Professors Edmond, Holden, and Preston are mistaken in that Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) says we should not worry about budget deficits. The effects of budget deficits are significant. As Stephanie Kelton, the most well-known MMT economist in the world, says, we should focus on the deficits that matter. The jobs deficit, the environmental deficit, the deficit of affordable housing for homelessness, and many more. The financial deficit from the budget is the private sector surplus, the money in your pocket and mine.
Keynes used financial praxis to argue for fiscal stimulus in severe recessions, and since financial praxis is always and everywhere an MMT phenomenon, Keynes used MMT.
The professors are also mistaken to say that it is a well-accepted idea that the spending comes first. Many politicians and commentators who talk as if the government spending is like a household budget are economists or have worked in the central bank and Treasury, among other public service jobs. So the television talking heads like financial commentators and public-facing economists such as Stephen Koukoulas and Saul Eslake are not saying these things.
The professors have not been paying attention if they think MMT proponents and economists do not explain when the inflation constraint binds. Every time MMT talks about real resources and their availability, MMT proponents are talking about inflation constraints. The real resource constraint is the inflation constraint.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that central banks do not have a working theory of inflation. Therefore, they must be in want of an excellent post-Keynesian economist like Joan Robinson or an MMT economist like Australia’s Bill Mitchell. After all, those economists have a working theory of inflation that matches reality.
The professors claim that conventional economics has a comprehensive analysis of what causes inflation; however, they would have to elaborate on this to prove that claim. Perhaps the professors are just thinking of thedebunked monetary and neoclassical theories of inflation. Daniel Tarullo, a former Federal Reserve Bank board member in the United States, explains [The Financial Times, paywalled] that central banks do not have a working theory of inflation.
MMT has always acknowledged that inflation can occur below full employment, as currently demonstrated through the coronavirus pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine conflict, with Australian unemployment at 3.5% and still 1.3 million people looking for work. As the professors should know, bottlenecks can occur in various sectors from spending before full employment is reached. This congestion can occur in the form of a resource shortage in a greater supply chain of production. It is currently being demonstrated by the lack of oil and natural gas supply in the Australian production chain.
If the Ukraine conflict had not affected oil supplies, then automotive fuel would not have been ever-increasing in price. The price increase was alleviated by the temporary excise cut in fuel. Who would have thought that reducing prices reduces inflation? Inflation is a measure of prices, so of course, lowering prices reduces inflation.
What about price rises for natural gas? These rises have occurred because we have sold our industries off to foreign owners who demand world prices for our gas instead of us owning our energy industry and setting our own prices. Putting aside environmental concerns with these fossil fuels, we are not in control of our energy resources. What we need is an Australian strategic reserve of our energy, owned by Australians and priced in Australian dollars. We briefly saw this achieved when the government activated the Gas Supply Guarantee Mechanism.
As stated earlier, we should focus on the deficits that matter, so yes, if you want to implement policies from theGreen New Dealor a larger social safety net with increased social security payments, they should be argued for on their own terms. This conflicts with the professors agreeing that spending comes first (meaning that there is no purely financial constraint) but then saying that implementing any given progressive policy may cause politically unacceptable inflation. MMT explains that keeping an eye on resources and/or expanding capacity in domestic production can minimise inflation risk.
It is worth noting that neither Treasurer Chalmers nor Finance Minister Gallagher has formal training in economics or finance, but they have public service experience in these fields. These Labor ministers have concerns about increased expenditure on Health, NDIS, Aged Care, and Defence. It is an exaggeration to say these are a political concern. As the professors have previously explained, they are reasonable goals that the public can argue for on their own terms.
The professors have not disputed nor disproved Modern Monetary Theory but, in effect, agreed with it. It is clear that Modern Monetary Theory’s time is now. The time to flick the switch is now!
Darren is a leader in educating people in modern macroeconomics. He played a founding role in educating Australians via social media channels and has engaged some prominent Australians on commentary about Modern Monetary Theory. Darren is a member of Modern Money Australia, Australian Real Progressives and has been involved with the Modern Money Network. You can see more of his work athttps://www.darren-quinn.netand https://www.realausprogressives.com
You can find him on Twitter @AusMMT @dquinn03
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
In August 2017, after years of denial, I finally acknowledged my own homelessness. I came out of the closet in the most public way, on the SBS show, Insight.
Since then I have been seriously researching the issue of homelessness. I think I have clarified the problem – what homelessness is, who it effects, the why and how, and particularly in relation to women. I published my thoughts inWhat you need to know about women’s homelessness: the shocking truth.
But I have not yet managed to identify clear cut solutions. Nor has anyone else
We need to understand the exact nature of the problem before we can start to look at solutions. But once we do understand the real nature of homelessness, we realise that solutions may not be as simple as they looked at first sight.
For most, the cause of homelessness is structural, not personal, and is related to poverty
Most of the homeless simply do not have enough money to pay rents or mortgages.
You will see child care workers, primary school teachers, secondary school teachers and even TAFE and university teachers amongst the ranks of homeless women. You will see nurses and allied health professionals. You will see all manner of office and clerical support staff, retail workers, restaurant workers. You will even see highly skilled IT and other corporate workers. You will see many who have been sick or disabled, and you will see many who have fled destructive relationships, particularly sole parents with children.
Very few are mentally ill before they become homeless, and very few are sleeping on park benches. Very few are criminals. Very few are professional beggars. They are mostly perfectly ordinary white collar workers or pensioners.
So why are they homeless?
We have inflated house prices
We have rapidly inflating house prices that are forcing those who have housed themselves for their entire lives into homelessness. The rapid rate of house price increase has been caused, at least in part, by:
the cultural change from houses as homes to houses as investment, which is supported by much state and federal government policy, and
the increasing number of houses dedicated to tourism where they attract much higher returns than they do for permanent rentals.
We have deflated incomes (in real terms)
As house prices have inflated at a rapid rate, fixed incomes have stayed pretty much the same, and working class jobs have diminished:
there are less jobs available, leading to greater unemployment, and
the purchasing power of working class incomes and welfare benefits for those who cannot find suitable work is too low to pay for housing.
It is pretty much common knowledge that the true unemployment rate is much higher than official government statistics would like us to believe, but there is little agreement on what the true rate is. The Roy Morgan poll estimates 18.9% of the workforce (in April 2017) was unemployed or under-employed and gives their poll statistics to back this up. And there are just not enough jobs to go round. If there are many more people looking for work than there are jobs available, a certain percentage of the population is doomed to unemployment, and for the less skilled and able, there is a certain number doomed to perpetual unemployment.
Depending on your ideological position, you will hold beliefs about why this is so, and beliefs on how to fix it, but the simple fact is that we are living in a time when it is impossible for many to find work, and when low incomes and welfare benefits are not enough to pay even the most basic rents: where 200,000 households are homeless or at risk of homelessness.
We have escalating levels of poverty
Our challenge is not to build more houses for the poor. It is to fix the structural issues that have led to 3 million Australians – 13.3% of the population living at or below the poverty line. Even the way the poverty line is set, is somewhat dubious, in that it relates to median income. If median income goes down the poverty line goes down. It is currently set at $426.30 a week. If you are earning $427 per week (the age pension plus rent assistance is higher than this) you are not included in the statistic. So let us assume thattrue poverty is affecting a much higher number of people than reported in the official statistics.
This is honest, decent, hardworking Australians, who cannot afford the basics of food, clothing and shelter.
So what are the solutions?
Either house prices have to come down or incomes have to go up. It is really as simple as that. So which is it to be?
Building houses will not fix the problem
When I started this research I was originally entrapped by the idea of building low cost rental housing as a solution to homelessness. Virtually all other commentators are also fixated on this notion. But building low cost rental housing for 200,000 households is simply not viable and will not actually fix the problem. Even if we could do it, it would just render a greater and greater proportion of the population welfare dependent.
There is enough existing housing for everyone: it’s just not affordable
In Australia there is plenty of housing to go around. It is just not affordable. There are:
massive numbers of caravan and cabin parks for tourists.
We are living in an economy where house price inflation provides enough profit for speculative investors, meaning that many do not need to rent their properties. We are living in an economy where anyone who wants to, can place their property, at much higher prices than market rental, onto the tourist market. The housing is still there, it is just not housing Australian residents. It is either empty or housing tourists.
So can we identify how to fix the economy?
This is where we get into the minefield of ideological belief systems, that many hold on to, despite all or any evidence to the contrary.
Dick Smith, Fair Go
Dick Smith has published a comprehensive paper on housing affordability, The Aussie housing affordability crisis: an honest debate. Because he has become associated a move to reduce immigration levels, his ideas on house price inflation have been dismissed by many on ideological grounds, but this paper has little to do with immigration, and everything to do with accessible housing. It can be used as a starting point for debate, and each issue he raises can be addressed on it’s own merits. He has a strong bias in his arguments in favour of home buyers and does not address rental issues. It is a good start, but not the final word.
Also, his solutions are operating within the current neo-liberal framework, and that is not the only approach.
Universal Basic Income & Job Guarantee
There are two populist ideas doing the rounds at the moment, for how to fix endemic poverty, and they go beyond neo-liberalism:
Universal Basic Income (UBI) and
Job Guarantee.
They are separate beliefs with separate ideologies, but to the outside observer they are approaching the problem of poverty from the same direction.
Both postulate that every citizen has the right to an income that is enough to provide adequate food, clothing and shelter, which is a very good start.
From this point they differ:
The UBI does not tie itself to any work or any attempt to work. It is unconditional.
The Job Guarantee guarantees that anyone who want a job has a job. If there is no job for them then a government agency of some description will create that job, and pay the national minimum wage (set to a level that can provide food, clothing and shelter) for that job no matter what it is.
But won’t funding these lead to greater public debt and runaway inflation?
The idea that printing money causes inflation has become accepted wisdom, but is it true? There are growing numbers of economists and monetary experts who are saying it is not true – as long as we are careful.
Firstly, nations that print their own currency do not need to either borrow or tax to raise funds, they just print more currency (or add a 0 to the balance sheet), and Australia has it’s own currency.
We are told that printing money will lead to runaway inflation. According toModern Monetary Theory, this is not necessarily the case. If I have understood correctly, the advocates of modern monetary theory claim that printing money only leads to inflation if there is not enough productive capacity locally to absorb that money. As many, if not all, of those receiving this income will be living at the poverty line, it is likely that they will spend locally on the basic necessities of life, much of which are locally produced. This will be a boon for local business and is far more likely to boost local economies than lead to runaway inflation.
And won’t giving people free money make them lazy?
I cannot comment on whether these ideas are right, only that there are limited trials going on inFinland, Scotland andCanada. Other countries are seriously discussing the option of a universal basic income. If some nations are taking at least the UBI seriously, why not Australia too? It has been suggested byThe Greens, but their proposal has been almost universally ridiculed and there is little intelligent debate as to if or how their policy could be improved. Why? Why can we not discuss it?
It may be that the UBI is a less effective option than the Job Guarantee but without discussion we will never know. It may be that both UBI and Job Guarantee are nonsense, but without discussion, and some form of trialing, how will we ever know?
And in the meantime, how do we house the homeless?
If the conversation moves away from building houses to fixing the economy, what happens to the currently 200,000 households that are housing stressed or homeless, languishing on the public housing waiting lists? They have to be housed – somehow.
We do need some permanent housing added to the national estate – to house 50,000
Public and community housing, where rentals are set at 35% of income, cannot be expected to provide housing for the entire 200,000 struggling households. But it can be expected to provide housing for an additional 50,000.
According to theAustralian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI), the national estate of this kind of housing has been reducing over many years, while the population has been growing, so public and community housing is not keeping pace with the existing need of it’s traditional demographic.
“If the proportion of households in social housing (4.8% in 2006) had been maintained through to 2016 (when 4.3% of all households lived in social housing) then an extra 49,302 households would have been living in social housing.” (AHURI)
We need to build more suitable public housing, with security of tenure, to bring the ratio of public housing to private housing back to it’s earlier and more optimum levels. This alone might require as much as 50,000 new residences, and would be a massive building or acquisition commitment in it’s own right, but for which there is currently no political will.
In the interim we need a crisis response
For now, while we wait for sensible action to be taken by federal and state governments, we have 200,000 households living in fear. We need a crisis response to get the currently homeless safely housed, while we are waiting for additional housing to be acquired and for the economy to be re-adjusted.
Where is the conversation about a crisis response? Where is the action?
Frankly, how we can achieve this I do not know. Perhaps:
we can force the 300,000 empty houses back onto the market
we can force some of the housing dedicated to the tourist industry back onto the market
there are government policy areas that can set off immediate impacts on the housing market such as reviewing the Capital Gains Tax exemption on the family-home, or negative gearing
the army can construct pop-up accommodation on government land to immediately house those in personal danger.
I have no idea what the pros and cons of any or all of the actions above would be. But I do know that we can no longer continue to do nothing.
We must start addressing homelessness as a structural issue, and do something to rescue and protect the innocent victims of the economic imbalance that has caused their housing stress: the 200,000 households currently homeless or at risk of homelessness need help, and now!
This article was originally published on Housing Alternatives (for women).
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
Adair Turner is a British Lord as well as a businessman and academic. He is, according to Wikipedia, a member of the UK’s Financial Policy Committee, a chairman of the now abolished Financial Services Authority, a former chairman of the UK Pensions Commission and a member of the Committee on Climate Change.
Recently, this celebrated Baron Turner of Ecchinswell issued a paper that he delivered to the 16th Jacques Polak Annual Research Conference, hosted by the IMF in Washington on November 5-6, 2015.
Turner’s article is heavy reading but it is summarised and commented on more simply, by John Cassidy of The New Yorker under the title, ‘Printing Money’.
As most of us know, the term ‘printing money’ is a misnomer. Apart from a small percentage of notes and coin, today all money is processed via electronic transfers from the Central Banks to the private banks who in turn credit their respective account holders. Money today is, essentially, just numbers in a computer moved around in millions of transactions every day.
Turner’s article is essentially about Overt Monetary Financing (OMF) which is the creation of debt free money to fund government deficits.
At present most Western fiat currency issuing governments finance deficits by issuing interest bearing bonds to the private bond market.
Such a process is a hangover from the fixed exchange rate mechanism of the gold standard era.
OMF, as described by economist Bill Mitchell“brings together the central bank and the treasury functions of government into a coherent framework whereby the central bank merely credits private bank accounts on behalf of the government to indicate the spending initiatives implemented by the Treasury.”
Modern Monetary Theorists (MMT) support OMF. It is money creation without debt.
The difficulty supporters of MMT have faced in the neo-classical world is that whenever we attempt to explain it, the words, ‘printing money’, ‘Weimar republic’, ‘Zimbabwe’ and more recently, ‘Greece’ are thrust in our faces as if to suggest that such a proposal would send us bankrupt, that hyperinflation or at least some kind of inflation would destroy our economy.
The reality is that none of these outcomes would result with OMF. Inflation occurs when excessive spending outstrips the ability to supply. However where a nation has underutilised resources, i.e. unemployment, and OMF draws on those resources to increase supply and meet that demand, inflation will not happen.
In reality, it is the pathway to full employment which brings about an increase in the tax base, a debt free fiscal position, as well as growth and higher living standards.
There are those that argue that continued growth based on the exploitation of finite resources is unsustainable and they are right. However, people are our most important resource and within us we have one resource that is not finite: the mind.
Ground-breaking discoveries in technology and social cohesion continue to reduce our dependence on natural resources. They will continue to do so as our minds continue to search for better ways to do things. And money, a product of the mind, which has evolved over time to be what it is today, is now another of our most powerful resources.
It is as infinite a resource as is organisation, initiative and discipline. But money has, almost from its inception, been corrupted by individuals and governments to service greed.
Money needs to be restructured to serve its most wholesome purpose: equality. Modern Monetary Theory seeks out that wholesomeness, that equality.
As a direct consequence of the corruption of money as a resource, evidenced by the GFC, we now have the gurus of macroeconomics throwing their hands in the air, bereft of ideas on how to restore economic growth. Little wonder they are now slowly but surely turning their heads towards the simple principle of Overt Monetary Finance.
Turner writes, “My proposals will horrify many economists and policymakers, and in particular central bankers. Printing money to finance public deficits is a taboo policy. It has indeed almost the status of a mortal sin.”
While Cassidy writes, “Given the problems of debt overhang and slow growth, and the high toll that an extended period of economic stagnation could take on Western democracies, we face a choice of dangers. We could revert to the standard model, hoping that another round of debt issuance in the public and private sectors will juice the economy. Or we could resort to something different and radical: the electronic printing press.”
Bill Mitchell’s blog on the subject of Adair’s article and Cassidy’s response to it, reflects his own take on the changing attitudes to the way economies are managed.
He writes, “It is interesting that more people are now talking about things that the MMT crowd have been writing and thinking about for a fair while now.
It is clear that ideas that were considered ‘crazy’ some years ago and now being entertained as being plausible by the mainstream media.
Given the vilification that our small group endured when we set out on this MMT journey, I find all of this rather amusing. Apparently it takes a British lord to give an idea credibility. So be it.
It is better that these ideas penetrate the mainstream debate through which ever means than be sequestered by the mainstream media and wheeled out as a way of humiliating commentators who dare to challenge the mainstream paradigm.”
Let us hope that as the world continues to struggle with flat demand and little improvement in employment, some national leaders with a sense of vision and a passion for equality, will catch on to the idea and implement a strategy to mobilise our underutilised resources. Such a vision would go a long way toward that mythical image John Lennon created when he penned, ‘Imagine’.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969