When I give public lectures about economic policy I often pose the question – how should we judge the effectiveness of public policy? I pose a simple rule of thumb! I judge whether social and economic policy is effective not by how rich it makes society in general but how rich it makes the poor! I see richness in broad terms which embrace both economic and social valuations. Applying this rule of thumb has led me to conclude that the majority of nations in the advanced world are now failed states with run-down and corrupted public institutions. The conclusion is more stark when applied to less developed nations suffering under the neo-liberal yoke imposed on them by institutions like the IMF and the strong donor nations. But the rising poverty in the advanced world as a result of the extended current crisis is making it clear that our economic systems and the policy regimes that are being imposed on them by the neo-liberals are no longer delivering satisfactory outcomes. There needs to paradigm change – urgently.

The Economist feature column Economics by invitation where they ask some commentators to share their thoughts on some topical issue is running with household debt this week (September 11, 2010). The topic – How far along the process of deleveraging are we? – is examining the extent to which the record levels of private indebtedness are being run down and household balance sheets reconstructed. I also noted in the discussions that have been on-going about trade and deficits on my blog that someone said that there is no evidence that budget surpluses have caused the “sky to fall in”. In this blog I explain how budget surpluses are intrinsically related to the rising indebtedness of the private sector and hence under most conditions are destabilising.

Answer: Probably not! Elections bring out all sorts of revelations and epiphanies. We have seen that in spades in the last few weeks as the two main parties, both rejected as viable governments by the electors have struggled to lure the all important casting vote from the independents who are not only identifiable for the first time (there are even cartoons about them now) but who have taken advantage of their day (or 3 years in the sun) to lever as much out of the parties as possible. So last night, with the government returned as a minority operation at the behest of the vote of three independents and a Green MP, we suddenly see a renewed interest in regional development, public education and parliamentary process. The US President has also found a path to Damascus or at least he is trying to convince voters that he has – even making speeches to industrial workers with his sleeves rolled up. The reality is likely to be different but at least the topic of unemployment is centre stage for a day or so. And dare I add – with some support from the IMF.

For some time I have been promising to write a blog about the role that manufacturing plays in a modern economy. There is a strong presumption, especially from the progressive side of the political debate that manufacturing – or what you produce – defines the capacity for a nation to enjoy growth in real wages and therefore standards of living. So when I have said in the past that I am against industry protection I usually get attacked from the left and I note that this if often coming from people who think it is cute to sound technical by saying the government should balance their budget over the course of the business cycle. As if! Neither viewpoint coming from that quarter has much credibility. I take a more experiential viewpoint. People prefer to consume than to work. What we consume is more likely to give us joy than what we produce especially if the latter is in the context of exploitative capitalist production relationships. I am painting this in black and white terms to garner your interest. Clearly it is more complicated but in general I do not think you need a manufacturing sector to enjoy strong growth in material living standards and perhaps a polluting manufacturing sector erodes the capacity to enjoy broader concepts of growth and well-being. My flame resistant suit is now in place … so here goes.

Whenever unemployment rises substantially – that is, whenever there is a recession, the conservatives hide out for a while because the rapid rise in joblessness does not resonate with their models of voluntary choice (that is, workers choosing leisure although they can never explain why workers would suddenly get lazy?) or with their claims that structural factors push the unemployment rate up (although welfare policies etc rarely alter much). Of-course, they love it when some “structural” policy changes during a recession which is why they are cock-a-hoop about the decision of the US government to extend unemployment benefits. It has given them some latitude to get back into the debate even if all the data is working against them. But they always oppose the use of fiscal policy and so typically, towards the tail-end of a recession, they attempt to justify the deplorable unemployment levels by playing the “structural card”. We are now seeing that again and I expect the propaganda to spread and proliferate. It should be rejected like the rest of the cant.

The denials continue. In the Wall Street Journal yesterday (August 30, 2010) we see the latest desperate attempt by Harvard (and Stanford) professor Robert Barro to redefine away the recession. The article – The Folly of Subsidizing Unemployment claims that if the US government had not have extended unemployment benefits to 99 weeks “the jobless rate could be as low as 6.8%, instead of 9.5% …” Barro has consistently claimed that the government fiscal intervention has largely caused the recession to persist. As we will argue his track record at predicting and/or explaining economic outcomes is very poor. Simple facts always contradict his fantasy world of Ricardian Equivalence and Natural Rates. I am also adding Stanford to my list of universities which sensible students should boycott if they want to learn some economics given Barro’s presence there. The list is getting longer.

I come across new evidence every day that supports the Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) perspective on fiscal policy. Today the Australian Bureau of Statistics released the latest Construction data which provides very clear testimony to the effectiveness of the recent fiscal interventions in Australia. So I thought I would devote this blog to exploring some of the characteristics of this data and see what it means for assessing the impact of the fiscal stimulus in Australia. The conclusions that I draw are consistent with the insights that many different data series are telling us at present. The fiscal stimulus was effective and as it is withdrawn by a budget surplus-obsessed government the economy is suffering. The data today is a further nail in the deficit terrorist coffin.

There was an interesting forum in the The Economist Magazine on August 11, 2010 which considered the question – What actions should the Fed be taking?. The Economist assembled a group of academic economists (mainly) and the opinions expressed largely will make any person who understands how the monetary system operates and what the current problem is shudder in disbelief. What the discussion reinforces is that the mainstream economists really have failed to understand what the crisis was all about and do not comprehend the nature of the solution. Most of the contributions are just mindless repetition of what you might find in any mainstream macroeconomics textbook. It is very scary that these characters continue to be heard. If only the citizens knew what was going on!

Next Saturday (August 21, 2010) Australia gets to choose a new federal government which will govern for the next three years. These are crucial years because the economy is still mired in the uncertainty that accompanied the financial crisis and private spending is still very subdued. Growth around the world is still being supported by fiscal stimulus and without it economic activity will decline again. The majority of the economic indicators in Australia and elsewhere are pointing to a new slowdown as the fiscal stimulus wanes. So it is absolutely essential for the next Australian government to maintain strong fiscal support. The only problem is that both the major parties are having a battle to win votes on the platform of who can get the biggest budget surplus in the shortest period of time. It doesn’t bear thinking about. The conclusion is that none of the main parties are worthy of a vote. And the third party in contention (at least for the balance of power) – The Greens – are similarly blighted when it comes to macroeconomic policy. How did we get into this mess?

The policy balance continues to be wrong in the US and elsewhere. While central banks are politically “free” to change their policy settings, fiscal authorities appear to be hamstrung by some absurd politics at present. In the midst of economic pain and suffering, governments (and oppositions) are proposing policy settings which will worsen that pain. They then sell the message that more pain will deliver good outcomes to their electorates without having a clue whether that it true or not. In doing so they defy all empirical experience and rely on defunct and failed theory for their authority. It is as if “They’re just sticking a finger in the air and guessing”. The other tragedy in all of this is that the monetary policy changes that have been invoked are largely ineffective in terms of expanding aggregate demand. This is in contradistinction to fiscal policy which is very effective in expanding spending, if used properly. Of-course, this policy mayhem is just a reflection of the dominance of the neo-liberal paradigm which actively eschews effective government involvement in the economy.

I have been reading a lot of psychology research in recent months which is a very broadening experience. Mainstream economists rarely include research from the wider social sciences. However, I have always been interested in finding out what other social scientists are up to and how their work bears on the human society that I have spent a career studying. At present, the neo-liberals are on the rise again and are driving governments to introduce harsh fiscal withdrawals using the supposition that this is fiscally responsible behaviour. Their position is unsupported by credible logic or empirical research. In fact, the overwhelming body of evidence rejects the theoretical models they parade to defend their positions. One of the under currents of their proposals is that by cutting public welfare payments and support governments can not only “save” money (and reduce their deficits) but also free the welfare space for private charity. They eulogise the benefits and virtue of private charity but demonise public support for disadvantage. So today I read an interesting article from some psychologists who have examined whether those with economic resources are generous or not. The results of their work are that the poor are more generous and compassionate than the rich. Another evidential flaw in the neo-liberal mantra that should worry all of us.

The increasingly alarmist commentator Niall Ferguson was at it again the Financial Times (July 20, 2010) in his article – Have Keynesians learnt nothing?. The article has a simple presumption – we are getting scared of deficits and as a result inflation is inevitable. What? We are scared because we expect there will be inflation and so we will act accordingly and start pushing up wages and prices to defend ourselves in real terms. The result will be inflation. This is a playback of the so-called rational expectations literature which Ferguson proudly cites as his authority. The problem is that the theory is defunct – it never was valid and only a butt of depressed cultists still hang on to it as their religion because they learned it when they were young and in doing so lost their capacity to experience the joys of wider education. We really must feel sorry for them.

Today I read a study – A Bit Rich – published in December 2009 by the New Economics Foundation, which is a UK-based think tank aiming to provide an alternative narrative to mainstream economics. That agenda obviously interests me. The study investigates the relationship between pay and value by taking a case study approach and extending our concept of value to include both social and environmental benefits and costs. What they find is that the financial sector is a negative contributor (by some) to society whereas low paid occupations (cleaning etc) are vastly underpaid. What this tells me is that we need a fundamental re-alignment of pay scales in addition to bringing real wage growth into line with productivity growth. We need to reduce the real take of some of the higher paid occupations (especially in the financial sector) and increase the rewards of those currently trapped in low-paid jobs but who serve valuable functions in the overall scheme of our societies’ well-being.

I know I said I was not going to write a blog today but I changed my mind. It will be a short blog only. I was considering the continued dogmatic assertions that mainstream economists make that the central bank still controls the money supply and that money multiplier is alive and well but has just disappeared for a while. This recent mainstream post is typical of these on-going erroneous assertions by mainstream macroeconomists about the way the monetary system and the institutions within it operate. The fact is that the monetary multiplier is not dead – I can say that confidently because I know it was never alive!

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.