Today, I offer Part 2 of my responses to the comments raised in the debate so far. I am still about 40 comments shy of the total. In general, I thank Scott, JKH, Ramanan, Sean and others who have provided excellent interventions into this debate based on their knowledge of how the monetary system actually works rather than a stylised representation of it which leaves out the government sector and is liberal with the accounting conventions applied to account for asset and liability flows and flow to stock relations. But there still appears to be major confusions which I will try to address here.

Today, we step down from the heights of the modern money-debt deflation debate and consider macroeconomic developments which demonstrate the deficit-debt hysteria is ramping up here. I may come back to the debate in later blogs but I think the issues have been well considered. While the debate has uncovered some useful issues that I often get asked about (particularly in relation to the accounting and definitional matters) it also demonstrated that very simple and unthreatening concepts get conflated into horror stories if we let the dominant neo-liberal ideology control the way we think and the language we use. Also, I know I promised a G-20-IMF blog and that will emerge but some things emerged today that need commentary.

As indicated yesterday, Steve Keen and I agreed to foster a debate about where modern monetary theory sits with his work on debt-deflation. So yesterday his blog carried the following post, which included a 1000-odd word precis written by me describing what I see as the essential characteristics of modern monetary theory. The discussion is on-going on that site and I invite you to follow it if you are interested. Rather than comment on all the comments over on Steve’s site, I decided to collate them here (in part) and help develop the understanding that way. That is what follows today.

Readers of my blog often ask me about how modern monetary theory sits with the views of the debt-deflationists (and specifically my academic colleague Steve Keen). Steve and I have collaborated in the last few days to foster some debate between us on a constructive level with the aim of demonstrating that the common enemy is mainstream macroeconomics and that progressive thinkers should target that school of thought rather than looking within.

This morning’s Sydney Morning Herald (September 27, 2009) carried the front-page story $82m ‘wasted’ in stimulus splurge. As it was written by a political correspondent you might expect little coherent economic analysis. Your expectation would be correct. But the article had the predictable response from the deficit-debt-hysteria club and the “shocking revelation” has been interpreted as a testimony against the use of fiscal policy to attenuate major cyclical downturns in aggregate demand. The under-current is that citizenship doesn’t matter and governments should only assist those who live within the geographic boundaries they are sovereign over. All these conclusions are of-course folderol.

It continues to amaze me how humans lock themselves into constrained debating positions on almost every topic imaginable. In doing so we stand in denial of our history and therefore operate in a sort of “current ignorance”. But also we deny ourselves the adventure of thinking laterally about how new ways of proceeding might help us solve our problems. So we are neither backward or forward looking but churn our debates around and around within a tight set of ideas which we presumably think is safe. In macroeconomics, the problem is that most of these “safe” ideas are based on false premises and actually expose us to on-going danger of the type we are witnessing in this current global recession. I was reminded of this again today when I was reading the latest New York Times debate about Saving the World, Without U.S. Consumers.

The G-20 leader’s summit in the US at the moment will consider new banking regulations. In September 2008, the Basel Committee Banking Supervision (BCBS), via its Working Group on Liquidity released its revised principles for liquidity risk management and supervision. This week, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), which oversees the financial system released a consultation paper which incorporated the revised BCBS principles. It has created a mini-uproar because it has proposals which will force the banks to hold increased volumes of government debt. But overall, while the impost on banks will be modest they are unnecessary. Once again, modern monetary theory provides different and cleaner insights into banking.

Household saving ratios (saving as a percentage of disposable income) have risen significantly in most countries since the onset of the recession. In many countries this has come after a period of increasing indebtedness as national governments pursued budget surpluses. As a result, the macroeconomic concept of the paradox of thrift has been resurrected in the popular press as a discussion point. There are fears that the end of the “consumer boom” will lead to stagnancy. A recently published IMF paper addresses this point but just cannot let themselves address the elephant in the room. They present a new way version of deficit hysteria.