billy blog Wed 2010-09-08 19:04 EDT

Michal Kalecki -- The Political Aspects of Full Employment

...several readers have asked me whether I am familiar with the 1943 article by Polish economist Michal Kalecki -- The Political Aspects of Full Employment. The answer is that I am very familiar with the article and have written about it in my academic work in years past. So I thought I might write a blog about what I think of Kalecki's argument given that it is often raised by progressives as a case against effective fiscal intervention...[Job Guarantee concepts briefly summarized]...While orthodox economists typically attack the Job Guarantee policy for fiscal reasons, economists on the left also challenge its validity and effectiveness. In 1943, Michal Kalecki published the Political Aspects of Full Employment, in the Political Quarterly, which laid out the blueprint for socialist opposition to Keynesian-style employment policy. The criticisms would be equally applicable to a Job Guarantee policy...Kalecki's principle objection then seemed to be that ``the maintenance of full employment would cause social and political changes which would give a new impetus to the opposition of the business leaders.''...the major political blockages are no longer those that Kalecki foresaw. The opponents of fiscal activism are a different elite and work against the ``captains of industry'' just as much as they work against the broader working class. The growth of the financial sector and global derivatives trading and the substantial deregulation of labour markets and retrenchment of welfare states has altered things considerably since Kalecki wrote his brilliant article in 1943...

Billy Blog; full employment; Michal Kalecki; political aspects.

billy blog Fri 2010-07-02 18:17 EDT

A total lack of leadership

Bill Mitchell

Another G20 talkfest has ended in Toronto and the final communique suggests that the IMF is now back in charge...The line now being pushed is, as always, structural reform of product and labour markets -- which you read as deregulation and erosion of worker entitlements...They buy, without question the notion that ``(s)ound fiscal finances are essential to sustain recovery, provide flexibility to respond to new shocks, ensure the capacity to meet the challenges of aging populations, and avoid leaving future generations with a legacy of deficits and debt.'' But what constitutes ``sound fiscal finances'' is not spelt out. It is all fudged around what the bond markets will tolerate. But what the bond traders think is a reasonable outcome for their narrow vested interests is unlikely to be remotely what is in the best interests of the overall populace...A sovereign government is never revenue constrained because it is the monopoly issuer of the currency and so the bond markets are really superfluous to its fiscal operations. What the bond markets think should never be considered. They are after all the recipients of corporate welfare on a large scale and should stand in line as the handouts are being considered. They are mendicants. It is far more important that government get people back into jobs as quickly as possible and when they have achieved high employment levels then they might want to conclude the fiscal position is ``sound''...The G20 statement is full of erroneous claims that budget surpluses ``boost national savings'' when in fact they reduce national saving by squeezing the spending (and income generating capacity) of the private sector -- unless there are very strong net export offsets...The on-going deflationary impact on demand that persistently high unemployment imposes is usually underestimated by the conservatives...

Billy Blog; leadership; total lack.

Tue 2010-06-01 18:54 EDT

billy blog >> Blog Archive >> In the spirit of debate ... my reply Part 3

Bill Mitchell

The debate seems to be slowing down which means this might be my last response although we will see...I urge all those who are interested in finding out more about the employment guarantee approach to price stabilisation to read our major Report (released in December 2008) called Creating effective local labour markets: a new framework for regional employment policy...productive is not confined to contributing to the profit bottom-line of a capitalist enterprise. There are many things that deliver social returns that will never spin a private profit. Even mainstream economics says optimality should be defined in terms of social costs and benefits. It is just that they never get to that level and slip back always into the private returns mould...It also seems that conservatives in the US are starting to take to modern monetary theory. My colleague Warren Mosler has been giving modern monetary talks to the arch-conservatives in the US at the Tea Party meetings... would advocate that banks be regulated into going to back to being banks and outlawed from being merely commission recipients for securatised package deals etc. I would prevent banks from doing anything other than taking deposits and making loans. All the rest of the behaviour that the banks have been involved in would be outlawed...

Billy Blog; blogs Archive; Debate; reply Part 3; Spirit.

Tue 2010-06-01 18:24 EDT

billy blog >> Blog Archive >> In the spirit of debate ... my reply Part 2

Bill Mitchell

Today, I offer Part 2 of my responses to the comments raised in the debate so far...Modern monetary theory does not use the term ``money'' in the same way as the mainstream because it creates instant confusion. As Scott said ``Money is always someone's liability, so better to be precise about whose liabilities we are talking about than saying money.'' That is why we emphasis fully understanding the asset-liability matches that occur in monetary systems. And that leads you to realise that transactions between government and non-government create or destroy net financial assets denominated in the currency of issue whereas transactions within the non-government sector cannot create net financial positions...So modern monetary theorists prefer to concentrate on what is going on with balance sheets after certain flows have occured rather than narrowly defining some financial assets as money and others not...There is no doubt that the non-government institutions can increase credit. Some slack analysts call this an increase in money. But the accurate statement is that, as a matter of accounting it increases the (in Scott's words) ``the quantity of financial assets and financial liabilities 1 for 1 in the non-govt sector. So, with private credit, there is BY DEFINITION no NET increase in private sector financial assets created.'' Once we understand that and note that typically the non-government sector seeks to net save in the currency of issue then modern monetary theory tells you that the public sector must run a deficit to underwrite this desired net saving or else see an output gap widen...Who is in control is an interesting question. Clearly, the government cannot directly control the money supply which renders much of the analysis in mainstream macroeconomics textbooks as being irrelevant. The Monetarists via Milton Friedman persuaded central banks to adopt monetary targetting in the 1980s and it failed a few years later -- miserably...Then you might like to consider it from the other angle -- a government which accepts responsibility for full employment can ``finance'' the saving desires of the non-government sector by increasing its deficit up to the level warranted by the spending gap (left by the full employment non-government savings)...Orthodox macroeconomic theory struggles with the idea of involuntary unemployment and typically tries to fudge the explanation by appealing to market rigidities (typically nominal wage inflexibility). However, in general, the orthodox framework cannot convincingly explain systemic constraints that comprehensively negate individual volition. The modern monetary framework clearly explicates how involuntary unemployment arises. The private sector, in aggregate, may desire to spend less of the monetary unit of account than it earns. In this case, if this gap in spending is not met by government, then unemployment will occur. Nominal (or real) wage cuts per se do not clear the labour market, unless they somehow eliminate the private sector desire to net save and increase spending...to maintain high levels of employment and given that the public generally desire to hold some reserves of fiat money, the government balance will normally have to be in deficit...modern monetary theory demonstrates that if you want the non-government sector to net save...

Billy Blog; blogs Archive; Debate; reply Part 2; Spirit.

Tue 2010-06-01 16:23 EDT

billy blog >> Blog Archive >> In the spirit of debate ...

Bill Mitchell

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...hopefully, this initiative will broaden the debate and bring more people up to speed on where the real enemy of full employment lies...The modern monetary system is characterised by a floating exchange rate (so monetary policy is freed from the need to defend foreign exchange reserves) and the monopoly provision of fiat currency. The monopolist is the national government. Most countries now operate monetary systems that have these characteristics...the monetary unit defined by the government has no intrinsic worth...The viability of the fiat currency is ensured by the fact that it is the only unit which is acceptable for payment of taxes and other financial demands of the government.The analogy that mainstream macroeconomics draws between private household budgets and the national government budget is thus false. Households, the users of the currency, must finance their spending prior to the fact. However, government, as the issuer of the currency, must spend first (credit private bank accounts) before it can subsequently tax (debit private accounts)... Taxation acts to withdraw spending power from the private sector but does not provide any extra financial capacity for public spending...As a matter of national accounting, the federal government deficit (surplus) equals the non-government surplus (deficit). In aggregate, there can be no net savings of financial assets of the non-government sector without cumulative government deficit spending...contrary to mainstream economic rhetoric, the systematic pursuit of government budget surpluses is necessarily manifested as systematic declines in private sector savings...Unemployment occurs when net government spending is too low. As a matter of accounting, for aggregate output to be sold, total spending must equal total income (whether actual income generated in production is fully spent or not each period). Involuntary unemployment is idle labour unable to find a buyer at the current money wage. In the absence of government spending, unemployment arises when the private sector, in aggregate, desires to spend less of the monetary unit of account than it earns. Nominal (or real) wage cuts per se do not clear the labour market, unless they somehow eliminate the private sector desire to net save and increase spending. Thus, unemployment occurs when net government spending is too low to accommodate the need to pay taxes and the desire to net save...Unlike the mainstream rhetoric, insolvency is never an issue with deficits. The only danger with fiscal policy is inflation which would arise if the government pushed nominal spending growth above the real capacity of the economy to absorb it...government debt functions as interest rate support via the maintenance of desired reserve levels in the commercial banking system and not as a source of funds to finance government spending...there is no intrinsic reason for...

Billy Blog; blogs Archive; Debate; Spirit.

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis Fri 2009-09-11 18:10 EDT

How Many Rabbits Are Left In The Hat?

Michael Shedlock

Dave Rosenberg observes simply awful employment details...65% of companies are still in the process of cutting their staff loads, manufacturing employment fell to its lowest level since April 1941, temp agency employment is still declining, flat workweek, and jobless claims stuck at 570,000 are all foreshadowing continued weakness in the labour market

hat; left; Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis; rabbit.

Steve Keen's Debtwatch Sun 2009-08-30 20:48 EDT

Debtwatch No. 38: The GFC--Pothole or Mountain?

Cassander

``The Marxian view is that capitalistic economies are inherently unstable and that excessive accumulation of capital will lead to increasingly severe economic crises. Growth theory, which has proved to be empirically successful, says this is not true.'' wrote Economics Nobel Prize winner Edward C. Prescott. Prescott also claimed ``the Great Depression was a conscious choice by American workers to enjoy more leisure, in response to unspecified changes in the labour market'' Apparently debt played no role. The capitalistic economy is stable, and absent some change in technology or the rules of the economic game, the [...]

38; Debtwatch; GFC; Mountain; Potholes; Steve Keen's Debtwatch.