Early in the crisis I wrote this blog – The origins of the economic crisis – which set out some of the underlying dynamics of the neo-liberal era that had combined to establish the preconditions for the resulting collapse of the financial system. There was an interesting article in the UK Guardian on Tuesday (January 18, 2011) – The myth of ‘American exceptionalism’ implodes – by US academic Richard Wolff that bears on the themes I regularly discuss in my blog. The importance of the article is that it clearly outlines why the crisis emerged and further that the game is up – we cannot go back to where we were prior to the crisis. The reality is that a paradigm change is required and it is just a matter of which way things will go now. The signs are ominous that a conservative backlash is coming that will make the neo-liberal period look like a Sunday School picnic. But there is also scope for progressives to seize the moment. The problem is that there isn’t much going on in progressive land. The starting point should be a credible attack on the dominant macroeconomics – that is my little part of the story. Helpers needed.

I am travelling for most of this week with a very disrupted working routine – in between commitments. So this blog is shorter than usual and also somewhat unfinished in its conception. But the topic is the current call for the American Economic Association to introduce a code of ethical conduct for professional economists in the light of revelations in recent years about the abominable behaviour that many (academic) economists have displayed where they provide expert opinion in public in their guise as an independent economist but at the same time are being paid stipends of one form or another by corporations who would be affected by policy changes that the economists are talking about. This is usually in the context of such economists calling for more extensive deregulation. My view is that a more serious challenge to my profession has to be made. A code of conduct is fine but when the whole carcass of the profession is corrupted and rotten something more comprehensive is required – a major rethink about how we teach economics – nothing short of a scientific revolution is required. The whole body of mainstream economics needs to be trashed.

Today I was reading the latest labour force data released by the UK Office of National Statistics which shows that the British labour market is now contracting as the public sector job cuts begin. The British government continues to claim that to reduce unemployment you have to deliberately create unemployment. They believe that by reducing public involvement in the economy (which means in a macroeconomic sense – withdrawing spending which generates both public and private employment) the private sector will spontaneously erupt in a surge of growth. They are in total denial of the obvious fact that spending equals income and public servants spend in exactly the same way as private employees – by handing over dollars to shopkeepers around the land. When have anyone of you been asked by a cashier whether you are working in a government or private sector job before they accept your cash? Never! As the public jobs are scrapped in the hundreds of thousands, the loss of spending will damage the private sector who will react by reducing their demand for labour and postponing their investment plans. The only hope is that exports will save them but that is highly unlikely. When do the people rise up against these ideological zealots? But the fact that when spending is cut unemployment rises – is no surprise to me. It is a basic macroeconomic reality. The problem is the neo-liberals never let basic facts get in the road of their religious convictions (or bald-faced power grabs).

Today is the first day of the 12th Path to Full Employment Conference/17th National Unemployment Conference in Newcastle, hosted by my research centre. As host I am tied up in the event but here are some snippets. All of the presentations in the parallel sessions have been very interesting. I also note some economic news out from the Australian Bureau of Statistics today for October 2010 which provide more news that the Australian economy is growing only modestly. More tomorrow. UPDATE: Audio file now available.

The UK is still in the grip of a serious slowdown and the British government has begun its fiscal austerity program which will savage net public spending and cause wide spread job losses. But the Chancellor is still boasting that Plan A – scorch the economy – will be maintained and he has sought legitimacy for his position in the release by the UK Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) of its Economic and Fiscal Outlook November 2010 yesterday (November 29, 2010). When one examines the OBR document in detail one could be excused for thinking it was a “colouring-in” exercise with a difference – you know, draw nice colourful bar charts to tell the story that you want based on assumptions that will not survive empirical scrutiny in coming months and years. The problem for Britain is that there does not appear to be a Plan B. It is all or nothing and while the “lab rat” nature of the policy experiment is intellectually interesting for researchers such as myself I don’t want to glean enjoyment from what will be the increased suffering of millions. Plan A will fail because the assumptions and projections are unrealistic. When you haven’t got a Plan B then that failure will be very costly.

I have noted in recent weeks a periodic reference to long-run neutrality of money. Several readers have written to me to explain this evidently jargon-laden concept that has pervaded mainstream economics for two centuries and has been used throughout that history, in different ways, to justify the case against policy-activism by government in the face of mass unemployment. It is once again being invoked by the deficit terrorists to justify fiscal austerity despite the millions of productive workers who remain unemployed. I have been working on a new book over the last few days which includes some of the theoretical debates that accompany the notion of neutrality. There will also be a chapter in the macroeconomics text book that Randy Wray and I are working on at present on this topic. Essentially, it involves an understanding of what has been called the “classical dichotomy”. It is a highly technical literature and that makes it easy to follow if you are good at mathematical reasoning. It is harder to explain it in words but here goes. I have tried to write this as technically low-brow as I can. The bottom line takeaway – the assertion that money is neutral in the long-run is a nonsensical contrivance that the mainstream invoke to advance their ideological agenda against government intervention. It is theoretically bereft and empirical irrelevant. That conclusion should interest you! But be warned – this is just an introduction to a very complex literature that spans 200 years or so.

I have given some further consideration to the Co-Chairs Draft Proposal from the US National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which was released on Wednesday (November 11, 2010). This was in the context of reading an article over the weekend that said the the co-chairs’ report reads like a document from Mars. I can’t say I know much about Mars but I thought this description was a bit unkind to any life forms that might exist there. Does the author of that comment have any insights about Mars that we do not have? Given my propensity to be hopeful rather than assume the worst I prefer to think of the unknown Mars as being occupied by nice, thoughtful, smart, considered and above all realistic people. They would never produce such a silly document as the co-chairs have had the audacity to inflict on the public policy debate. Martians are (probably) better than this.