The title is my current working title for a book I am finalising over the next few months on the Eurozone. If all goes well (and it should) it will be published in both Italian and English by very well-known publishers. The publication date for the Italian edition is tentatively late April to early May 2014.
Australians have a history of being prone to a syndrome, which social anthropologists refer to as – cultural cringe. It’s a very nasty condition an “internalised inferiority complex which causes people in a country to dismiss their own culture as inferior to the cultures of other countries”. Not very attractive. Some might say it is a “fundamental element of Australian self-identity”. I don’t intend to write about that though – just observe that it exists and explains why scores of Australians have to “go overseas” and then come back again before recognition is forthcoming (for example, do PhD programs abroad when there is no evidence that they are better). Anyway, this syndrome revealed itself again this week when our politicians clearly felt they were being too sane and so decided to follow the lunacy of the politicians in the US and beat up our own little debt ceiling crisis. It just confirms that we are all living in the Land of Smoke and Mirrors and the Martians are embarrassed for us.
So the American conservatives wimped out again after a month or so of mindless bluster and hot air. The only problem is that their posturing, in itself, causes damage to the economy. It’s interesting that the conservative economists keep harping on about their belief that the existence of a budget deficit causes uncertainty among private firms who are then reluctant to invest because they fear higher tax rates to pay back the deficit. While this flawed narrative is not theoretically robust, defies history, and is empirically bereft, uncertainty is a problem for firms and the ridiculous behaviour of the American conservatives in the Congress in recent times has dramatically increased it. The world is moving now into a second phase of the retrenchment of the state. The first phase required the neo-liberals to redefine the crisis, which was clearly an issue of excessive private debt, as crisis of sovereign debt. They have been successful in achieving this step. Our ignorance and obsequiousness has allowed this mindless narrative to dominate the public debate. The second phase is now well underway way where the victims of the austerity become the focus of attention for the Conservative politicians. The unemployed are vilified as lazy and welfare cheats (their benefits are targeted – for example, in Ireland now); single mothers are accused of strategic pregnancies; and the old furphy – benefit migration – is wheeled out into the public debate to engender an increasing resentment of the presence of ethnic minorities who is simply trying to do what all of us want – to improve the lives of their families and themselves. All of these campaigns are designed to divide and conquer the populace, segment this into conflictual factions (“them and us” mentality), and justify further unwarranted cuts to government spending.
On September 7, 2013, the federal election in Australia saw the incumbent Labor Party deposed in fairly categorical terms and replaced by the “born-to-rule” conservative coalition (Liberal and Nationals). The Labor Party had been in power for two terms since 2007 after defeating the conservatives even more categorically, who had, in turn, been in power for 11 years. The Labor Party stormed to office in the 2007 federal election, taking 22 seats of coalition (and a further 1 from an independent) to hold 83 seats (primary vote 43.38 per cent, and two-party preferred 52.70 per cent). The conservative coalition was reduced to 65 seats (in the 150 seat lower house). The conservative Prime Minister lost his own seat so great was the rout. Between 2007 and 2013, the Australian Labor Party squandered that lead and in the process we had three Prime Ministers (2 different) as the Party factions conducted an internecene war. After last Saturday’s defeat, one of the Labor Prime Ministers (who had been deposed in June 2013 as a result of her total failure to win electoral appeal) wrote her assessment of the state of Labor as a result of the electoral defeat. The article – Julia Gillard writes on power, purpose and Labor’s future – is an extraordinary exercise in self-denial, despite much of it providing an assessment that I would agree with. But in the big issue – of economic credibility, Ms Gillard demonstrates why her Party was unfit to govern and why the conservatives are back in power and beginning yet another period where the rights and outcomes of workers will be attacked and dragged down. But this has only happened because of the monumental failure of the Labor Party to present a progressive alternative at a time when they had the Australian voters eating out of their hands.
Last weekend, the Australian government announced a major new funding initiative for farmers. The so-called – Farm Finance Program – will handout millions to farmers who are struggling to make ends meet. Whenever I see these special assistance packages being handed out to the rural sector, which is politically well-organised, I reflect on the plight of the unemployed. With unemployment rising in Australia as the economy goes into reverse on the back of failing private demand and deliberately imposed fiscal cutbacks, the decision to hand out economic largesse to the farmers wreaks of inconsistency. The unemployed have diminishing chances of getting a job at present and the income support provided by government is well below the poverty line. That poverty gap is increasing and the Government refuses to increase the benefit claiming fiscal incapacity. They also say they are jobs focused, despite employment growth being flat. The comparison of the vastly different way the government treats farmers relative to unemployed highlights, once again, that the way we construct a problem significantly affects the way we seek to solve it. The neo-liberal era has intensified these inconsistencies which have undermined the capacity of public policy to achieve its purpose – to improve the welfare of the citizens. The research question is: Why do we tolerate such inconsistent ways of thinking about policy problems and their solutions?
I ride a bike a lot. I raced a bike in European competition for many years. I also started the www-site – cyclingnews.com – which is now the largest of its type in the world. I started it as a way of bringing back news from Europe to my bike racing friends back in Australia who were starved of results and information about cycling. In the 1990s, I was regularly in contact with Lance Armstrong and spent time with him riding and recording his 1998 World Championship campaign in Maastricht. I knew team managers of some of the big teams and lots and lots of riders and other insiders. I know a lot about the insides of the sport – the bellissimo sport – the drug-riddled sport. One and the same. I also have a theoretical framework for analysing the practices in the sport that I think delivers understandings that go beyond the way the mainstream media react when some athlete tests positive to some substance that happens to be on one side of a very arbitrary and inconsistent line which demarcates legal and non-legal. Theses issues are dominating national news in Australia at present after the – Australiam Crime Commission – released the first of its reports on how drug and crime infested Australian sport is. It comes as no surprise.
Today, I read a Bloomberg article – How the IMF Can Help Reduce Unemployment – which, in part, makes out that the IMF know what they are talking about when it comes to macroeconomic policy (that was the hilarious aspect). The article also claims that the US government has pursued “expansionary fiscal policy … aggressively but growth has remained too weak”. That claim, which surfaces most days, is being used to indoctrinate people into holding the view that fiscal policy has failed and there is little the government can now do other than turn it over the market (with very substantial handouts to the powerful lobby groups – of-course – but that isn’t really government spending is it – not like helping the pitifully poor unemployed who have no income and no power)! This theme repeats like a worn out record. The reality is that the US government didn’t give fiscal policy a chance to work fully. It was clear that the stimulus packages underpinned economic growth in 2009 and 2010 and led to an increase in private confidence (backed by growth in consumption and private investment spending). But the fiscal support was withdrawn too soon as the latest national accounts data clearly shows. The point is that the US government wasn’t aggressive enough, got cold feet too soon, and has never exhausted its fiscal options.
I am taking the easy way out today. I have a number of meetings today and also several deadlines coming up for work that I am doing. As a result, I decided to re-cycle some work I did on Friday (early), which was written for the Fairfax press daily newspaper – The Age – as a commissioned Op Ed contribution. Friday was ridiculous when I think back – I had to squeeze more than Archimedes would recommend if I was dealing with liquid into the time available. So today, what comes around goes around – to my favour. The Op Ed was 800 odd words on a complex topic so today, by way of reference, I thought I would add a few sentences to the 800 words to provide more explanation of the points. The background was that a few high profile firms announced fairly large job cuts last week in Australia which lead to a stream of media headlines and calls for government assistance, both short-run in the form of cash bailouts and longer-term, more protection (tariffs etc). The macroeconomics of the situation, however, has not been seized upon by the media, which goes to the heart of the problem. The debate tends to focus on aspects of an issue, which are less important, and, ironically, in this case, are changes which are largely beneficial (structural change), but, ignoring the issues which cause the most damage (those relating to output gaps).
I am hosting a workshop in Darwin today, the first CofFEE event since we established a branch of our research group here at the University in October 2012. The topic is the Economic Prospects for Timor-Leste and the discussion is oriented to broaden the economic narrative beyond the rigid and growth-restricting fiscal rules that the IMF and the World Bank have pushed onto the Timor-Leste government. The aim of my work generally is to develop more inclusive and equitable approaches to economic development, which emphasise full employment, poverty reduction and environmental sustainability. A complete understanding of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) allows one to see the agenda of the multilateral organisations in a clear light. So while Timor-Leste has a major struggle ahead to achieve its strategic goals of becoming a middle-income nation by 2030, it would be advised to scrap its present currency arrangements and use its massive oil wealth to introduce unconditional and universal job guarantees as the starting point for a more coherent and inclusive development path.
With the natural disaster in the US now in its clean up stage the discussions have turned, in a predictable way, to “how will the US pay for this especially when it has huge deficits and debts and has to fall off a fiscal cliff anyway to stop the sky from falling in” – and narratives like that. Remember when Hurricane Irene struck in 2011? The resurgent Republicans tried to push through bills, which would have required matching cuts in other federal spending. The other Sandy reminder is that when the chips are down who do we all turn to? Government. What do you think would have been the current state, if the Republican contender was President and followed through on his promise to scrap FEMA and put emergency relief in the hands of the private sector, which apparently does things better? Chaos at best is the answer. The fact is that the federal government will be able to provide whatever financial assistance is required beyond private insurance payments. The only constraint that might hamper the recovery is the availability of real resources, which can be brought to bear. Further, it seems that the whole fiscal crisis beat up, even with the terms of the mainstream paradigm, is a beat-up, courtesy of some spurious work done by the Congressional Budget Office, that much-quoted, but seemingly, errant organisation.
I had an interesting conversation with a lunch visitor today about Germany (he lived and studied there) and its role in the Eurozone crisis. Yes, we talk economics even at times of rest! We discussed some of the events leading up to the Euro crisis and the important role played by the so-called progressive political parties in Germany. The conservative Christian Democrats are sounding like lunatics at the moment with the “You will have austerity and enjoy it” mantras. The focus on their harsh and destructive stance supporting fiscal austerity has taken the spotlight off the real culprits – the SPD and the Greens. We should never forget the role that they played – over the period of the Gerhard Schröder’s federal government (1998-2005) – in creating the pre-conditions that have ensured the crisis will be long and very damaging. We should also remember that Green parties have developed a tendency to be “neo-liberals on bikes” as a means of gaining power. The problem is that once they are pedalling in that direction they lose the capacity to pursue truly green policies, which extend beyond the remit of having clean building codes and sound urban design.
I was reading the recently published (June 11, 2012) – CBI Education and Skills Survey 2012 – from the Confederation of British Industry today. A day after the Report was published, the British Office of National Statistics released the latest (April 2012) – Index of Production – data which shows that “the seasonally adjusted Index of Production fell by 1.0 per cent” over the 12 months to April 2012 and that in the last month the “seasonally adjusted Index of Manufacturing fell by 0.7 per cent”. That is a large collapse. Since 2008, British production has slumped by 10 per cent overall even though the currency has depreciated by around 20 per cent against the Euro over the last 5 years. Earlier today I saw news footage of ignorant males (mostly) beating each other up over a soccer game in Warsaw. And in recent national elections, polarisation towards the extremes is evident. And all the while, technocrats that dominate organisations such as the IMF and the ECB are, inexorably, pushing economies into even more dire situations that we could have imagined four years ago, when the neo-liberal bubble burst. And in my own sector (higher education) the buzz is STEM and technocrats are using that buzz agenda to pursue strategies that will diminish our futures irrevocably. All these events, outcomes, strategies etc are related and cry out for a major shift in thinking by governments and educational institutions.
Bloomberg News carried the headline today (November 23, 2011) – Germany Sees No ‘Bazooka’ in Resolving Debt Crisis as Spanish Yields Surge – which reiterated various statements in recent days from German political leaders eschewing any role for the ECB in defending the EMU from impending collapse. The Germans seem to have very selective memories. There was a time – much closer to today than their hyperinflation experience – when their citizens were cold and hungry and only a major fiscal intervention saved them from greater austerity. There was a time when they marched in the streets with placard declaring “Wir wollen Brot!”.
Several readers have asked me to comment on the recent New York Times Op Ed by Paul Krugman (October 30, 2011) – Bombs, Bridges and Jobs – which outlined the double standards among many conservatives who argue that “government does not create jobs” unless it engaged in military spending but still argued that such spending would be good for jobs and an increase would be welcome. It comes at a time when the new Haitian president is proposing to spend large sums of aid money on restablishing a military force in the nation despite not being able to offer basic housing, sanitation, education or health care. The appeal by the “military-industrial complex” that military spending is good for the economy is long standing and rarely refuted. After all, spending equals income and output which creates employment. But is expanding the military budget or insulating it from cuts the best way to create employment? Should we welcome, as Paul Krugman does, more military spending? The answer is that military spending has positive employment effects which are dwarfed by those pertaining to public spending on education, personal care services and other forms of public infrastructure. Haiti should build houses and schools and forget about the army.
The UK Observer Editorial yesterday (October 30, 2011) – The economy: we need Plan B and we need it now – was focuses on a so-called Plan B that has surfaced as the progressive democratic alternative to the now failed Plan A which the British government has been ideologically ramming down the throats of its citizens since it was elected in May 2010. Plan B was put together by the UK Compass Organisation and apparently (in the words of that organisation) represents where “where is the left on the economy”. My reaction is that if that is what goes for “left” these days then what do we call “right”. If this is what goes for progressive economic analysis then what happened to progressive. Today’s blog thus continues my theme – When you’ve got friends like this – and constitutes Part 7 of that sequence. The main thing I find problematic about these “progressive agendas” seem to be falling for the myth that the financial markets are now the de facto governments of our nations which becomes a self-reinforcing perspective and will only deepen the malaise facing the world. The essence is if Plan A has failed and Plan B is as outlined by Compass then the world desperately needs Plan C.
I guess I had to write something about the “compromise” aka cave-in yesterday in the US capital. You can only conclude that the US President wanted this agenda and needed a smokescreen (mad Republicans) to put it in place. There is a lot of evidence that Obama wanted to attack pension and medical entitlements. Now he can. Not for long though – he is a one-term president in the making. When you put all the elements together sometimes compromise is the worst thing.
I saw a bit of the recent US Republican candidates’ debate. It was extremely boring to say the least. If that field is the best conservative America can muster and Obama is the best the conservatives who think they are progressives can muster then que dieu nous aide. I thought the policy discussion from the candidates in the debate were woeful and I longed for Sarah Palin to walk in and say something sensible. But one influential commentator did find something rather interesting and pleasing about the debate. In this Wall Street Journal article (June 16, 2011) – Republicans Return to Reality – Peggy Noonan tells us that the GOP has at least demonstrated a new sobriety when it comes to policy. The reason? Read on. But my reaction is to draft a memo to the US Treasury – headline – E-mail me for my bank details.
I imagine it goes like this. Your driving along listening to the radio and the Australia Treasurer comes on and is saying that we need a budget surplus because we have a once-in-a-hundred years mining boom and are near full capacity but given the government tax take is seriously below the forward estimates because growth is slowing, the government has to have even more drastic cuts in spending in the upcoming May budget than first thought. Why? To achieve the budget surplus! Then the Opposition spokesperson for matters economic says we are running out of money. And us ordinary citizens take it all in because it is headline news this lunchtime and we become entrapped by the logic of the situation as set out by the journalist who fuels the discussion along these lines. The only problem is that I am not an ordinary citizen in this context. The problem lies in the starting premise – the blind pursuit of the budget surplus. All the rest of the nonsense follows from that ill-conceived goal. It is getting ridiculous though.
The morning news headlines today (April 1, 2011) were all touting our Prime Minister’s tough talk last night while giving the Inaugural Gough Whitlam Oration. She outlined a plan to introduce harsh spending cuts in the upcoming May Federal Budget to preserve the strength of the economy. This is an economy that is barely growing and has 12.2 per cent of its available labour (at least) idle! Her speech was a frightening display of how far the public debate on macroeconomics has moved away from being based on an understanding of how things work to being driven by conservative fears about budget deficits based on a series of lies. Depressingly, which ever way one turns over here you have to conclude that the neo-liberals rule in Australia and seek to undermine our prosperity. At the same time, ironically, our prosperity is being saved by some communists .
Some time ago I started a theme “When you’ve got friends like this” which focuses on how limiting the so-called progressive policy input has become in the modern debate about deficits and public debt. Today is a continuation of that theme. The earlier blogs – When you’ve got friends like this – Part 0 – Part 1 – Part 2 and Part 3 – serve as background. The theme indicates that what goes for progressive argument these days is really a softer edged neo-liberalism. The main thing I find problematic about these “progressive agendas” is that they are based on faulty understandings of the way the monetary system operates and the opportunities that a sovereign government has to advance well-being. Progressives today seem to be falling for the myth that the financial markets are now the de facto governments of our nations and what they want they should get. It becomes a self-reinforcing perspective and will only deepen the malaise facing the world.