Today marks the beginning of – Anti-Poverty Week – in Australia and elsewhere. The overwhelming reason people are poor is because they are unemployed (or underemployed). There are related reasons associated with poor housing etc, but the fact remains that if we eliminate mass unemployment by providing enough work for all those who desire it and ensure there are jobs for those with multiple disadvantages then we will reduce poverty overnight. While poverty is persistent, it wasn’t always thus. I have been to many meeting where policy makers, usually very well adorned in the latest clothing, plenty of nice watches and rings, and all the latest gadgets (phones, tablets etc), wax lyrical about how complex the poverty problem is. I usually respond at some point (trying my hardest to disguise disdain) by suggesting the problem is relatively simple. The federal government can always create enough work any time it chooses at a decent wage to ensure that no-one needs to live below the poverty line. Read: always! It can also always pay those who cannot work for whatever reason an adequate pension. Read: always. If we run out of real resources which prevent those nominal payments (wage and pensions) translating into an adequate standard of living, then the government can always redistribute the real resources by increasing taxes on those who have “too many” resources at their disposable. Too many is a relative concept in this context. The so-called complexity of the problem is just code for an unwillingness of the policy makers to use the capacity they have as currency issuers. There is nothing complex about announcing that the government will pay a living wage to anyone who wants to work – just turn up tomorrow and the wage begins. If that announcement was made then we would know who wants to work for a wage and those who do not. For Anti-Poverty Week – the best thing the government can do is announce the unconditional job offer.

In the last week, Australians have been reminded yet again of the corruption that exists in the ranks of the corporate sector. Over the last few years we have been following the – unfolding evidence – of illegal practices (including bribery, UN-sanction busting) by companies (Note Printing Australia and Securency), which are owned by our central bank (RBA). Now, we have learned that one of our largest constructions companies appears to be corrupt to the core. They have been accused of “paying kickbacks to Iraqi officials in return for receiving lucrative contracts from the Iraqi regime” (Source). There are a myriad of examples of corporate fraud around the world (I just thought of Enron – “Burn, baby, burn. That’s a beautiful thing”). And then there was the global financial crisis with the cocktail of out-of-control investment banks, ratings agencies and whoever else with very long cheating snouts getting as much as they could for themselves, laws or no laws. And now we learn that a significant proportion of government procurement contracts in Europe are subject to corrupt behaviour. While, this tells me that the processes of government oversight need reworking in significant ways. But, further, it tells me that the root cause of the corruption is not the fact that governments are too big or spend too much money. Rather, an unfettered capitalism will pursue an agenda of greed and corruption and the idea that self-regulating markets (devoid of public oversight) are the best way to organise economic activity is a myth. The “market” is rife with corruption and inefficiency.

I am writing several formal academic papers at present with various presentations coming up as the target and so blogs in the near future might reflect that sort of mission. Today I present some results of some work I am doing with my co-author Joan Muysken, which stems in part from theoretical work we outlined in our 2008 book – Full Employment abandoned. The current work formalises the influence of unemployment duration and underemployment on the inflation process. Initially, we are focusing on Australia (for a December presentation) but the scope of the work will generalise to a broader OECD dataset. A motivation is that underemployment has became an increasingly significant component of labour underutilisation in many nations over the last two decades. In some nations, such as Australia, the rise in underemployment outstripped the fall in official unemployment in the period leading up to the financial crisis. Underemployment is now higher than unemployment in Australia. There is now excellent data available for underemployment from national statistical agencies, which makes it easier to examine its macroeconomic impacts.

There was an article in the UK Guardian (Australian) edition last week (September 27, 2013) which carried the title – Can Labor be blamed for rising unemployment?. The Labor government, which was tossed out of office in Australia on September 14, had been in power since late 2007. They inherited an unemployment rate of 4.4 per cent (which dropped 3 months later to 4 per cent on the tail end of the growth phase), an underemployment rate of 6.2 per cent (total labour underutilisation rate of 10.7 per cent), a participation rate of 65.6 per cent and an employment-population rate of 62.7 per cent. By the time we got sick of them, the unemployment rate was 5.8 per cent and rising, the underemployment rate was 7.8 per cent and rising (total wastage was 13.7 per cent and rising), the participation rate had dropped to 65 per cent (some 114 thousand workers exiting the labour force because of the lack of jobs), and the employment-population ratio had dropped to 61.2 per cent (a loss of 285 thousand relative jobs). The labour force increased by 1147 thousand over this time but employment only rose by 934 thousand, which meant that unemployment rose by 161 thousand more than if the relative scales had been maintained from November 2007. So is Labor to blame for this? Of-course it is – it was the currency-issuing government for 6 years or so. Any rise in the unemployment rate is the fault of the national government because it alone as the complete capacity to offset any reductions in employment arising from other sources such as global financial crisis, the slowdown in the Chinese economy, an appreciated Australian dollar and whatever else. The author of the Guardian article, while mounting a reasonable fight against the conservative view of the changing labour market, feels unable to admit that basic truth. So the Labor Party is obviously to blame because it was in government and could have prevented the rise in the unemployment rate.

There is a popular segment (that is, I assume it to be popular) on the national ABC television news in Australia each night. the Finance Report presents one or more graphs which motivate the presenters so-called insights into what is going on in the Australian economy. I rarely see it and when I do I tend to ignore it because the presenter is infuriating to say the least. But last night, he presented to charts which were of interest although the conclusions he drew left the “elephant” that was standing in the room unnoticed. The conclusions he drew were facile and he ignored the most obvious conclusion – that the Australian economy could only maintain growth into the future if the budget deficit was larger and on-going. That would have been a bridge too far for him to cross but that is what his data and all the other related data that he didn’t present tells us. Us – in this context – being those who understand how the macroeconomy works. So today’s blog is a reprise of the graphs (or my versions of them) with the essential commentary that might have been presented last evening and would have helped the viewers appreciate the current economic situation more fully and understand why deficits are essential in these situations.

Metaphors! They are more than a fancy way of emphasising some point – that is, their power goes beyond meagre linguistic construction. The research suggests they are part of our deep mental or neural capacity, which we draw on to sort out facts and ideas. They are conceptual devices intrinsically linked to the way we think abstractly. Metaphorical language reinforces our ideology (worldview) and so it is no surprise that political parties have become very interested in framing their messages using simple and common metaphors which resonate with the way we feel about things. George Lakoff, a cognitive linguist, considers we do not make our political choices on the basis of rational dissection of competing facts and arguments but rather respond to central (or grand) metaphors with reinforce our worldview. We thus consider facts or argument within that framework of thought. I am doing a bit of work in this area as a way of understanding why central Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) propositions (which are so patently obvious and have strong explanatory capacity) evade acceptance among people, even those who express liberal perspectives (in this context meaning – are open to new ideas).

There was an UK Guardian article today (September 23, 2013) – The American dream has become a burden for most – which argues that the narratives about the American dream are becoming increasingly recognised as a “delusional myth”. The discussion is relevant for a number of growing research agendas that attempt to construct a new understanding of what has been happening over the neo-liberal period (say, the last 3 decades), how the financial crisis occurred, why it is persisting, who underpins the well-funded campaign against budget deficits as a means of reducing unemployment and redistributing national income towards the bottom of the distribution, and how we might go about reforming/restructuring a global financial order that clearly does not work in the interests of all (make that almost everybody!). One such research agenda is emerging from the field of network analysis and some of the results to date provide a chilling picture of who controls the world financial markets and the governments and central banks that seek to regulate these markets. Essentially, if we want to engage in serious reform we have to unseat the power of some 161 individuals.

On September 7, 2013, the federal election in Australia saw the incumbent Labor Party deposed in fairly categorical terms and replaced by the “born-to-rule” conservative coalition (Liberal and Nationals). The Labor Party had been in power for two terms since 2007 after defeating the conservatives even more categorically, who had, in turn, been in power for 11 years. The Labor Party stormed to office in the 2007 federal election, taking 22 seats of coalition (and a further 1 from an independent) to hold 83 seats (primary vote 43.38 per cent, and two-party preferred 52.70 per cent). The conservative coalition was reduced to 65 seats (in the 150 seat lower house). The conservative Prime Minister lost his own seat so great was the rout. Between 2007 and 2013, the Australian Labor Party squandered that lead and in the process we had three Prime Ministers (2 different) as the Party factions conducted an internecene war. After last Saturday’s defeat, one of the Labor Prime Ministers (who had been deposed in June 2013 as a result of her total failure to win electoral appeal) wrote her assessment of the state of Labor as a result of the electoral defeat. The article – Julia Gillard writes on power, purpose and Labor’s future – is an extraordinary exercise in self-denial, despite much of it providing an assessment that I would agree with. But in the big issue – of economic credibility, Ms Gillard demonstrates why her Party was unfit to govern and why the conservatives are back in power and beginning yet another period where the rights and outcomes of workers will be attacked and dragged down. But this has only happened because of the monumental failure of the Labor Party to present a progressive alternative at a time when they had the Australian voters eating out of their hands.