Welcome to the billy blog Saturday quiz. The quiz tests whether you have been paying attention over the last seven days. See how you go with the following questions. Your results are only known to you and no records are retained.
One of the extraordinary things that arose in a recent discussion about whether employment guarantees are better than leaving workers unemployed was the assumption that the costs of unemployment are relatively low compared to having workers engaged in activities of varying degrees of productivity. Some of the discussion suggested that there were “microeconomic” costs involved in having to manage employment guarantee programs (bureaucracy, supervision, etc) which would negate the value of any such program. The implicit assumption was that the unemployed will generate zero productivity if they are engaged in employment programs. There has been a long debate in the economics about the relative costs of microeconomic inefficiency compared to macroeconomic inefficiency. The simple fact is that the losses arising from unemployment dwarfed by a considerable margin any microeconomic losses that might arise from inefficient use of resources. in this blog, I discuss some of those issues.
While the Eurozone leaders appear to be obsessed with a relentless series of meetings which discuss largely irrelevant problems that they identify, there is a growing chorus that is highlighting the reality facing the region. It is patently obvious that the only short-term solution to the Euro crisis is for the ECB to keep its vacuum cleaner on and keep “hoovering” up the debt of governments who are unable to gain access to funds in private bond markets at reasonable yields. While the long-term solution is an orderly dismantling of the monetary union, the ECB is the only show in town at present that can in the spiralling crisis and ensure that the Eurozone countries return to growth as quickly as possible. This is even more paramount now Germany has recorded a negative quarter of growth with worse expected in the coming months. It beggars belief that the Euro elites have engineered a crisis of such a proportion that that their worst fears become the only solution.
Underlining the current obsession with fiscal austerity is an equally long-standing obsession with so-called structural reform. The argument goes that growth can be engendered by deregulating the labour market to remove inefficiencies that create bottlenecks for growth even when fiscal austerity is slashing aggregate demand and killing growth. The 1994 OECD Jobs Study the provides the framework for this policy approach. The only problem is that it failed even before the crisis emerged. But with policymakers intent on slashing aggregate demand, which they know will kill growth, they have to offer something that they can pretend will generate growth. The structural reform agenda has zero credibility in the same way that fiscal austerity has zero credibility.
A striking characteristic of the last few decades has been the way the so-called “progressive” political parties have adopted policy frameworks and thinking that were previously the exclusive domain of the conservatives. Nothing could be more obvious than the way in which all the major parties around the world now speak neo-liberal economics as if it was the only way of thinking about the economy and economic policy. Slowly but surely the options that parties are willing to consider have been narrowed down and policy is now conducted in a straitjacket which cannot deliver prosperity for all as well as advancing environmental objectives. It is understandable that during recessions expectations become downgraded by workers about the types of jobs they will except, by consumers about the level of spending they can sustain, and by firms about what investment projects will be viable in the period ahead, etc. But it is strange that when the prevailing economic paradigm not only caused the great recession but is prolonging it at great cost, that the major parties remain locked down in the neo-liberal mire – blinded to other options. It is clearly time to think outside of this box and that is what I try to promote in this blog. But we also have to be careful that when we go wandering we are still on solid macroeconomic ground.
According to the popular legend Nero, Roman Emperor from 54 to 68 and the last in the Julio-Claudian dynasty allegedly “fiddled while Rome burned” (played his lyre and singing) during the fire in 64 which destroyed most of Rome. His rule (and dynasty) ended 4 years later. The imagery of this out-of-touch and cruel leader strumming/plucking his stringed instrument (rumour notwithstanding) while his city and, soon after, his dynasty collapsed is powerful. Last Friday, Eurostat released the latest unemployment data for November 2011. The results were shocking with unemployment rates in Spain now close to 23 per cent (as at November 2011 and rising) and Greece 18.8 per cent (as at September 2011) and rising. Greece’s unemployment rate rose 4.8 per cent in the first 9 months of last year. Meanwhile, the European Commission is occupying itself with other concerns. Its Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner and Vice President, Olli Rehn has been sending letters out to member states indicating that he is disappointed they are falling behind their budget deficit reduction targets under the Excessive Deficit Procedure (embedded in the Stability and Growth Pact) and that the EC would be considering fines.
Here are the answers with discussion for yesterday’s quiz. The information provided should help you understand the reasoning behind the answers. If you haven’t already done the Quiz from yesterday then have a go at it before you read the answers. I hope this helps you develop an understanding of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and its application to macroeconomic thinking. Comments as usual welcome, especially if I have made an error.
Welcome to the First Quiz for 2012 billy blog Saturday quiz. The quiz tests whether you have been paying attention over the last seven days. See how you go with the following questions. Your results are only known to you and no records are retained.
I have received a lot of E-mails overnight about developments in Hungary. The vast majority of these E-mails have suggested that these developments (sharp rise in government bond yields since November) coupled with the fact that the Hungary uses its own currency (the forint) and floats in on international markets provide problems for the Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) understanding of the monetary system. I have been digging into the data on Hungary for some months now as I learn more about the history of the nation and its political and institutional structure. I am always cautious researching foreign-language material because outside of documents published in Dutch or French my comprehension skills are weak and I know that even in English documents there are tricks in trying to come to terms with the way data is collected, compiled and disseminated. However, unlike many non-English-speaking nations, access to very detailed data for Hungary in English is reasonable. I will have more to write about their problems in the future as I accumulate and process more information. But at present what I can say is that Hungary is a very good example of what a government with its own currency should not do and the current developments reinforce the insights available from MMT rather than present us with problems. Hungary is in deep trouble exactly because it has violated some of the basic macroeconomic principles defining sound fiscal and monetary policy.
Evidence is a lovely thing sometimes. Like the speck of blood on a bomber jacket that has finally convicted the racist killers in London, 19 years after the crime was committed. In a different way, economic data is continually flowing in that makes vocal elements in my profession look like idiots. The only question is how long will it take for the rest of the world to know that and for governments to stop being influenced by the opinions of these economists. Over the last few decades I have been compiling interviews and commentaries from leading economists so that I can compare their predictions with the evolving reality. Economists typically make categorical statements such as – rising budget deficits will push up interest rates and choke off private spending – and then buttress those comments with arcane models that were negated both conceptually and empirically years ago. Invariably, when the mainstream economists do make predictions or empirical statements they are invariably wrong and then it is interesting to see how they respond to the anomaly – the dance that follows to try to maintain the upper-hand in the debate. They typically respond by nuancing the issue. But there are also times when their predictions are unambiguously wrong and ad hoc responses (of the Lakatosian type) make them look even more stupid. Then they bury their head in the sand and go into denial mode and their ideology takes over. The best antidote to this sort of dogma is evidence.