Professor Bill Mitchell’s blog, dated 22 November 2018, “Japan still to slip in the sea under its central bank debt burden” gives MMT advocates all the ammunition they need to present a case for greater fiscal participation in the economy.

It signals quite clearly that government spending, not monetary policy (RBA interest rate management), is the more effective tool to bring about full employment and maximise the use of Australia’s available resources.

For nearly 30 years now, the Bank of Japan, the nation’s central bank, has been buying government debt (deficit spending), to the point where its current holdings are now greater than the country’s GDP.

However, despite massive injections of ‘created money’ into its monetary base, Professor Mitchell says, “inflation (in Japan) remains low and despite low interest rates, economic activity is hardly booming.”

Mainstream economists seem unable to connect this reality with their more dire predictions that Japan’s fiscal policy over this period, must lead to hyperinflation. It has done nothing of the sort.

For the past 30 years, mainstream macroeconomists the world over, have been predicting the demise of the Japanese economy, claiming it will slip into the sea, that its debt burden is unsustainable, that there are limits to the amount of assets the Bank of Japan can buy.

What has happened is that, “the Bank of Japan continues to demonstrate the categorical failure of mainstream macroeconomics and, conversely, ratify the core principles of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).”

Each time their predictions have been proved wrong they have been forced to invent excuses, such as closed markets and cultural peculiarities. It’s all hogwash!

What these Economists are really concerned about, is that by buying government debt and keeping interest rates low, the Bank of Japan is effectively preventing the commercial banks using the bond market to make profits.

By not issuing bonds to offset government debt, it is depriving the commercial banks off a risk-free asset from which they can make money. The BOJ has “effectively killed regular trading in the once lucrative bond market.”

It has defied claims that currency-issuing governments like Australia, are captive to the yields in play on secondary bond markets.

How terrible is that?

Australia currently has 5% of the workforce, or 700,000 people looking for work with a further 800,000 working less hours than most would prefer. This represents a huge underutilisation of available resources, yet our government and the media, via their economic “experts” claim our economy is humming along nicely. More hogwash! Our economy is underperforming.

By way of comparison, Japan’s unemployment rate as at September 2018 was just 2.3%

To the further detriment of our underperforming economy, it is just what our government wants. It might appear that they are concerned at the slow rate of growth and the low wages growth, but deep down, captive as they are to the demands of the big end of town, they do not want full employment, or any significant wages growth.

Such economically beneficial activity would impact on the profits of commerce and industry, the source of their political funding. It is corporate welfare by stealth. The state of the Japanese economy, proves that decades of deficit spending and huge injections of money into what was a stagnant economy, does not risk inflation when the injection is correctly targeted.

There is no reason why we, in Australia, cannot do this and achieve full employment, a higher GDP, which itself will attract further private investment and in the process, improve living standards for all Australians.

We can do this, if we can change the mentality that dominates current mainstream economic thinking. But, at the moment, our prime minister is so intent on fuelling an outbreak of anti-Islamic sentiment, for no other reason than to attract votes, that our economy is destined to continue underperforming.

As Bill Mitchell says, “All those commentators who claim that accelerating inflation would result if governments abandoned debt-issuance but continued to run deficits, have been repeatedly shown to be wrong.”

What will it take to get this simply message across to those in treasury who have the power to change government thinking?

As a committed advocate of Modern Monetary Theory and one who thinks it should be renamed, Modern Monetary System, for reasons I will explain, there have been occasions when I have felt a sense of futility, trying to explain something so simple, but finding myself unable to convince even those who should know better.

Firstly, MMT should be referred to as MMS because it is no longer a theory. It is the way our fiat economy was set up to operate and does operate today. Its implementation took place in 1983 and the fact that it has never been used as it was intended, does not mean it is theoretical.

The fact that we still fear deficit spending, strive to balance budgets, lust for surpluses and consider bond issues as debt, is a hangover from a past era, that of the gold standard.

The fact that we fail to fully utilise our available resources, consider 5% unemployment near full employment, shy away from providing the necessary infrastructure for our industries and neglect our national health and education needs, when each of these represents real jobs and growth opportunities, is a travesty of mismanagement and failed leadership.

Last night’s Q&A which highlighted the difficulties experienced by those reliant on the NDIS, gave us a clear indicator that the government is not even spending its own budget allocation on this vital piece of infrastructure. The NBN rollout is just another example of this failed leadership.

And it seems that no matter how clear and concise we are in explaining the economic reality of MMT, successive governments still cling to the gold standard mindset. Why?

Michael Pascoe’s article in ‘The New Daily’ today, sheds some light on the truth of the matter. In discussing the latest on the never-ending tax debate, something the entire country is heartily sick of hearing, he points to what the government is really doing in pursuing this matter.

He writes, “In the short term, it’s a formula in keeping with the Institute of Public Affairs’ prescription for a new Australia – an Australia with less government, richer rich and fewer controls on markets – especially the labour market.”

He goes on to say, “The IPA has emerged as not just the favoured right-wing think tank, but the government’s guiding light. It is too tempting to not again repeat one of John Kenneth Galbraith’s many golden quotes:
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.””

We have known from the beginning of the Howard years, and perhaps from some of Paul Keating’s decisions, that it is the rich who run the country. They run it for the rich and they get the best results by supporting conservative leaning parties and their politicians.

Trying to establish a tax system, using confected figures to present fairness and equality, as Scott Morrison has done suggesting average workers are expected to earn six figure sums in a few years’ time, displays a height of arrogance as bold as his government’s self-serving aspirations.

It is a disgrace. But, we know that if you tell a lie, big enough and often enough, people who don’t know any better, will be inclined to believe it. And therein lies the difficulty with people like me who are trying to explain MMT to the average person in the street. How could anything so simple be right. It must be more complicated than that, surely. No, actually it isn’t.

As Michael Pascoe says so eloquently in his article, “In the longer term, flattening our progressive tax system is a tiny part of one of history’s repeating cycles: wealth and power being used to entrench and extend wealth and power until it becomes unsupportable.”

Notwithstanding the difficulties of explaining MMT, there is progress. But it is painfully slow. Much like the NBN. However, one day we will get there, even if it is only a partial implementation. The alternative is the status quo, which, for those who haven’t yet worked it out, is all about keeping the average worker at arm’s length from the rich.

And that really is an unsustainable option.

By 2353NM 

Normally around this time of the year over at The Political Sword we write an article that discusses some of the themes and issues that we looked at through the year that has nearly finished. In 2017, we’re going to do something different.

You may remember in March this year, we announced with great sorrow of the passing of our fellow conspirator, good friend and (there is no other way to say it) really nice bloke, Ken Wolff, who was a regular writer on this blog. Ken’s last article was entitled ‘Watch this Space in 2017’, first published on 15 January 2017.To demonstrate his acute awareness of the political system in Australia and globally, as well as how well he wrote about it, we’ve decided to revisit the article and see how accurate his predictions were. Ken’s words are in italics throughout this article and it has been edited for length. After a preamble, Ken got straight into the subject.

Will the Australian economy improve or continue to stagnate?

In December [2016] we had the news that the Australian economy had contracted by 0.5% in the September quarter. Most of the pundits do not expect that to be repeated in the December quarter, which means we would avoid a recession (which requires two consecutive quarters of contraction).

Australia formally didn’t enter a recession in 2017, however the economy is still not strong due to flat wages growth and low inflation.

The end of car manufacturing will lead to increased unemployment, not only in the car industry but in the companies that previously relied on providing parts to that industry. Couple that with the lack of wages growth (the lowest since records have been kept) and the government will be losing more in income tax revenue, and paying more in unemployment benefit, making it that much more difficult to achieve its stated aim of bringing the budget back to surplus.

Holden and Toyota have now finished manufacturing vehicles in Australia, (the last Australian Ford rolled down the production line in 2016) and while all three companies did and continue to support their ex-employees with employment assistance, the large number of people involved and the necessity to discover new skills has caused significant dislocation.

The economy did not go well in 2016 and the prospect for 2017 isn’t all that good. Even in his MYEFO in December, Morrison lowered the estimated rate of economic growth for both financial year 2016?17 and 2017?18. The new forecast rate of growth isn’t even enough to absorb new entrants into the workforce (usually accepted as about 3%) and that is without considering that the economic growth forecasts for the past few years have proven optimistic. Certainly don’t expect a boom year but how bad it may be, we will have to wait and see.

Well – that’s pretty accurate.

Will Scott Morrison ever understand the budget?

Ever since the Abbott/Turnbull government was elected, and returned last year, the government’s budget deficit has continued to grow. Low commodity prices, over which the government has no control, and slow wages growth, which government policies have actually promoted, have not helped.

Morrison, however, continues to focus on government spending rather than revenue raising. Although he has backed away somewhat from his earlier statement that the government had a spending problem not a revenue problem, his actions have remained focused on reducing spending. (I won’t get into the MMT argument here.)

The government has ignored the opportunity to borrow money at historically low interest rates to fund infrastructure. Although it is now talking more about infrastructure,

To his credit, Morrison did change track to an extent in the 2017 budget with an increased spend on infrastructure such as the Western Sydney Airport. Shane Oliver from AMP Capital reviewed the budget, delivered in May. Although Oliver concludes with

The 2017-18 Budget has a sensible focus on housing affordability and infrastructure. The main risks remain around the revenue assumptions and when we will get back to surplus.

It appears it may be at a time when interest rates could be on the rise again — US interest rates are certainly likely to rise during 2017 which may force some other countries to raise theirs in order to maintain their currency.

The US interest rate went up to 1% during March 2017, with further upward movement predicted. However,

The Federal Reserve left the target range for its federal funds rate unchanged at 1 percent to 1.25 percent during its November 2017 meeting as widely expected.

Our Reserve Bank still has capacity to reduce interest rates (although such reductions have done nothing to stimulate the economy so far). If it does reduce interest rates, and the US increases rates, the Australian dollar is likely to drop in value. The government will claim that helps exporters but it will increase the price of imports which may not help our ‘terms of trade’ and will also potentially lower our living standards by making imported consumer goods more expensive at a time when wages are barely growing — not something that would enhance the government’s electoral appeal.

Australia’s interest rate remained steady all year – here’s part of the RBA’s February announcement

At its meeting today, the Board decided to leave the cash rate unchanged at 1.50 per cent

and the November announcement

At its meeting today, the Board decided to leave the cash rate unchanged at 1.50 per cent.

Will Morrison and Turnbull finally concede that they also need to raise revenue in the next budget? That will be one to watch although I expect that, if so, they will do their best to obscure the fact.

Did Morrison and Turnbull concede – according to Greg Jericho the answer is a qualified ‘yes’

Will there be a new conservative party?

Cory Bernardi is creating a nation-wide conservative movement but not yet formally a new conservative party. It will be interesting to watch where that goes in 2017 and whether it turns into a fully-fledged political party.

The Liberal party will no doubt do its best to stop it happening as it would further split the conservative vote, although that may not be an issue until the next federal election. If such a party comes into being during 2017, it could have serious implications for the government because it has only a one seat majority in the House of Representatives. Even if only one or two Liberal or National members in the House were attracted to the new party, that would create a situation where not only does the government have to negotiate with crossbenchers in the Senate but also in the House to have legislation passed. Although the conservatives already seem to wield considerable influence in the Liberal party room, if they held the balance of power in the House, that could actually increase their influence. That may even be a consideration in the formation of such a party: if they wish to create Australia in their conservative image, having a couple of members in the current House could help them achieve that, or force Turnbull to another election earlier than he would wish.

The electoral implications are that the conservative vote could be split between the Liberals, One Nation, the Nationals and the new party, leaving open the possibility that Labor would lead on first preference votes in more House of Representative seats and have an improved chance of winning them. And it is likely that a proportion of the preferences for a new conservative party would flow to One Nation (and vice versa) before they flowed to the Liberals, so it would be very interesting.

Queensland went to the polls last weekend. While Bernardi’s Australian Conservatives movement has become a Political Party, it did not run in the Queensland election. One Nation ran in over 60 of the 93 seats in the Queensland Parliament at the election and at the time of writing, they have been successful in one seat while the LNP self-immolates over giving them preferences but accepting One Nation preferencing most sitting members (ALP or LNP) last.

In a major organisational blunder, Hanson’s One Nation ‘forgot’ to register for the March 2018 South Australian state election in time. Xenophon’s SA Best and Bernardi’s Australian Conservatives are expected to have candidates.

Will Turnbull remain prime minister?

Personally I think he will in 2017 but 2018 may be a different story — unless he voluntarily decides to toss in the towel, deciding it is just too difficult to govern his fractious coalition and cope with the constant negotiation with the Senate crossbenchers (and potentially House cross benchers) to have legislation passed.

As indicated above the earliest an election can be called is August 2018. I doubt he would dare have another double dissolution before then as that would not go down well with the electorate (but if he loses members in the House to a new conservative party he may be forced to).

Unfortunately Ken didn’t live to see the brouhaha over Section 44 of the Constitution. There are two by-elections already scheduled for December in the seat of New England (‘held’ by Nationals’ Leader Barnaby Joyce who was duly re-elected as he has apparently renounced his New Zealand citizenship and increased his already healthy margin) and Bennelong (‘held’ by the Liberals’ John Alexander on a much slimmer margin, with a high profile ALP candidate and in Sydney, which makes him much less certain to be returned after renouncing his inherited UK citizenship). There are also a number of other MPs and Senators under a citizenship ‘cloud’ although all MPs and Senators have a 1 December cut off to demonstrate their citizenship. This saga still has a long way to go.

With Turnbull’s federal Coalition no longer having a majority of members in the House of Representatives thanks to the ‘dual citizenships’ of Barnaby Joyce and John Alexander in late November, he prolonged the House of Representatives for a week in fear of losing the vote on establishing a banking enquiry on Monday. Turnbull announced a banking industry enquiry on Thursday after a number of National Party members threatened to cross the floor to ensure one was established regardless.

The various claims and counter claims of dual citizenship would have been great fodder for another one of Ken’s specialities, his humorous take on the completely absurd. Ken was the writer behind the backyard bigot, ‘Tiny Napoleon O’penmouth’ and ‘Mal C’od-turn-a-bull who all made appearances (to paraphrase an old commercial) ‘when only comedy would do’

Abbott has spoken against the rise of a new party and will some in the Liberal party see Tony Abbott as the one who can provide a bulwark against defections to a new conservative party or even its creation? Although perhaps not intended, the pressure created by threats of a new conservative party may well enhance the chance of an Abbott return to counter it.

Abbott is still ‘not being destructive’ by outlining his visions to his conservative rump using every media opportunity he can muster. Despite pitiful polling numbers by Turnbull, there seems to be no real appetite in the Coalition to return to the days of a Prime Minister who was ‘relaxed and comfortable’ in brief red swimming trunks (thankfully; due to the fashion statement if no other reason).

Will Trump really threaten the world as we know it?

While Trump may cause problems for the US with his apparently contradictory promises to halve the company tax rate, spend billions on infrastructure and improve the US budget bottom line, their impact on Australia will play out indirectly through the international financial system. Of more direct consequence to Australia could be his trade and foreign policies, particularly relating to China.

Trump may wish to be more friendly with Putin and Russia but he will have to remember that China and Russia are still close, if not as close as once they were. He also sees North Korea as a threat but will have little scope to do anything about it without Chinese support although he thinks that using trade as a lever may also force China to act. He may think he is a good negotiator but he and his appointees will run up against expert negotiators and some, like the Chinese, are certainly willing to play the ‘long game’, something which Trump and his ilk seem unable to do.

The US and North Korean leaders have had an interesting relationship this year. From Trump claiming the threat of North Korea using nuclear weapons ‘won’t happen’ early in the year, through Trump attempting with some success to pressure China to reduce trade with North Korea, to Trump calling Kim Jong-Un ‘rocket man’ with Jong-Un responding with a spray that included the phrase ‘mentally deranged U.S. dotard’. That all happened before the North Korean media sentenced Trump to death in November for the crime of posting a tweet saying ‘Why would Kim Jong-Un insult me by calling me ‘old,’ when I would NEVER call him ‘short and fat’? Who would have though this might have apparently insulted Jong-Un?

Australia may continue sitting on the fence and use ‘diplomatic speak’ to suggest that differences should be resolved diplomatically but that may become more difficult under a Trump presidency. Will Australia be forced to side with either the US or China on some key issue? That will be a difficult position for Australia given that they are our two biggest trading partners.

North Korea certainly had an opinion on Australia’s claimed support for the U.S., suggesting the actions were suicidal, however on the surface Australia seems to be able to discuss issues with both the US and China.

On trade, Trump is keen to scrap US involvement in the TPP which will effectively be its demise. Turnbull has consistently insisted that the TPP is essential to Australia’s future, so what will its demise mean for that future? It will be another piece of Turnbull’s economic plan that fails to materialise — which in the case of the TPP may not be a bad thing.

Correct again but Canada not signing as well was a bit of a surprise (especially to the leaders of the other APEC Countries that had turned up to the signing ceremony in Vietnam!)

The main concern is a potential trade war between China and the US. If the US becomes more protectionist and imposes tariffs on Chinese imports, that may reduce Chinese production which in turn will reduce demand for Australian resources, with all the economic consequences that implies. It could also mean that China sends more cheap goods to Australia that formerly went to the US and that could further undermine what manufacturing we have left unless we also declare that they are ‘dumping’ goods in Australia and impose punitive tariffs which will essentially be biting the hand that feeds us. If this scenario unfolds, Australia will be in a difficult place economically and in how to respond to the challenges it throws up.

In turn, it may also mean that China pays more attention than it already does to developing nations in Africa and the Pacific and that will have foreign policy implications for Australia. We have been cutting our foreign aid budget but if China redirects its effort, we may be forced to do more in that area or accept further growth of Chinese influence in the region — which way will we go?

China announced its ‘One Belt, One Road’ (OBOR) program during 2017, the subject of a briefing note issued by the Parliament of Australia which concludes

Regardless of the credence which one assigns to the various interpretations of the OBOR initiative, progress thus far makes it clear that as Australia becomes increasingly tied economically with China, there is a need to maintain a close watch on the progress of the OBOR initiative globally. It also suggests that Australia needs to adopt a more economically and strategically prudent attitude in determining how the Australia-China economic relationship is to further develop.

Conclusion

The above are just a few of the questions that could arise during 2017. It may prove to be an interesting year both here in Australia and internationally.

All in all, Ken was pretty accurate with his predictions. The related posts for this article are chosen to demonstrate the expanse of knowledge and understanding Ken demonstrated in his writing (and the private emails that help run this site). We said last March we’d miss Ken – and we do.

For Ken’s 90th and last time –

What do you think?

By Ric Testori

With the Australian Federal Budget coming in a month or so, what can we expect from our government and opposition parties which are both fully committed to the false neo-liberal concepts of fighting budget deficits and accepting unnecessarily high levels of unemployment/underemployment? My answer is “Not much”.

At the same time, I see and admire so much thought and effort being given by a handful of activists and thinkers associated with Modern Money Theory (MMT). And then I receive several new messages and memes from other activist groups such as GetUp who it seems are actively working against these very people that I admire so much. I joined GetUp and donate to them because I wanted to help everyday Australians have their voice over the noise and alt-truths of the mainstream media.

How disappointing it is for me to see GetUp continuing to push the same neoclassical economic bullshit in its own campaigns. They complain that the LNP have increased the “national debt” without considering how much worse things might be if spending on welfare and services were cut to reduce that inconsequential number. They fight hand and nail against tax cuts for the middle class and corporations without considering that taxes do not fund government spending. By giving honour to the stupid “deficit” lies they undermine everything they say they are fighting for. They continuously compare the LNP´s claim of “better management” to their apparent inability to control debt levels, without considering that the increasing debt is a result of the automatic stabilizers (Newstart etc) which are the only things keeping us out of a serious depression.

I can understand that MMT is not yet a platform supported by GetUp, but surely they can gain a little education in the matter of economics and stop fighting against us. They can stop supporting the false, orthodox neoclassical bullshit and speak honestly and truthfully about the necessity for budget deficits in appropriate times (like now).

These are the policies GetUp have launched as part of their Brighter Budget campaign:
1. Reform negative gearing.
2. Reform superannuation tax concessions.
3. Introduce the ‘Buffett Rule’.
4. Scrap the capital gains tax discount.
5. Cut fossil fuel subsidies.
6. Impose a super profits tax on banks.
7. Introduce a ‘Tobin Tax’ on high frequency financial transactions.
8. Place a duty on wealthy estates.

All of these policies seek to increase tax revenues, although (to give credit to their wording) the reasons given are mostly to increase fairness and combat inequality. But by making the campaigns lopsided against wealthier taxpayers and corporations, they almost guarantee the creation of a strong opposition against their implementation and their ultimate defeat.

A far better and more effective campaign would surely be to educate everyone, including activists, journalists and politicians, that taxes do not fund government expenditure. And that the concept of a “national debt” and similarities to household budgets are totally meaningless when applied to our fiat currency issuing federal government. As long as terms like a “balanced budget” are given power, force and meaning within our community there can never be fairness or honesty in any budget from any Australian government.

By ignoring Modern Money Theory (MMT), the GetUp organisation is playing directly into the hands of the neo-liberals who are clearly in charge of both LNP and ALP fiscal policies. Not even the Greens acknowledge the total failure of neoclassical economics to manage, describe or make reasonable predictions for the real world we live in.

Not even the glaringly obvious benefits and desirability of a federal Job Guarantee are mentioned anywhere in GetUp´s literature. The horrors and costs of involuntary unemployment (or underemployment) do not seem to exist as a policy worth consideration or mention.

By Ken Wolff

As with most political issues, the following few questions are inter-related: Turnbull’s future may well depend on the economy, on whether or not a new conservative party forms and whether there is a Trump-inspired trade or currency war between China and the US; our economy may well depend on what Trump does in relation to China, let alone whether Morrison displays any understanding of economics; and so on.

Will the Australian economy improve or continue to stagnate?

In December we had the news that the Australian economy had contracted by 0.5% in the September quarter. Most of the pundits do not expect that to be repeated in the December quarter, which means we would avoid a recession (which requires two consecutive quarters of contraction).

On the other hand, commodity prices are still weak, although better than they were, and if a US/China trade war erupts may weaken again. Every reduction in commodity prices flows through a large segment of our economy, affecting the supporting businesses and often, through reductions in the workforce, local businesses, and the impact then multiplies ultimately affecting government revenue. The Christmas season may help us avoid a ‘technical recession’ (that magical six months) but will we see another quarter or two of contraction during 2017?

This year will also see the end of car manufacturing in Australia. That has implications across a number of industries and, as some commentators have noted, it has been car manufacturing that has driven much of the technological innovation in the manufacturing sector. Turnbull’s ‘innovative and agile’ economy may become a little more wobbly as a result.

The end of car manufacturing will lead to increased unemployment, not only in the car industry but in the companies that previously relied on providing parts to that industry. Couple that with the lack of wages growth (the lowest since records have been kept) and the government will be losing more in income tax revenue and paying more in unemployment benefit, making it that much more difficult to achieve its stated aim of bringing the budget back to surplus.

The economy did not go well in 2016 and the prospect for 2017 isn’t all that good. Even in his MYEFO in December, Morrison lowered the estimated rate of economic growth for both financial year 2016‒17 and 2017‒18. The new forecast rate of growth isn’t even enough to absorb new entrants into the workforce (usually accepted as about 3%) and that is without considering that the economic growth forecasts for the past few years have proven optimistic. Certainly don’t expect a boom year but how bad it may be we will have to wait and see.

Will Scott Morrison ever understand the budget?

Ever since the Abbott/Turnbull government was elected, and returned last year, the government’s budget deficit has continued to grow. Low commodity prices, over which the government has no control, and slow wages growth, which government policies have actually promoted, have not helped.

Morrison, however, continues to focus on government spending rather than revenue raising. Although he has backed away somewhat from his earlier statement that the government had a spending problem not a revenue problem, his actions have remained focused on reducing spending. (I won’t get into the MMT argument here.)

The government has ignored the opportunity to borrow money at historically low interest rates to fund infrastructure. Although it is now talking more about infrastructure, it appears it may be at a time when interest rates could be on the rise again — US interest rates are certainly likely to rise during 2017 which may force some other countries to raise theirs in order to maintain their currency.

Our Reserve Bank still has capacity to reduce interest rates (although such reductions have done nothing to stimulate the economy so far). If it does reduce interest rates, and the US increases rates, the Australian dollar is likely to drop in value. The government will claim that helps exporters but it will increase the price of imports which may not help our ‘terms of trade’ and will also potentially lower our living standards by making imported consumer goods more expensive at a time when wages are barely growing — not something that would enhance the government’s electoral appeal.

Turnbull’s ‘innovative and agile’ economy and the promise of company tax cuts — which he continues to espouse despite it being unlikely to pass the Senate — are not issues that inspire the average voter. If any benefits are to flow to the economy from such ‘policies’, they will be well beyond the next election, so Turnbull and Morrison can’t look there for short term budget improvements but they seem to have no other plans to help the economy and by implication the average voter.

Will Morrison and Turnbull finally concede that they also need to raise revenue in the next budget? That will be one to watch although I expect that, if so, they will do their best to obscure the fact.

Will there be a new conservative party?

Cory Bernardi is creating a nation-wide conservative movement but not yet formally a new conservative party. It will be interesting to watch where that goes in 2017 and whether it turns into a fully-fledged political party.

The Liberal party will no doubt do its best to stop it happening as it would further split the conservative vote, although that may not be an issue until the next federal election. If such a party comes into being during 2017, it could have serious implications for the government because it has only a one seat majority in the House of Representatives. Even if only one or two Liberal or National members in the House were attracted to the new party that would create a situation where not only does the government have to negotiate with crossbenchers in the Senate but also in the House to have legislation passed. Although the conservatives already seem to wield considerable influence in the Liberal party room, if they held the balance of power in the House, that could actually increase their influence. That may even be a consideration in the formation of such a party: if they wish to create Australia in their conservative image, having a couple of members in the current House could help them achieve that, or force Turnbull to another election earlier than he would wish.

The electoral implications are that the conservative vote could be split between the Liberals, One Nation, the Nationals and the new party, leaving open the possibility that Labor would lead on first preference votes in more House of Representative seats and have an improved chance of winning them. And it is likely that a proportion of the preferences for a new conservative party would flow to One Nation (and vice versa) before they flowed to the Liberals, so it would be very interesting.

The timing of the creation of such a party could be determined by the election timetable. The earliest a federal election can be called, other than another double dissolution, is August 2018 but such a party may like to test its electoral appeal at a state election. WA has an election in March which now seems too soon to establish the party and create an organisation geared for an election. SA goes in March 2018 and the earliest Queensland and Tasmania can go to an election is April 2018 and May 2018 respectively: so to be ready to contest one of those the new party would have to be created no later than the latter half of this year.

Will Turnbull remain prime minister?

Personally I think he will in 2017 but 2018 may be a different story — unless he voluntarily decides to toss in the towel, deciding it is just too difficult to govern his fractious coalition and cope with the constant negotiation with the Senate crossbenchers (and potentially House cross benchers) to have legislation passed.

As indicated above the earliest an election can be called is August 2018. I doubt he would dare have another double dissolution before then as that would not go down well with the electorate (but if he loses members in the House to a new conservative party he may be forced to). But if the economy continues to stagnate, or underperform as a result of a US/China trade war, that will reflect on the government, as economic performance always does even if the government has little real control over many aspects of the economy, and he may well foresee that he cannot win the next election — although he could leave an election as late as possible (May 2019) in hope that things will improve. Much will depend on his own vanity and desire to be prime minister or whether he sees a short stint as having achieved his ambition.

Another key factor will be the possible creation of a new conservative party. For Turnbull that could be both a blessing and a curse. A ‘curse’ for the reasons described above but a ‘blessing’ if it freed him to express more of his liberal philosophy rather than the conservative agenda. A Malcolm Turnbull who again expressed liberal views would probably reignite his support in the electorate but then both he and the Liberal party would need to decide what to do about it. While a more liberal Turnbull may attract votes, it may be just as difficult to form government if a new conservative party also attracts votes: in fact, a more liberal Turnbull may draw some votes from Labor and the Greens while some of the Liberal base goes to the new conservative party — that would really redefine the political landscape in Australia. It could also lead to a minority government and I doubt Turnbull would want to be in that situation.

Turnbull will have much to ponder particularly in the latter half of the year unless there is an unlikely improvement in the economy and unless the Liberal party is able to forestall the formation of a new conservative party or even the growth of conservatism in its own ranks. Will Turnbull want to continue to lead unless those things come to pass? Will the conservatives in the party room decide to move against him for a genuinely committed conservative leader rather than one who panders to them only to keep the job? After all, the result of the 2016 election means Turnbull does not lead from a position of strength.

Abbott has spoken against the rise of a new party and will some in the Liberal party see Tony Abbott as the one who can provide a bulwark against defections to a new conservative party or even its creation? Although perhaps not intended, the pressure created by threats of a new conservative party may well enhance the chance of an Abbott return to counter it.

Will Trump really threaten the world as we know it?

While Trump may cause problems for the US with his apparently contradictory promises to halve the company tax rate, spend billions on infrastructure and improve the US budget bottom line, their impact on Australia will play out indirectly through the international financial system. Of more direct consequence to Australia could be his trade and foreign policies, particularly relating to China.

Trump may wish to be more friendly with Putin and Russia but he will have to remember that China and Russia are still close, if not as close as once they were. He also sees North Korea as a threat but will have little scope to do anything about it without Chinese support although he thinks that using trade as a lever may also force China to act. He may think he is a good negotiator but he and his appointees will run up against expert negotiators and some, like the Chinese, are certainly willing to play the ‘long game’, something which Trump and his ilk seem unable to do.

Australia may continue sitting on the fence and use ‘diplomatic speak’ to suggest that differences should be resolved diplomatically but that may become more difficult under a Trump presidency. Will Australia be forced to side with either the US or China on some key issue? That will be a difficult position for Australia given that they are two of our biggest trading partners.

On trade, Trump is keen to scrap US involvement in the TPP which will effectively be its demise. Turnbull has consistently insisted that the TPP is essential to Australia’s future, so what will its demise mean for that future? It will be another piece of Turnbull’s economic plan that fails to materialise — which in the case of the TPP may not be a bad thing.

The main concern is a potential trade war between China and the US. If the US becomes more protectionist and imposes tariffs on Chinese imports, that may reduce Chinese production which in turn will reduce demand for Australian resources, with all the economic consequences that implies. It could also mean that China sends more cheap goods to Australia that formerly went to the US and that could further undermine what manufacturing we have left unless we also declare that they are ‘dumping’ goods in Australia and impose punitive tariffs which will essentially be biting the hand that feeds us. If this scenario unfolds, Australia will be in a difficult place economically and in how to respond to the challenges it throws up.

In turn, it may also mean that China pays more attention than it already does to developing nations in Africa and the Pacific and that will have foreign policy implications for Australia. We have been cutting our foreign aid budget but if China redirects its effort, we may be forced to do more in that area or accept further growth of Chinese influence in the region — which way will we go?

Conclusion

The above are just a few of the questions that could arise during 2017.

Others include:

• Will the housing bubble burst and the construction boom come to an end?
• What will be the effect if we lose our AAA credit rating, not just for government but for our banks?
• How will Australia deal with Brexit and the need to negotiate separate trade deals with the EU and the UK?
• How will we address problems meeting our climate change commitments under the Paris agreement?

And of course there are the perennials such as how we handle refugees and Australian Muslims which will be influenced by the rise of the conservative forces.

It may prove to be an interesting year both here in Australia and internationally.

What do you think?

What are your answers to the questions?

What other questions will Australia face in 2017?

The devaluation of peoples’ hard-earned money is what Australians fear most. People fear inflation. Never mind the crime rate, political corruption, nuclear wars, family violence, pestilence and the like, inflation is the king of fear factors.

So, when you tell them that a currency-issuing government is not constrained in its spending capacity, they immediately imagine this nightmare scenario where a government will just spend and spend and spend.

This is just one of the reasons why people struggle to accept Modern Monetary Theory. Fuelled by ignorance and being fed the wrong information by others who don’t know any better, they cling to old standards such as the myth that running a country is the same as running a household.

They foresee inflation going through the roof, causing all manner of pain and suffering to families, their savings and their future well-being. The word hyperinflation often sneaks into the conversation as well.

It’s an entirely false scenario, there is no reason to think that way but, that is the way of people when they are opposed to something or are gripped by the fear of the unknown.

The other great difficulty is that most economists don’t accept it either because it goes against everything they have been taught.

The problem is that few of them have been taught macro-economics as opposed to micro-economics. Most of them, while acknowledging that we live in a fiat currency world, still maintain a gold standard mindset. That is the sum of their training.

That is why it is easier for people who have not studied economics, to accept it. Their minds have not been polluted with gold standard thinking. Common sense takes over.

People in the financial markets, for example, seem to understand it quite easily. Tell them that bond sales drain reserves and they get it, they understand it.

But within the world of the economist, it takes a heterodox-economist to lead the charge, someone trained and qualified in the old ways but who has broken through that glass ceiling. Sadly, there aren’t too many of them.

Very few, if any, policy makers understand it. Senior central bankers do, of course, after all they are the ones who juggle the numbers in their computers. But will they dare explain it to the politicians? The very thought of it makes them shudder.

They too fear that once a politician realises the possibilities associated with a fiat currency, the politician will wreak havoc upon a nation’s economy, spending recklessly. It’s a sad indictment of the perceived maturity of our leaders.

Perhaps the biggest problem in explaining MMT is the language used. Trying to explain to someone that their entire thinking processes need to be turned upside down if they want to grasp it, isn’t easy.

When you hear someone say, “The federal government spends by issuing currency and can never run out,” they don’t respond by saying, “great, let’s have full employment.” They say, “For goodness sake, don’t tell our politicians, they’ll just spend like crazy. We’ll become another Zimbabwe.”

Somehow, the language has to change. We have to develop a new way of explaining MMT such that the irrational behaviour of those who should know better, can be ignored.

Engaging in a carefully considered language with simplistic clarity, a language that has factored in all the elements of disbelief and fear is a huge challenge.

It’s hard explaining that when a fiat currency is misused, inflation is a possible outcome, but that full utilisation of a nation’s resources (its people), improving our health, our education, lowering our crime rate, is a far better outcome.

It’s hard explaining that a nation is constrained only by its available resources and not by one or two percentage points of inflation. Under our present management, we can’t even achieve that.

It’s hard explaining that a currency issuing nation can always meet its commitments in its own currency, that it doesn’t need to borrow to fund its spending and can always pay for goods available in its own currency.

Why is it that the prospect of providing full employment, having a world’s best education and health system, a state of the art communications network, a respect for our natural resources and equality of opportunity for all, is restrained by ignorance?

This is the 21^st century. Those medieval superstitions that so dogged the efforts of people like Galileo and Copernicus should be behind us now. Modern Monetary Theory, like all theories, needs proper implementation to be accepted as fact.

After all, who can seriously say that the present theory of classical economics has proved itself worthy?

Money is indeed a scary subject. But it doesn’t have to be.

By Ken Wolff

In 1930 John Maynard Keynes predicted widespread technological unemployment ‘due to our discovery of means of economising the use of labour outrunning the pace at which we can find new uses for labour’.

In the decades since there has been rapidly increasing technological change but employment has generally been increasing, matching population growth, although not without winners and losers. The creation of new jobs often lags behind the pace of loss of jobs (as Keynes predicted) and those who have lost jobs are not always the ones who take the new jobs — they are often taken by the new generation.

Since the GFC, governments around the world have felt constrained in responding to the changes in the workforce because they lack money — they are in debt — and are being told by mainstream economists that they must return to budget surpluses. People losing their jobs are not being provided the full range of assistance they need to re-enter the workforce nor, in some cases, even the support to sustain themselves and their families whilst unemployed.

That is a direct result of the dominant neoliberal economic approach adopted by so many Western governments. The neoliberal emphasis on debt also has political implications and the following, although written about the US, could readily apply in Australia:

Indebting government gives creditors a lever to pry away land, public infrastructure and other property in the public domain. Indebting companies enables creditors to seize employee pension savings. And indebting labor means that it no longer is necessary to hire strikebreakers to attack union organizers and strikers. Workers have become so deeply indebted on their home mortgages, credit card and other bank debt that they fear to strike or even to complain about working conditions.

While the neoliberal approach remains in place, governments will not be well-placed to respond to current and coming changes in the economy and workforce — selling public assets to reduce ‘debt’ will not help people. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), on the other hand, offers an approach in which sovereign currency-issuing governments are not so constrained. It is possible for a government to both retain public assets and have the money to provide more programs and assistance to people in these times of economic change. Unless governments embrace a new economic approach like MMT, then the technological unemployment predicted by Keynes is likely to be a real outcome.

The spread of robotics and computerisation throughout the workforce is already happening without us being fully prepared. While there is talk of the need for improved education in things like STEM, computer coding and even innovative approaches, and of the need for a flexible, agile and innovative workforce, these are essentially economic issues and we seem to be ignoring some wider social implications.

A basic question in the rise of robotics is that of ethics. One writer raised an interesting ethical question in the scenario of driverless vehicles: if a driverless vehicle ‘perceives’ that it is about to be involved in an accident and the only pathway to avoid the collision may involve hitting a woman with a pram, which decision will it make? A human would likely make a moral judgment to face the accident and minimise the impact by braking, swerving slightly or whatever action is appropriate but will an automated vehicle see saving itself as the primary response? Whether driverless vehicles can ‘learn’ to place humans first in such situations is debatable. While theoretically driverless trucks seem to be one of the next major targets of computerisation, I think there are still issues to be resolved but I doubt they will be prior to their introduction as the economic imperative will over-rule the ethical.

Computerisation generally will displace many people from their current work, as discussed in more detail in ‘An economy without people’. New forms of work will emerge but how long will that take? Much of the new work will require higher level skills: will we have the capacity to retrain people for the new jobs or do they simply move to the ‘scrap heap’ to be replaced by the next, better educated, generation? As unemployment increases, how will governments respond? If our government is already complaining about welfare costs, it will find it difficult to provide for the new unemployed as computerisation pushes further into the workforce. With an ageing population, there should be a need to keep more people in the workforce but that may no longer be possible.

Some unemployed may voluntarily enter ‘the gig economy’ to help tide them over. But the gig economy may also be on the rise as companies decide it is more ‘efficient’ (cheaper) to hire workers only as they are needed for specific tasks or projects rather than maintain a larger full-time workforce, meaning many more people will be forced into the gig economy. While for people it is ‘the gig economy’, for economists and businesses it is the ‘on-demand’ economy: that difference in terminology also shows how people can be removed from consideration in the coming changes. Whatever it is called, it will have many implications.

Nick Wales at the UNSW Business School has raised one basic concern:

“It polarises people”, says Wales. “Is this creating communities of entrepreneurs who have been marginalised from the traditional economy, such as housewives, students, retirees and immigrants, offering them the flexibility of part-time working? Or is it an underhand way for businesses to get around labour laws and pay these contractors low wages?”

If more and more people are working in the gig economy and on short-term contracts, what rights will workers have? They will not have paid sick days or holidays, or protection from unfair dismissal. Even many occupational health and safety rules may not apply. They will also need to provide for their own superannuation but the extent to which they can may well depend on how much they are able to earn. And will unions find new ways to cover them or is this the final death of unions? (If the role of unions diminishes even further what impact will that have on the future structure of the ALP?) Will these gig workers be treated as, or choose to become, small businesses? We have already seen the problems created by the use of ‘contract workers’ and in the new economy that looks set to expand exponentially.

How do banks respond to people who do not have full-time work/regular income if they are working gigs? At the moment, loans to such people would either be out of the question or, at best, be classified at high risk of default. If, however, this form of work becomes normal for a large proportion of the workforce, banks simply cannot ignore such a significant customer base. There will need to be innovative products that cater to the needs of such customers.

Banks may become more important in another way. There is a possibility that people will become more reliant on debt (loans and credit cards) to carry them through between gigs. It may be in the interest of banks to move into areas of lending currently dominated by the so-called ‘payday lenders’ as there is likely to be a growing market for such short-term products. Banks will have much thinking to do about their role in the new economy.

The gig economy has implications for how government views employment and unemployment as the 37-hour week may no longer be the norm. The OECD is already working on new indicators for employment and unemployment. It is likely, however, that any new definition of ‘employment’ will reduce access to unemployment benefits as it is likely to involve shorter periods of work. Even paying unemployment and other welfare benefits in their current form may no longer be appropriate as they are tied to levels of income. The ‘paperwork’ (data entry) involved in making constant adjustments as people move in and out of short-term jobs (some very short-term) will become onerous as the number of gig workers increases. New forms of payment may be required.

Then there are issues of government regulation and taxation. Already the ATO has ruled that Uber drivers must register for and pay GST as they are providing a ‘taxi travel service’. Current taxi drivers believe Uber is not competing on a level playing field because it does not need to meet the same licence and safety regulations. Victorian cab drivers are protesting a Victorian government announcement that it intends to deregulate the industry. While that may create the level playing field the drivers are seeking, they are not happy that the Victorian government is offering to buy back current taxi licences at a price below what many paid.

On the other hand, if more ‘workers’ are operating as contractors and small businesses, what impact will that have on government revenue, particularly if the push continues to lower company tax rates? Governments may need to reconsider that approach as ‘company tax’ could conceivably become the biggest source of revenue as more people in the gig economy register as small businesses to reduce their taxation.

Deregulation and ‘contract work’ or operating as a small business do not provide the full answer — although it will be attractive to the neoliberal economists and, as such, support for those approaches may be the advice that governments receive. It would mean a large workforce not protected by any provisions for safety, holidays, superannuation nor even hours of work. As Wales suggested, it would allow companies to under-cut existing wage structures and make full-time employment even less attractive for other competing businesses, creating a feed-back mechanism encouraging further use of gig workers.

The Aspen Institute in the US, however, does not believe that governments should regulate but allow companies, workers and consumers to experiment with new models:

… that can begin to give shape to a social contract for a changing economy and new century. We need a better system that ensures workers have the stability and security they need, without stifling innovation or undermining the flexibility the on-demand economy offers.

While suggesting that ‘stability and security’ are required for workers it is basically leaving that to ‘the market’ to determine. Given the history of market solutions, I would have no faith in it reaching a suitable arrangement — because, as explained in the first article in this series, ‘the market’ after all is people manipulating trading for their own advantage and it is to their advantage to have an insecure workforce that is less likely to make demands regarding wages and conditions. Government, even if intending to allow such an approach, must hover at the edges and be prepared to regulate minimum conditions.

While a new economic approach like MMT will help governments understand that they do have the money to deal with problems, it is not the answer to all the issues I have raised (it is, after all, a macroeconomic theory). I am concerned whether its Job Guarantee can be used in the new economy or whether it, too, is based on a model of full-time employment.

At Davros earlier this year, a report to World Economic Forum stated:

During previous industrial revolutions, it often took decades to build the training systems and labour market institutions needed to develop major new skill sets on a large scale. Given the upcoming pace and scale of disruption brought about by the Fourth Industrial Revolution, however, this is simply not an option. Without targeted action today to manage the near-term transition and build a workforce with future proof skills, governments will have to cope with ever growing unemployment and inequality, and businesses with a shrinking consumer base.

So the final issue is that it is not just workers who will suffer. Robotics, computerisation and an increasing number of gig workers will each contribute to ‘a shrinking consumer base’ and that has implications for business survival — in essence, their rush to reduce costs could be creating the conditions for their own demise. That in turn will impact government revenue in lower company and individual tax revenue — but only if they continue to cling to the neoliberal economic approach. If there is a silver lining to this ‘cloud’, it may be that the neoliberal economic approach will be shown to provide an inadequate response to the new situation.

With the possibility of declining consumption and problems redefining employment and unemployment, the concept of a ‘universal basic income’ may gain more traction. Although a proposal to introduce such a payment was recently voted down in Switzerland, it is being considered in Finland and the Labour Party in the UK has begun discussing the concept. In simple terms it is an income payment made to every man, woman and child. It has the potential to replace virtually all welfare payments including pensions, unemployment benefits and family support payments for children: in the case of unemployment, it would remove the need to redefine ‘employment’ to meet the circumstances of the new economy. As it would be paid to everyone, it means those who are working would also receive the payment and it becomes necessary to apply tax to the payment so that those who are in work return a much greater proportion of it in the form of tax. Even the MMT approach would require taxation of such a payment to ensure that it did not create demand beyond the productive capacity of the economy. For businesses it would help maintain the consumer base and so be of benefit to them. With fewer workers, the productivity benefits of robotics and computerisation will not be spread throughout society but further concentrated in the hands of the company owners and shareholders, unless something like a universal basic income is adopted. As robotics and computerisation spread and replace major portions of the workforce, such an approach may become the only viable option.

It appears we have a rocky road ahead. Governments will not be able to respond effectively if they cling to neoliberal economic approaches. Avoiding regulation and spending, and leaving resolution to ‘the market’ will be a recipe for disaster and even businesses will suffer. Without new approaches we will continue to have an economy in which people are placed last and well-being is barely a consideration.

It is time this conversation began because if we leave it until the impact is being felt, it may be too late to avoid a major economic downturn, ironically created by the very process businesses thought would boost their profits.

What do you think?

Are businesses blindly pursuing robotics and computerisation without fully understanding the wider implications?

Can ‘the market’ be trusted to reach new solutions or must governments first find new approaches (including MMT) to protect the people?

By Ken Wolff

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is a macroeconomic theory for the current age in which governments have abandoned the gold standard and also floated their currencies. It is ‘macroeconomic’ and ‘monetary’ because many of its conclusions relate to the money supply in an economy. Does it offer scope for a new economic approach recognising people? Can it better assist responses to robotics and computerisation than current economic approaches?

Historically, gold was important because coins were minted from it (and silver). Even when coins were no longer minted in gold, the currency issued by governments was convertible to gold and governments needed to hold sufficient gold reserves to satisfy a potential demand from all holders of their currency — that was the gold standard. In that situation governments could not spend without first taking money from the economy (taxation) because the money supply was limited to match the quantity of gold. Following WW2, fixed exchange rates also meant that governments, through their central banks, had to defend the rate they had fixed by buying or selling their own currency in international money markets: that also affected the money supply in their home economy and also placed limitations on government spending. Floating currencies now allow central banks and governments to target domestic economic policy goals knowing that the floating exchange rate will resolve the currency imbalances arising from trade deficits or surpluses.

MMT points out that much economic thinking since the 1980s operates as though the gold standard is still in place — namely, that governments can only fund their spending by taxation and therefore deficits are bad — but some MMT proponents and supporters argue that this has ideological (neoliberal) rather than genuine economic underpinnings.

Since the abandonment of the gold standard, most countries, including Australia, now have a fiat currency — that is, it is created by government fiat (decree) — and it has no intrinsic value. My $50 note is not matched by $50 worth of gold any longer, nor is my plastic note worth $50 itself (in 2012 Australia’s polymer notes cost 34c each on average to produce irrespective of their face value). My note has value only because the government decrees it has and the government is the monopoly provider of currency: therefore it is the currency I need to participate in the economy and to pay taxes.

MMT places this new reality at the centre of its approach. A sovereign government issuing its own currency can never run out of money, never go bankrupt or default on its ‘debt’. That in a sense was Greece’s problem: as part of the Eurozone it was no longer an issuer of its own currency. In that circumstance, as for the states within a sovereign nation, the oft-used analogy of a household budget still applies but it does not apply to the sovereign issuer of a currency.

The ‘sovereign issuer of currency’ argument leads to probably the most well-known and sometimes controversial aspect of MMT, that a government can always ‘create’ money. The critics argue such printing of money — although these days it actually requires only a few keystrokes on a computer to create deposits in the private banking system — will lead to hyperinflation as in Zimbabwe or the Weimar Republic in post-WW1 Germany. MMT accepts that inflation is one factor that imposes a limit on government spending but that limit is not reached until all the ‘real’ resources of the economy are fully utilised — all human resources (full employment) using all available physical resources. If a government continues to spend after that, then dangerous inflation may result but, prior to that point, MMT argues that government spending to assist utilisation of available resources will not lead to uncontrolled inflation. For MMT, the issue is not just money but the real human and physical resources that are available to the economy and not currently being used:

If there are slack resources available to purchase then a fiscal stimulus has the capacity to ensure they are fully employed.

As a means to help control inflation, current mainstream economic thinking accepts the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (more commonly known by its acronym, NAIRU). The Australian Treasury uses NAIRU in its modelling as the basic foundation of longer-term stable inflation — currently the NAIRU in Australia is 5% unemployment. Before NAIRU, full employment was taken to mean there would be about 2% unemployment, allowing for people moving between jobs or unemployed short term for various reasons. In practice, NAIRU provides a ‘buffer stock’ of unemployed which basically means that having those extra unemployed, above the previously accepted 2%, provides downward pressure on wages growth because the unemployed are more willing to accept lower wages simply to have a job. The argument goes that if unemployment falls below the NAIRU level the competition for workers will mean employers accept demands for higher wages thus leading to higher inflation. (Despite the whole capitalist free market system being based on competition, whenever workers appear to have a competitive advantage it is decried as a threat to the economy!)

MMT rejects the NAIRU and instead proposes a Job Guarantee for the ‘unemployed’, sometimes referred to as ‘transitional employment’ which probably describes it better. As opposed to the NAIRU ‘buffer stock of unemployed’, MMT offers a ‘buffer stock of employed’ but this is done at a ‘fixed price’ — in Australia this would be the minimum wage, inclusive of standard employment conditions. It means the government supports employment until such time as a person obtains higher paying mainstream work and it will be in productive work using under-utilised resources:

What matters … is whether there are enough real resources available to produce goods and services that are equal in value to the government’s job-guarantee spending. If these resources are available — if they are not already being used to produce something else — then the increased demand that results from the payment of job-guarantee wages will not be inflationary, regardless of what they go to produce.

On broader monetary issues, MMT says that there can only be saving in the private sector, inclusive of banks, businesses and households, if the government spends more than it collects in taxes: that is, only when the government adds money into the economy can there be private sector saving as well as investment.

A good, simplified explanation of this was provided by John Carney at CNBC in 2012:

The MMT people aren’t actually referring to you and I saving. They aren’t even talking about the entire household sector saving financial assets. They are talking about the entire private sector spending less money than it earns.

You can easily see why this would be impossible without the government spending more than it collects. Every dollar someone is paid is a dollar someone else has spent. If we all — every single person and company — spend less than we are paid, very quickly we will find we have to be paid less. The aggregate effect of savings is to reduce the total amount people are being paid for things.

So this is what MMT people are talking about when they refer to a “private sector desire to net save.” They mean that if you add up all the earning, spending and savings of every person and company in the economy outside of the government, sometimes you find that the private sector is trying — nearly impossibly — to earn more than it spends.

The only thing that can make private-sector net savings possible is government spending. If the government spends more than it takes in taxes, the private sector can earn more than it spends. Remember, if everyone pays less than they earn, some outsider must be paying more than he earns.

The MMT equation for this is:

(G – T) = (S – I)

Or in words, government spending (G) minus taxes (T) equals private saving (S) minus gross private investment (I). This is so because in macroeconomic terms the two represent the entire amount of money in the economy. And the other key of this equation is that it shows that money does not come into being in the private sector unless the government has first spent it (over many years now).

MMT points out that when governments run surpluses it leads to an increase in private sector debt because, in that circumstance, if the private sector wishes to save and invest, it has to borrow from the existing pool of money (and the government surpluses are actually reducing the money supply). This is explained by the concept that transactions between banks, businesses and households are ‘horizontal’ transactions and cannot change the amount of money in the economy (liquidity). Only a ‘vertical’ transaction between the government and the private sector can change liquidity (MMT includes both the treasury and central bank when it talks of ‘government’).

In the USA, on all occasions when the government has run surpluses, and reduced debt for a few years, it has been followed by recessions or depressions. Arising from the indebtedness forced on the private sector by the government surpluses, there comes a point when the private sector reduces spending because it cannot afford to take on more debt, thus creating an economic slow-down. In such circumstances, only government spending can relieve the situation. (It is also of interest that since 1776 the US government has been in debt in every year except for the years 1835 to 1837.)

In a globalised world, however, national economies do not operate in isolation so one more aspect needs to be added to the equation: exports (X) and imports (M).

(G – T) = (S – I) ‒ (X – M) or

(G – T) + (X – M) = (S – I)

If a country has a trade surplus that adds to private savings. Many countries, however, as Australia, operate a trade deficit which means that private sector saving is reduced and more reliant on government spending. And at a global level the nett outcome of all countries’ trade must sum to zero, so it is impossible for every country to run a trade surplus — a surplus in one country necessarily requires a deficit in other countries. So a trade deficit or surplus is not bad in itself but does affect private sector saving and creates more need for government to adjust its spending appropriately.

Although even MMT still talks about deficits and surpluses, my reading is that those words are less relevant in MMT. If a government can create money it can never really be in deficit (except perhaps in a point-in-time accounting sense). Even claiming that the deficit represents spending more than collected as taxes is not relevant. MMT says that the government does not need taxes in order to spend — it can always create whatever money it needs. The real purpose of taxes is to take money from the economy or, in economic terms, to reduce liquidity, meaning there is less money to spend and thereby total demand across the economy is also reduced. What taxes can achieve is to create ‘space’ for government spending. If an economy is already running at capacity and the government continues to spend, that is increases liquidity and demand without first making space for that spending, then high levels of inflation may result because there is more money in the economy to buy the same amount of goods and services, meaning people competing for those goods and services are willing and able to pay higher prices to obtain them. So taxes can be important in allowing government spending without dangerous inflation but are not necessary in themselves for that spending.

Similarly MMT argues that the sale of government bonds is not necessary to fund government ‘debt’. So-called ‘debt’ can actually be met at any time because the government can ‘create’ the money to do so. But as always the limiting factor is controlling demand in relation to the capacity of the economy so as not to allow dangerous levels of inflation.

MMT’s explanation is that the sale of government bonds is primarily a means of controlling interest rates: this relates to the overnight commercial bank reserves placed with the central bank but I won’t attempt to explain how that works. (This interview with Bill Mitchell for the Harvard International Review provides an explanation and also a good summary of MMT.) A secondary reason is that banks, financial markets and the private sector generally, desire government bonds as a safe haven to park money. Here in Australia, that became obvious during the Howard/Costello years when the government paid down its debt and saw little need to make new bond issues but the private sector complained and the government had to issue more ‘debt’ even though it had no debt: that fact alone gives credence to the MMT argument.

Although the approach is called Modern Monetary Theory, it places more emphasis on fiscal policy. Bill Mitchell writing on the current economic problems said, ‘until we stop relying on monetary policy and restore fiscal policy to the top of the macroeconomic policy hierarchy, nothing much is going to change’. Mitchell argues that governments have been using the wrong approach to overcome the current economic stagnation affecting many countries:

It is not that they have run out of ammunition. They have been using the wrong ‘ammunition’. For example, trying to drive growth with low or negative interest rates failed to work because the lack of bank lending had nothing to do with the ‘cost’ of loans.

It had all to do with the dearth of borrowers. Households, carrying record levels of debt and facing the daily prospect of losing their jobs, were not going to [start] suddenly bingeing on credit again.

Business firms, facing slack sales and a very uncertain future, could satisfy all the current (low) levels of aggregate spending in their economies with the existing capital stock they had in place and therefore had no reason to risk adding to that capital stock.

In the MMT model, the remedy to many economic problems is fiscal stimulus not austerity which only exacerbates the problems. And as a sovereign issuer of currency the government always has the capacity to provide such a stimulus when there are under-utilised resources in the economy.

Using fiscal policy, and the knowledge that governments can spend as much as they wish, limited only by available real economic resources and inflationary impacts, MMT suggests that the real issues are social policy issues. The debate should not be about ‘debt and deficit’ but what we as a society wish to achieve, wish to become, and, within the limits mentioned, governments do have the capacity to meet those goals. For me that is an important outcome from MMT, not just that it offers a new economic approach but that it offers scope for a new policy and political approach. To that extent, it does allow space for people by creating an economic approach that recognises social policy goals are of critical importance and the ability to achieve them is not so limited or proscribed as it is by existing neoliberal economic theory. For that reason alone MMT deserves more attention.

Next week, in the last of this four-part series, I will consider whether governments are ready for the coming economic and social changes.

What do you think?

Can MMT really change government thinking and overcome current neo-liberal approaches, not just in government but in Treasury?

Will it take a new generation of economists before MMT is accepted? Will that be too late to help the people?

By Ken Wolff  

Last week I suggested that modern economic theory has lost sight of people but the reality is now becoming that many segments of the economy require fewer people to undertake the work and that has serious implications not just for the people losing their jobs but for the broader economy.

The loss of jobs is not new. In Australia since the 1970s there has been an ongoing loss of un-skilled jobs, particularly for males. In 2006 Sue Richardson, with the National Institute of Labour Studies at Flinders University, wrote in Unemployment in Australia:

By 2001, at every age, at least 20 per cent of men with no post-school qualification were not in the labour force. These men have not withdrawn from the workforce because they have handsome alternatives that mean they do not have to work … Overwhelmingly, the reason they are not in the labour force is because they cannot find work and have given up looking.

And in 2004 Bob Gregory wrote in Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Economic Policy and the Employment Outlook for Indigenous Australians:

An exceptional feature of the Australian labour market over the last three and a half decades has been the loss of unskilled male full-time jobs. This loss has been so substantial that as a proportion of males 15‒64 years of age one full-time job in four has disappeared. Most of this job loss has fallen upon the unskilled …

At the same time there were skills shortages. In September 2004 the Australian Industry Group reported a shortfall of between 18,000 and 21,000 in the manufacturing sector for skilled tradespersons.

And a shift in the make-up of the workforce was already occurring. In 2006, the then Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) reported that between 2001 and 2006, 78% of new jobs were created in the four most highly skilled occupational groups: Professionals (17.4% growth), Associate Professionals (18.3% growth), Managers and Administrators (28%) and Tradespersons (10%) but job growth for Labourers had been only 0.6% in that five-year period.

Skills shortages continue. In February this year the Department of Employment published its list of occupations in which there were shortages during 2015. Twenty-five occupations were experiencing national shortages, including higher level occupations like surveyors, optometrists and audiologists. The list included trades such as motor mechanics and automotive electricians, bricklayers, glaziers, roof tilers as well as wall and floor tilers, air conditioning and refrigeration mechanics, chefs, hairdressers and cabinet makers.

The department also released its jobs outlook, Australian Jobs 2016. Overall employment was projected to grow by 8.3% over the next five years which appears to be little more than matching population growth. Six industries were expected to grow by more than ten per cent: Accommodation and Food Services (12.0%); Arts and Recreation Services (10.8%); Education and Training (13.0%); Health Care and Social Assistance (16.4% and it is also the largest industry by employment numbers); Professional, Scientific and Technical Services (14.8%); and Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services (11.9%). Employment in Mining will decline (‒14.1%) as will Manufacturing (‒5.3%) and Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing (‒3.1%).

When it comes down to occupations ‘Professionals’ provided 41% of new jobs from 2010 to 2015 and employment is expected to grow by 14.5% to the end of 2020. Seventy-four percent of professionals hold a university degree. Professionals are also more likely than other workers to work full-time.

In that period of five years up to 2015 ‘community and personal service workers’ provided the second highest proportion of new jobs, 22% (they also make up about 10% of all employment). Their employment has grown by 16.3% since 2010 and is expected to grow by another 19% in the next five years. Nineteen percent hold a university qualification and 42% a VET Certificate III or higher but 55% are employed part-time. It includes child, aged and disability carers, waiters and bar attendants and baristas.

Technicians and trades work provided 11% of new jobs up to 2015 and employment grew by 5.2% in that time and is projected to grow 5.5% in the next five years. Most of these workers are employed full-time and 62% have a VET Certificate III or higher.

Among the lower-skilled occupations there were, late in 2015, 1.7 million clerical and administrative workers, 1.1 million sales workers, 1.1 million labourers and 740,000 machinery operators and drivers which is still about 40% of the Australian workforce. Their projected growth to the end of 2020 is 1.6%, 9.3%, ‒1.3% and 1.0% respectively. The groups include receptionists and office managers, checkout operators, real estate agents, truck drivers, forklift drivers, delivery drivers, cleaners, kitchenhands and packers, as well as labourers.

The more rapid projected expansion of highly qualified occupations appears consistent with the experience in America identified in 2013. But in America there had also been a loss of middle-ranking jobs, largely due to the automation of routine tasks, not only for manual labour (classified as routine manual work) but by the computerisation of office, sales and administrative work (classified as routine cognitive work). There had been an increase in the number of jobs for non-routine work, both cognitive and manual. The former (non-routine cognitive) requires higher levels of education and generally commands higher wages, but the latter (non-routine manual) involves work such as cleaning, food services, security services, home help, and so on. This is leading to a polarisation of the workforce in America, with more high-paid jobs, more low-paid jobs, and fewer in the middle.

The basic problem with those projections is that they are based on what has already occurred and do not take full account of the increasing pace of technological change nor the areas into which it might move in the coming decades (and the Australian projections are short-term, only for five years).

In January this year CSIRO (and Data 61) released “Tomorrow’s Digitally Enabled Workforce” in which it found that up to 44% of current Australian jobs were under threat of being replaced by robotics and other computerisation. It found that, as yet, there was no evidence of the ‘hollowing out of the middle’ in Australia but it did find:

… Australian men, particularly single men with less education, are becoming increasingly likely to drop out of the labour force. … Despite strong jobs growth in the service sector, it appears that for a growing number of men the labour market has little to offer unless they re-train.

That reflects the earlier findings of Sue Richardson and Bob Gregory. But it also found that in the future there will be a greater need for individuals to create their own jobs and even a need for higher skill sets to access entry-level positions. So a new flexible education will be required. Similarly, workplaces will need to be more flexible (which can also lead to greater casualisation and use of contract workers). Some changes, however, may lead to greater disparity in regional areas, particularly for older workers: past experience suggests that displaced older workers in regional areas do not relocate to find work but, if forced to, will relocate to cheaper housing in the same location. So new approaches to unemployment and transition to work will be required.

The difficulty with the emphasis on education and higher skills is that has already been happening in America but simply creating an oversupply. It was found that highly educated workers were being pushed down the employment ladder into lesser-skilled positions, pushing the low-skilled further down or out of the workforce altogether.

The CSIRO report did not go into the detail of individual jobs but its estimate of jobs at risk was based on a model used by Oxford University researchers who did a study of the US labour market: The Future of Employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? That report found that 47% of US jobs are at high risk of computerisation. Given the work currently being undertaken on driverless cars, it is foreseen that in the next decade or two driverless trucks will become the standard form for movement of goods and many truck drivers will become redundant. Some have suggested that on major inter-state routes driverless trucks should actually have their own lane. So governments will also need to respond to those changes.

In Australia, Rio Tinto is already automating its Pilbara iron ore mines with driverless trucks and automated charge drilling and setting machines, and is also hoping to have driverless trains to deliver the ore to port (tests have been conducted but recent software glitches have delayed implementation). That is an example of even some skilled work being automated but the huge driverless trucks do require the worksite being ‘landscaped’ to suit.

As more data becomes available and can be stored, office and administrative support positions will be affected and further encroachment into manufacturing will take place. Even aspects of the construction industry could be affected as robotic prefabrication of parts takes place in factories, requiring fewer workers for the actual construction and even circumstances where robots can piece the prefabricated parts together on-site (as has already occurred in Japan).

The availability of ‘big data’ is important in expanding the reach of computerisation. For example, an American oncology centre is using computers to provide chronic care and cancer treatment diagnostics. This could be done because data from 600,000 medical evidence reports, 1.5 million patient records and clinical trials, and 2 million pages from medical journals were able to be stored and used for ‘benchmarking and pattern recognition purposes’. Examining such a vast amount of data would be impossible for a human but not a computer (if it is programmed correctly). As more ‘big data’ becomes available computers will expand their reach.

The report into the US workforce also found that automation will move into non-routine manual work in sales and services. A simple example is the increasing availability of robotic vacuum cleaners capable of replacing at least one task of a hired cleaner: how many other tasks will follow? This follows the historical pattern of technological change, namely breaking down apparently ‘skilled’ jobs into smaller unskilled components — the move from the traditional skilled ‘carriage builders’ approach to early car manufacture to Henry Ford’s production line manned mostly by unskilled workers. If this prediction proves correct, the growth in low-skilled service jobs that has been occurring in the US will actually begin to reverse during the next couple of decades.

This does not mean that all jobs in these areas will be lost but a significant proportion will be.

Jobs least affected will be those requiring creativity and social skills:

… generalist occupations requiring knowledge of human heuristics, and specialist occupations involving the development of novel ideas and artefacts, are the least susceptible to computerisation.

Others have since suggested that even some creative work can be done by computers: already there are computers capable of creating musical scores (no doubt based on ‘big data’). If that continues into the future, and AI becomes a reality, there will be almost no job that is not at risk.

This new world is giving rise to what is known as ‘the gig economy’. This means that, like a band of musicians, people will work ‘gigs’ for which they must search.

A study released in January this year by The Aspen Institute in the US found 45 million Americans (22% of adults) were working in the gig economy providing ride sharing, accommodation, food delivery and other platform-based services. For 14 million it was their main source of income and just over half, 23 million, were young, aged 18‒34.

However, most workers (72 percent) believe companies should be doing more to provide benefits, and more than two-thirds worry that as independent contractors and not employees, they don’t have a financial safety net.

Anecdotal evidence from participants suggests that many, but not all, see such ‘work’ as extra income to meet bills and so on, or as income in periods between mainstream permanent work. Or they are working many jobs to achieve a reasonable income and that can create problems — such as lack of sleep. Some examples:

I keep busy but I have to constantly juggle different gigs every day … What scares me most is that I have no guarantees, no steady pay, no stability. Everything could end overnight, so I can never make long-term plans. [young woman in Turin]

In the short term, this way of working works, but there is a long-term downside. It’s very difficult to build a future, to save for a downpayment on a house, say, or to save for [a] college fund, on a full-time Uber driver salary or even if you combine multiple freelance services. [Uber driver in Los Angeles]

I definitely advocate this way of working, but it’s not for the faint-hearted — if you’re working three or four jobs in a day, you need to be very disciplined and have a keen sense of priority. You have to be a bit of a workaholic: finding the balance and boundaries to fit everything in can be a bit of a juggle. And obviously not having paid time off is a downside. [Airbnb host, charity worker and interior designer]

Some professionals can do better in the gig economy as the internet (and specific sites) allow them access to a much wider range of clients in a much wider range of locations. For some, whose work can be done over the internet, the location of the client no longer matters and, therefore, having access to a larger number of potential clients is an advantage. Conversely, the sites involved also permit potential clients to more closely match the skills of their selected professional to the work required.

Companies will rely less on full-time employees and will hire on a task or project basis. This will apply across many job categories, not just professionals. Companies will be able to hire the specific skills required for a single task, so the work could range from a few hours to a few days. People will be able to specialise and offer their skills to many clients. But this will also spread the problems described by people currently working in the gig economy.

Such an approach is already moving down the employment ladder to very mundane tasks, and to ‘micro-tasks’ such as tagging images, extracting keywords, checking address data, which sometimes may be no more than a few minutes work for each ‘job’. These are termed human intelligence tasks (HIT):

At the time of writing [August 2015] there were about 300,000 HITs on offer on AMT [Amazon Mechanical Turk]. An average Turker (as they are referred to by AMT) can expect to earn US$2 to US$5 per hour on a good day but there’s no guarantee in terms of regular work availability.

Not all of these jobs will remain. Uber, for example, is already investing in and preparing for driverless vehicles. And computers can already undertake some of the minor tasks currently available. Whether people can be prepared in time for the new jobs that may emerge, or there will simply be massive unemployment, will be the big question.

All of the above may prove to be wrong as we do not have a very good record predicting the future — some things change less than we foresee while we seem to completely miss other significant changes. In the 1960s some popular magazines were predicting that by the early 2000s we would have flying cars, or at least hover cars. I also recall a television program from that time, specifically looking at future change, that predicted we would be required to work only ten hours per week in the new millennium to maintain our lifestyle.

Cars have changed, being more luxurious and incorporating many more safety features than in the 1960s but they still have wheels and still require roads. And, in Australia prior to the GFC, individual work hours were increasing, not decreasing. Our lifestyle has changed: the average new house is now twice the size it was (as is the cost); more homes incorporate central heating and/or air conditioning; televisions have grown both larger and smaller and few households are now satisfied with only one. But the biggest change that few, if any, predicted was the explosion in digital technology; the rise of computers, the internet and the information age; and now the portable devices that allow us to access that information at any time and almost any place.

So do we have the rise of robotics and ‘the gig economy’ right? We cannot say with certainty. But to the extent that they are already happening we do need to plan for them and consider their ramifications both for people and the economy as a whole because so much work will no longer require people, or require them for only short durations. We may not get it quite right but we cannot ignore it.

Next week I will consider Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and what it may offer to meet the challenges of the new economy.

What do you think?

How far can robotics and computerisation go in reducing the need for humans? Is there a limit?

Will unions themselves become redundant if more and more people do not have work or enter (or are forced into) ‘the gig economy’?