Today we learned that – China posts slowest GDP growth in two years – yes, the annual rate of growth has dropped to 9.1 per cent which was 0.4 per cent lower than the second-quarter and 0.2 per cent lower than the estimate provided by the Bloomberg News survey of 22 economists. The reason given for the “slowdown” was “monetary tightening and weaker export demand”. The anticipation of a slowdown over the last week has fuelled a host of doomsday projections about how the Chinese investment boom will crash and how it will cripple the rest of the world. My view is different. I consider the Chinese government to be totally on top of managing their economy, which sets them apart from the leaders in the advanced world. They will not let a major economic crisis occurring within their own borders. They have so much more scope to expand although all of us will rue the environment impacts of that expansion. Their problems are going to political – taming an increasingly rowdy middle class. For the rest of us, China provides an economic example – when all other sources of expenditure fail, turn on public spending and do it quickly and don’t err on the conservative side.

I did an interview in August with the Harvard International Review (published by Harvard University). It was finally published yesterday (October 16, 2011) – Debt, Deficits, and Modern Monetary Theory. I consider the principles that are outlined in that interview to provide a sound organising framework for progressive movements aiming to make changes to the current failed systems. I think Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) does provide insights to the general population that are not only obscured by the mainstream media but which if they are broadly understand will empower the 99% to demand governments redefine their roles with respect to the non-government sector. Part of that re-negotiation has to be to reduce unemployment and redistribute national income more equally. We will also be better placed to have a sensible discussion about the human footprint on the planet. The three goals – full employment, reduced inequality and environmental harmony – should be central to the current civic protests (such as OWS). But we also have understand that government has to be involved in the pursuit and maintenance of those goals. The problem is not government but the politicians we elect and the coalition between them and the corporate elites. An understanding of MMT can energise the progressive fight back.

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.

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.

The news today is not good and you might want to go to the end and get the music segment rolling before coming back to the start to read the rest. The newly appointment of Alan Krueger to the Chair of the US President’s Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) has been widely applauded. Somehow the press think that he might actually change the course of policy and provide for a resurgence of employment. If you examine his early academic work you realise he has a concern for low-pay workers that many mainstream economists eschew. But he hasn’t published anything substantial in macroeconomics or banking. His recent macroeconomics commentary is not encouraging. My conclusion is that the new ew CEA head falls well short of the (macro) mark.

I have very (very) little time today and I am typing this in between meetings. There was a lot of non-news today – the news that pretends to be news and full of import but which in reality is largely irrelevant and just serves to flush out more nonsensical commentary from self-importance financial analysis (mostly located in private banks). Then the non-news commentary suffocates any sensible evaluation and in some cases governments are politically pressured to change policy in a destructive manner – fuelling the next wave of non-news. Today’s classic non-news was the downgrading of Japan by Moodys. Once again, a ratings agency declares itself irrelevant.

Textbooks get out of date and need revision in the light of recent data or events. Some textbooks are exposed as being just plain wrong and should be re-written completely. Obviously authors in the latter category are reluctant to admit that their textbook is not an adequate description of the way – for example, the economy works – and so they not only resist updating their offering but they also defend it against all the evidence. Anyway, after reading Paul Krugman’s most recent attempt to come to grips with Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) I concluded that it was way past the date that he should be rewriting his macroeconomics textbook. Otherwise he is misleading the students who are forced to use it in their studies. So Paul, its time to update your textbook.

I did some research today on the outstanding US public debt – not because I think it is particularly important but because a journalist asked me yesterday during an interview – how much of the total US Treasury Debt is held by the US government – I said off the top of my head about 42 per cent which was a quick calculation based on work I did about 12 months ago and a rapid adding up off what I remembered from the monthly reports since then with a quick division thrown in. It turns out after I have updated the databases I keep that my “guesstimate” was not misleading (as at March 2011). The journalist then said – “so lets get this straight, the US government owes itself money equivalent to 42 per cent of its total outstanding liabilities?” Answer: yes. He then responded: “to fix the debt problem why wouldn’t they just write it off?”. Answer: I don’t see a US public debt problem. But because you do, then the answer is that for the most part they could just write it off as long as their were some additional legislative changes (for example, they would have to finance the operations of the US Federal Reserve in a different manner). So who owns the US debt?