I was going to write about the so-called fiscal cliff today and would have shown that the only thing that might fall of the said cliff would be real GDP growth should the US Congress actually not extend the tax cuts and impose the spending cuts. The US economy would follow the lead from the British economy and double-dip in 2013 as sure as day follows night (or is it the other way round). The most elementary exposition of what we might call – ECO101 Macroeconomics – would tell us that. One person’s spending is another person’s income and so on. I note that some economists are arguing that ECO101 Macroeconomics is alive and well because it has had a an impeccable record in the current crisis. In my recent blogs – Fiscal austerity damages real growth and prolongs the financial downturn and Neo-liberalism has failed but we still don’t get it – I have argued that the mainstream of my profession has failed – both in anticipating the emerging crisis and providing credible solutions to remedy it. So have I overstated that claim, given that ECO101 Macroeconomics is the go-to approach at present? The problem is that while there are some leading economists who are arguing against harsh fiscal austerity at present at the basis of their reasoning is a thoroughly mainstream approach which has helped create the problem. I don’t think their version of ECO101 Macroeconomics provides the answers. There is some common ground with Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) but an even deeper incongruence.

One of the puzzles that accompany this gruelling economic crisis is why neo-liberal economic thinking, which when applied caused the crisis and has delivered very little to so many, remains the dominant paradigm in economic policy making and has managed to turn a disaster for practitioners of that ideology into a triumph. How is it that the leading voices now are preaching exactly the same policies that caused the crisis as the solution to the crisis. Is there that much asymmetry? I noted a recent comment on my blog (Tom) that raised issues relating to the philosophy of science along the lines of how are we to judge whether the mainstream macroeconomics paradigm has failed. I understand the demarcation issues involved and the problems of “truth testing”. But we can take a more simple approach to the question. Here are two ways we know that the mainstream approach failed – they didn’t have a clue what was happening in the years leading up to the crisis and now they are scrambling in a stunned state to add banks and financial markets to their defective models. The problem is that they are just building more defective approaches. But the continued dominance demonstrates that their failures are not yet fully understood.

It is unsurprising that my profession has suddenly became enamoured with studies of financial cycles. Up until the GFC mainstream macroeconomics (theories and models) mostly ignored financial markets and banking, thinking that they were largely peripheral to understanding the business cycle. The only linkage between the financial sector and the real economy that was considered was via interest rates – the impact on investment spending and the demand for loanable funds to fund investment impacting back onto interest rates. Even within this limited context, the theories developed were hopelessly deficient and incapable of explaining anything that relates to the real economy. But now – more brash than ever – my profession is busily conjuring up financial markets to fit into their Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) models, despite these models being next to useless. In March 2009, Willem Buiter said that DSGE models “excludes everything relevant to the pursuit of financial stability.” More recent research from the BIS (link below in the text) has highlighted some salient facts about the relationship between financial cycles and business cycles. What that research implies is that push for fiscal austerity is without foundation and will not only damage the real economy but will, in the process, prolong the financial downturn and prevent a resolution that could provide the springboard for sustainable growth.

I went for a walk at lunchtime through a main shopping area where I am working today. In the past you saw Sale signs twice around twice a year – post Xmas and mid-year. The advertised discounts at this time were modest except for some enticement items that might have been discounted by 30 per cent or so. You may check this out going through archives of Catalogue AU. You rarely saw Closing Down/All Stock must go signs. You rarely saw massive discounts – such as 80 per cent off and the like. Times have changed and there seems to be a permanency to these sales and the discounts are huge. Previously well-to-do shopping strips are now slowly being punctuated with empty shops so the Sale/Closing Down signs are now interspersed with For Lease signs. And Australia is meant to be going through a one-in-a-hundred years mining boom and the Government tells us we are doing so well that they have to undermine aggregate demand by running a surplus to give the economy room to grow even more. The problem is that our political leaders are in denial and continually bombard us with lies to perpetuate their ideological stances which work against the well-being of the majority of citizens. It is clear that the system is failing and that means we have a choice. The problem is that we first have to identify that we have that choice.

I often get E-mails from readers – some hostile others more reasonable – telling me that I should stop arguing for more economic growth. The reasoning is relatively straightforward – the Earth is buckling under the rapacious resources demands of the capitalist system and not only is that process likely to be finite, notwithstanding substitution via technological advances, but also in the process of exhaustion the amenity declines. The argument juxtaposes ecological claims with other claims relating to the desirability of the current neo-liberal dominated system which relies, seemingly, on creating more inequality, a reduction in government oversight and allows the worst aspects of the capitalist system to run amok. However, somewhere along the way, the 99% or whatever percentage it is (I think it is substantially lower than 99) miss the boat. The current crisis is used to demonstrate that conjecture. I haven’t time to reply to all the E-mails and I try to provide “collective” replies (which should tell you something in itself) via my blog posts. So today I am addressing that issue. The message is simple – I am very sympathetic to localised, new economy-type collective ways of organising social and economic activities. I support egalitarianism and co-operative solutions rather than competitive, dog-eats-dog approaches. I don’t mind working and giving my surplus to aid those who are unable for whatever reason to achieve the same material outcomes by their own hand. I am happy with consolidation rather than growth. But despite the romantic appeal of all this – as the solution – we have to understand that there is still something called a monetary system and a currency to deal with. Localised solutions are still constrained by the sovereign state they are located in and their fortunes are determined in no small way by the way the currency-issuing government conducts its fiscal policy. There is no escape from that.