Everyday the major financial newspapers and magazines provide Op Ed space to so-called leading economists. For the majority of the public, it is these Op Ed articles that provide their interaction with my profession. It is a pity. The majority of the reasoning presented by these characters, most who occupied senior positions in US academic departments, is spurious to say the least. The public is thus being poorly educated (to put it mildly) on a daily basis and this represents a major problem for our democracies. Voting in elections is one thing. But when citizens are voting based on faulty understandings that they have derived from these economists, then what is the value of a free vote? Today I consider the views of leading Princeton economist Alan Blinder – who is another macroeconomist who is blind to the way the economy works.

In the last week, it was alleged that economists such as the IMFs Olivier Blanchard were alleged to be working in the tradition of Hyman Minsky, which by association inferred that they were on top of the crisis – foresaw it, understand why it occurred and offer the best ways out of the mess. Please read my earlier blog – Revisionism is rife and ignorance is being elevated to higher levels – for an introduction to this issue. I argued that this attempted association is plainly false and Blanchard’s monetary economics is more in the Monetarist tradition, which is the anathema to the endogenous money framework that Hyman Minsky worked within. This is no small issue. The economists mentioned are often in leading positions (media, universities, policy) and influence the way the public (and students) think about the policy choices available. By promoting erroneous understandings of the way the monetary system operates, such economists become part of the problem not the solution, no matter if they are currently opposing fiscal austerity. If only they were operating in the tradition of Minsky!

The ABC News today reported that – Newcastle hosts frisbee championships – which means the national frisbee championships will be in my town this week and I will be around. Apparently the championships involve “flinging a frisbee between players on a pitch similar to a football or soccer field” and then “catching the disc in the endzone”. I suggest the Australian Prime Minister take up the sport. It seems an innocuous pastime and she surely couldn’t be any less skilled at it than she is at managing the economy. Her speech yesterday in Perth certainly established she has no understanding of macroeconomics or if she does, then she is deliberately misleading us. Her Finance Minister was also fully engaged in the misinformation exercise about the state of the budget. But then she is in solid company. The German Bundesbank has made public statements telling nations crippled by self-imposed fiscal austerity to forget about growth and balance their budgets. The ugly German stereotype is unfortunately reinforced by these sort of public interventions. And, finally, we have the genius who yesterday was advocating widespread cuts in welfare entitlements today out in the Op Ed pages suggesting that countries who exert their sovereign rights over multinationals are committing suicide despite the particular country in focus having real GDP growth rates that most other nations envy. Its all in a day of neo-liberal madness.

I was reading an interesting study the other day that helps us understand why the macroeconomic policy debate is so awry at present. The paper – Cognitive dissonance, the Global Financial Crisis and the discipline of economics – by Adam Kessler an economist at a Florida university demonstrates that the mainstream economists who are highly influential in the current policy debate suffer from “cognitive dissonance” which leaves them in denial of the facts. CD leads to dysfunctional opinions and if these opinions carry weight in the public debate the policies implemented are also likely to be dysfunctional. It is a sad testimony that the mainstream of my profession is largely operating in a parallel universe but bringing their crazy ideas to our universe and pressuring governments to follow policies that damage a vast majority of people. One thing that is clear – the majority of these economists never have to carry the costs of their denial and retire on nice pensions. The same cannot be said for the victims of their arrogance and denial.

I have noticed some discussions abroad that criticise Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) on the basis that none of the main proponents have ever actually worked on the operations desk of a central bank. This sort of criticism is in the realm of “you cannot know anything unless you do it” which if true would mean almost all of the knowledge base shared by humanity would be deemed meaningless jabber. It is clearly possible to form a very accurate view of the way the monetary system operates (including the way central banks and the commercial banks) interact without ever having worked in either. However, today, I review a publication from the Bank of International Settlements which dovetails perfectly with the understandings that MMT has provided. It provides a case for why we should abandon mainstream monetary textbooks from the perspective of those who work inside the central banking system.

Several readers have written to me asking me to comment on a recent paper that the New York Federal Reserve released as a Staff Report (May 2011) – A Note on Bank Lending in Times of Large Bank Reserves. Apparently, there is an impression that the federal reserve economists might be seeing the light a bit about the banking system and the way economists think about it. The reason that some readers have concluded that is because the substantive conclusion of the paper is that credit expansion is independent of the level of banking reserves held at the central bank. This conclusion is totally consistent with Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) but is at odds with the standard mainstream macroeconomic view (as taught in textbooks) that relies on the money multiplier to draw a (spurious) connection between bank reserves and the money supply. As you will see – my advice is to be very careful when reading such papers – they are not what they seem. The FRNY paper reaches the correct conclusion using erroneous theory which they partition as a special case arising from the extreme circumstances surrounding the crisis. Even in defining their “model” as a special case, they employ flawed logic. It is a case of being beware of the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Progressives who comment on macroeconomic matters invariably invoke the ghost of John Maynard Keynes as a motivating influence presumably because the popular perception – albeit shallow – is that Keynes supported generalised fiscal expansion in times of high unemployment. A striking example of this “association” is the recent Australian Fabian Society essay (April 11, 2011) by the Australian Treasurer Wayne Swan – Keynesians in the recovery.

Apparently, the US government has just announced that their budget deficit is the largest in absolute terms. Given that the US makes a net gain of one person every 16 seconds, I guess they recorded a record population today as well. Nine records were also set yesterday by junior athletes at the annual sport’s carnival held by the Charlestown Secondary School (Nevis, US). The latter are certainly more interesting and have more relevance for the health of the community. The fact is that the budget outcome is like a score at a sport’s game. Imagine if the cricket authorities decided to place a limit of how many runs a team could score in the current World Cup. You wouldn’t have much of a game. And then they decided to become austere about it and cut the available runs! Just like the runs on the scoreboard, the budget numbers (dollars) can be whatever it takes. The record deficit is not going to stop any game. The fact is that with the extent of idle capacity that you witness in the US, the record needs breaking again very soon!