples explains – Why Some Politicians Need Their Prisons to Stay Full – and outlines how public spending can clearly be a tool for essential job creation underpinning regional development. The problem is that it seems the Americans haven’t quite got it right.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) released the latest labour force data today (April 17, 2025) – Labour Force, Australia – for March 2025. It revealed that the unemployment rate rose 0.1 point (on rounding) to 4.1 per cent, employment rose by 32,200 (0.2 per cent), the underemployment rate was unchanged at 5.9 per cent, and the participation rate rose 0.1 point (on rounding). Monthly hours worked fell by 6 million (-0.3 per cent). The broad labour underutilisation rate (sum of unemployment and underemployment) was 9.9 per cent, which puts the claims that this is a tight labour market into perspective. There is substantial scope for more job creation given the slack that is present.
We know that after the Second World War, as nations embraced their major national policy statements (White Papers in many countries) to build their societies after the disruption of the War and the Great Depression, income inequality fell significantly. Since the 1970s, the post WW2 trend has been somewhat reversed in many (but not all) nations. The rising income inequality is particularly apparent in the Anglo advanced economies, with the US leading the way. In other nations, the trend is mixed, which suggests the link between rising income inequality and the rising support for right-wing political movements is less obvious than some commentators are suggesting. In fact, there is credible research that suggests the swing to right-wing political parties is not coming from the most precarious workers who appear to remain loyal to Leftist ideas. It is the next segment of workers up who have not yet been ravaged by globalisation but sense they are about to be who seem to have swung to the Right. In this blog post, I discuss some of these ideas and the research that is accompanying them.
It’s obviously becoming difficult to keep track of where the US government policy is on any particular day. Last week, it was ‘Liberation Day’, which included tariffs being imposed on remote penguin colonies in the back of nowhere, then Musk labelling the Trump’s trade adviser ‘dumber than a sack of bricks’, then tariffs on Chinese goods rising to 124 per cent (which will make then uncompetitive), then the ‘pause’ on reciprocal tariffs beyond the 10 per cent level … what will be next. These shifts and decisions are not exactly benign and the US Administration is displaying the sort of incompetence, capriciousness, flippancy – whatever you want to call it – that hardly befits the largest economic nation in the globe which has its tentacles spread far and wide. I was particularly interested though in the now infamous ‘Rose Garden Liberation Day’ speech Trump made last week (April 2, 2025) where he made claims about Japan, which were used to justify the imposition of 24 per cent tariffs on that nation. According to the President, Japan is among a host of countries that have “looted, pillaged, raped and plundered” the US. His evidence? None is available. The reality is that US cars don’t sell in Japan because they are inferior and ill-suited to the market. We explore that theme in this blog post.
We are now full-swing into the national election campaign in Australia (election on May 3, 2025) and we have a new party – the Trumpet of Patriots – (funded by a property developer/miner) channelling Trump’s approach, the conservatives channelling Trump’s approach (although with a slight more subtle voice but not much), the Greens chasing their tails, and the Labor government desperately trying to stay in power after running scared of doing very much over the last three years. It is not a great choice. The usual scare tactics from the Opposition are out in force – immigration, defence vulnerabilities, etc and the usual ‘free market’ stuff. The Labor government keeps hammering on about their fiscal rectitude – two surpluses out of three – as if we are all mainstream economists who are obsessed with those irrelevancies. But it seems that the voters are not so aligned with mainstream economists.
It’s been a week of grand fiscal statements. Tuesday, it was for Australia as I discussed yesterday – Australian fiscal statement – rising unemployment amidst a moderate fiscal contraction (March 26, 2025). Then yesterday in the UK, the Labour Chancellor delivered the British Government’s – Spring Statement 2025. Both statements come at a time when the mainstream economics consensus is shifting with the US pushing protection and defunding many global initiatives. And, one of the statements was in the context of an impending federal election (Australia) and from a government that is in danger of losing that election to a bunch of populist Trump-copiers. And the content reflected that. The UK Statement was from a Government currently in no danger of losing office but which is progressively entrapping itself in its hubris and fiscal rules. An interesting juxtaposition. Anyway, the British Chancellor has lost all understanding of what the purpose of fiscal policy is. What is the purpose of fiscal policy? Don’t ask Rachel Reeves!
Last night (March 25, 2025), the Australian government delivered the latest fiscal statement for 2025-26 (aka – The Budget – and, in doing so tried to win renewed electoral appeal given its waning popularity and a national election that has to be held in the next 6 or so weeks. So it offered the tax cuts and other inducements to the voters. But the underlying tenor of the fiscal position is unsustainable not because it is predicting on-going fiscal deficits out to 2028-29 but because those deficits will be too small relative to other trends that are likely to occur (external sector and household consumption spending). While the commentariat has been in conniptions about ‘eye watering red ink’ for a far as we can see (their eyes are poor), the fact is that the projected fiscal deficit is about the average level since 1970-71. But in the current environment, the forecasted government contraction will damage the economy and push unemployment up further than they are forecasting. Sure enough, the Government handed out some dollops of cost-of-living relief to low-income families – a few pennies in the scheme of things and that will probably help them retain votes. But with all the challenges ahead now is not the time to be in contractionary mode. Winning the election is one thing, but neglecting a host of existential matters in the medium term is not the way to go.
This is the second part of the discussion on Tariffs that I started in – Tariffs and more – Part 1 (March 13, 2025). In the first part I considered some of the historical motivations including the infant industry argument. Today, I plan to expand on that discussion and add further considerations that might help us understand what is going on at the moment.
Today (March 14, 2025), MMTed releases Episode 12 in the Second Season of our Manga series – The Smith Family and their Adventures with Money. This is the final episode in Season 2. There is a lot going on in the community at present with an election approaching and the government in crisis over its deliberate recession. Have a bit of fun with it while learning Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and circulate it to those who you think will benefit. Season 3 will begin on May 23, 2025 and there will be some shocking developments revealed.
The British press are reporting that the Government there is planning further spending cuts of the order of billions of pounds because the economic environment has changed and the current fiscal trajectory is threatening their self-imposed fiscal rules thresholds. We already heard last week how the Government is significantly cutting Overseas Aid as it ramps up military expenditure. Now, it is reported that billions will be cut from the welfare area and the justification being used is that there is widespread rorting of that system by welfare cheats. There are several points to make. First, getting rid of rorting is desirable. But I have seen no credible research that suggests such skiving is of a scale sufficient to justify cutting billions out of welfare outlays. Second, quite apart from that question, the micro attack on the welfare outlays have macroeconomic consequences. The British Office of Budget Responsibility estimates that the output gap is close to zero which means it is claiming there is full employment. Even if that is true, that state is underpinned by the current level of government spending (whether it is on cheats or not). If the spending cuts that are targetting rorting are not replaced by spending elsewhere then a recession will occur and the Government will surely fail to achieve its ‘non negotiable’ fiscal rule targets. It is a mess of their own making.
It is hard to keep track of the major shifts in world politics that are going on at the moment. I am in the camp that saw the extraordinary confrontation between Trump/Vance and Zelensky as demonstrating how embarrassing the US leadership has become. I am not a Zelensky supporter by any means but the behaviour of the US leadership was beyond the pale as it has been since January. I am no expert on geopolitical matters but it seems obvious to me that the US is now opening the door further for China to become the dominant nation in the world as the US sinks further into the hole and obsesses about who should thank them. And the latest shifts are once again going to demonstrate how dysfunctional the EU architecture has become. If it is rise to the post NATO challenge then its obsession with fiscal rules will have to end and they will have to work harder to create a true federation. I am skeptical. The shifts are also once again demonstrating that mainstream economic thinking is dangerous, something I can claim expertise to discuss. The recent decision by the US Administration to hack into the USAid office is probably not the definitive example of this point because it is more about being bloody minded than ‘saving’ money. It will just further open the door for China though. However, the decision by the UK Labour government to reduce Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) to (according to Starmer/Reeves logic) ‘pay’ for a rather dramatic increase in military expenditure is a classic example of how policy goes astray when mainstream economic thinking in general, and the British fiscal rules, specifically are used to guide policy.
Today (February 20, 2025), the Australian Bureau of Statistics released the latest – Labour Force, Australia – for January 2025. Employment growth was relatively strong and concentrated on full-time employment, which is a good sign. It was, however, unable to keep pace with the underlying population growth and the rising participation rate and as a result the unemployment rate rose by a point. Had the participation rate not risen by 0.2 points, the unemployment rate would have been 3.9 per cent rather than the official rate of 4.1 per cent. We should not disregard the fact that there is still 10.1 per cent of the working age population (over 1.5 million people) who are available and willing but cannot find enough work – either unemployed or underemployed and that proportion is increasing. Australia is not near full employment despite the claims by the mainstream commentators and it is hard to characterise this as a ‘tight’ labour market.
Yesterday, the RBA cut interest rates for the first time since November 2023. They claimed that further rate cuts would at least require further evidence of wage restraint, which tells you how the public debate has been so thoroughly taken over by fiction. Australia is experiencing a drought, not the regular paucity of rainfall, type of drought, but record low rates of growth in wages. The RBA defended its interest rate hikes with the assertion that they had intelligence from the business community that wages were about to break out in 2022, invoking a 1970s-style wage-price spiral in response to the initial supply shocks coming from the pandemic. Nothing of the sort happened. And the latest data shows that things haven’t changed. Today (February 19, 2025), the Australian Bureau of Statistics released the latest – Wage Price Index, Australia – for the December-quarter 2024, which shows that the aggregate wage index rose by 3.2 per cent over the 12 months (down 0.3 points on the last quarter). Quarterly wages growth was 0.7 per cent, which the ABS noted was the “Lowest quarterly wage growth since March 2022”. In relation to the December-quarter CPI change (2.4 per cent), this result suggests that workers achieved modest real wage gains. However, if we use the more appropriate Employee Selected Living Cost Index as our measure of the change in purchasing power then the December-quarter result of 4.0 per cent means that real wages fell by 0.8 points. Even the ABS notes the SLCI is a more accurate measure of cost-of-living increases for specific groups of interest in the economy. However, most commentators will focus on the nominal wages growth relative to CPI movements, which in my view provides a misleading estimate of the situation workers are in.
I am currently researching statistical and textual material as part of my plan to produce an updated version of my 2015 book – Eurozone Dystopia: Groupthink and Denial on a Grand Scale (published May 2015) – to take into account the pandemic, Brexit and other major changes that impact on Europe’s position in the world economy and the internal shifts within Europe itself that will make it even more difficult for the Member State nations to maintain their material living standards. My publisher (Edward Elgar) is keen to push this project on. As part of this work I have been examining changes since 2015 across various European states. Today, I discuss the decline in Germany’s fortunes that has arisen as a result of a combination of circumstances: an obsession with fiscal austerity; the suppression of domestic spending capacity; the unrelenting promotion of the so-called ‘export-reliant, manufacturing-heavy economic model’; the election of Donald Trump; and the maturing of the Chinese economy. German politicians, particularly, have become so caught up in the ‘Schwarze Null’ ideology that they have failed to anticipate the medium- and longer-term consequences of their actions. These consequences were all laid out in my 2015 book but policy makers have generally ignored any criticisms of the ‘German model’. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. Fast. And it spells bad times for Europe.
Today, we solve the ‘Case of the Missing Report’. Recall from – The Case of the Missing Report – Part 1 – that the Asian Development Bank published a report I had written (with Randy Wray and Jesus Felipe) – A Reinterpretation of Pakistan’s ‘economic crisis’ and options for policymakers (draft version) – in June 2009 as part of work I was undertaking for the Bank at the time on economic development in Central Asia. The report was published on June 1, 2009 as an official ADB Economics Working Paper No. 163 after our presentations were enthusiastically received at the Bank during seminars we gave. The Report was indexed by the major bibliographic and indexing services and evidence of that report still exists today. For example, the Asian Regional Integration Center provides a link to some 30 records covering – Pakistan – including our ADB paper with the official publication date. The ‘official’ link to the publication – https://www.adb.org/Documents/Working-Papers/2009/Economics-WP163.pdf – however, now returns a ‘Page not Found’ error. Then, if you search for ADB Economics Working Paper No. 163 on the ADB WWW Site you will find another paper – The Optimal Structure of Technology Adoption and Creation: Basic Research vs. Development in the Presence of Distance to Frontier – which somehow became Working Paper No 163 and was also published in June 2009. So what gives? How did our ADB Economics Working Paper No. 163 disappear from the face of the Earth to be replaced by another ADB Working Paper No. 163, all in the space of a day or so? In this Part 2 of the ‘Case of the Missing Report’, I provide the solution to the mystery.
This blog post is a long time in gestation and I could have written in 2009 which is the relevant year of the events that I will document in this two-part series. My conversations with government officials during my working trip to the Philippines last week highlighted several things, including their sheer terror of IMF intervention and the ratings agency. I will write separately about that in a later post. But the IMF watches these types of nations like a hawk and is ready to pounce to enforce their authority at the slightest departure from the neoliberal macroeconomic policy line. As long as these types of nations concede to the IMF bullying they have very little hope of developing towards being advanced states. And IMF bullying is what this blog post is about. This is Part 1 of a two-part story that might be summarised as the ‘Case of the Missing Report’. I will solve the mystery in Part 2, which will be published on Thursday of this week.