TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 5 °C Friday 24 May, 2013

Column: We need to stop taking money out of people’s pockets

Yes, we’ve got a deficit to deal with – but making ordinary consumers pay is hurting the wider economy as well as our wallets, writes Aaron McKenna.

Aaron McKenna

Aaron McKenna wrote for TheJournal.ie about the ‘Lost Decade’ Ireland is facing into, and why we need a new vision for the nation to bring us through it. In this sixth part of his series on ways forward he looks at the government’s options for cutting the deficit – and why we shouldn’t be their piggybank.

LIKE IT OR not, Ireland has to continue tightening its belt to cover the massive gap between taxes taken in and what government spends to fund its daily operation. But not all austerity is equal, and we need government to take a different approach to its expedient-options-first policy of recent years.

We need to tax less and to cut more. More nuanced, we need to cut smarter than the blunt-force injuries weak-willed politicians have been imposing on our services. We need to take less money from people’s pockets so that they can create the jobs we so desperately need.

The distinction between which parties wanted to increase taxes or cut spending was important when our votes were up for grabs, but it has largely subsided from view. For all the talk of 50/50 or 70/30 splits, the real plan is to cut spending by 11.3 per cent between now and 2015 and increase tax revenues by 25.8 per cent.

The increase in tax revenues of €8.9bn per year, from €34.4bn in 2011 to €43.3bn in 2015, will be a mix of planned new taxes, like property and water taxes, combined with hoped-for economic growth heaped on top of the tax increases we’ve faced in recent years.

The marginal rate of income tax hits 50 cent in every euro at just €32,800. That means if you earn the average industrial wage of around €36,000 the government will take €1,600 of the €3,200 you earn between those figures.

‘That’s before they get to your house, your car, your shopping…’

That’s before they get to your house, your car, your shopping, brushing your teeth and all the rest. The plan is also for further income tax increases, probably by widening the bands, according to the documents passed between government and the troika.

On the other side the government plans to cut its gross current voted expenditure by €6bn a year, from €53.2bn to €47.2bn. While this may seem like a big drop it’s actually only going to be €5bn less than the government spent in 2007. Government hasn’t been very good at containing itself, at least not nearly as good as it has been at taxing people. The government deficit in the period 2011-2015 is bigger than the amount it will spend in any single year, period.

Government has to run hard to stand still. It took out €3.8bn in tax increases and spending cuts from Budget 2012 and will take out another €3.5bn in Budget 2013. But spending on debt interest in particular is soaring over these years, and is among the factors preventing government from getting its deficit down.

We will pay an additional €1.8bn this year to service our debts, €2.3bn on top of that the year after and an extra €900m in 2014 and the same again in 2015, having gone from paying €5.4bn in 2011 to €10.4bn in 2015 to service the national credit card.

The more we borrow to pay for the day to day running of the state the more we end up having to cut for longer to pay back the interest on the loans. Repudiating promissory notes for banking debt that doesn’t belong to us would not dig us out of the hole, though the ECB should be told to get stuffed on them anyway.

The more we increase taxes to pay for these debts the slower the growth and the circular cluster bombing continues.

‘Not every euro is equal’

Cutting government spending, advocates of continuing deficits will say, also takes money out of the economy. They’re right. But not every euro is equal or as well spent as the last, a theory that works on the ideal that the last euro government spends is as effective as the first one.

This is where we need to get smarter both in the cuts we make and the way government spends our money in general.

When you earn a euro and take it to a shop and spend it on something the business takes that cash and pays its staff and the supply chain to deliver it, takes a profit and usually reinvests it. It’s better if you buy a product made in Ireland, but in any case you and the business are fairly efficient with that euro.

When the government takes a euro off you in tax it first takes a collection fee (Revenue). This is followed by immediately discounting part of your euro to pay the interest on the euros they’re borrowing to continue deficit spending, which will be 25 cents in every euro you pay in tax by 2014.

Government then takes another administration fee to figure out how it wants to spend your money before finally allocating what’s left to programs, which themselves have not all that usually efficient management structures and fees.

By the time a few cents of your euro reaches, say, the health service it has to pay for all those managers everyone seems to think are so ineffective yet remain in post.

True all the people in the process spend the money they receive, but it’s altogether inefficient and it is more costly thanks to part of each euro spent having been borrowed, raising the interest bill.

Spending on bureaucracy just to keep people in jobs is also not the point – when I pay taxes to cover healthcare and education I want nurses and teachers for my money, not acres and acres of paperwork talking about health and education, the theoretical virtues and organisation thereof.

‘We could all get out of this mess quicker if government stopped being so weak-willed’

Studies, including one in 2009 from Harvard University, have shown that taxes harm growth twice as much as government spending cuts thanks to the ‘efficiency’ with which you spend your cash versus government.

We could all get out of this mess quicker if government stopped being so weak willed and took decisive action on waste, bureaucracy and misdirected efforts. We could also avoid the absolutely indiscriminate dismantling of our public services if we got past the ludicrous idea that ‘Whomever leaves, leaves, and if that’s a third of our midwives and no overpaid managers so be it.’

We need to set our goals for the state – good healthcare and education, safety on the streets and so on – and get rid of anything that’s surplus to requirement. That could be any one of the 850 quangos or so we have, or it could be layers of over burdensome administration that sits aside from actual service delivery.

Yes we will have to curtail services, but it is being done in a shockingly haphazard fashion today with no rhythm or rhyme to cuts made. We don’t have a plan because the mandarins of old politics can’t get their head around pleasing special interests and onto the actual results our tax money produces.

If government wants to grow jobs it ought to do three simple things: Firstly, grow a pair. Secondly, take a hatchet to government waste and bureaucracy, not nurses and gardai. Thirdly, stop raising taxes and outline in as precise detail as can be managed to people what will happen in the foreseeable future so that they can have the confidence to spend their money today.

Politicians need to realise that our wallets are not simply the untapped portion of their piggy banks.

Aaron McKenna is Managing Director of the e-commerce company Komplett.ie. He is also writing a book on the future of Ireland to be published later this year.

You can read his previous pieces on the way forward for Ireland on TheJournal.ie here.

Read next:

Comments (27 Comments)

  • It’s not possible to tax our way out of a rescission . We will only turn a recession into another great depression !

    Reply
  • Couldn’t agree more. There is only so much they can take fro our wallets. The public need to grow a civic pair too and stand up to be counted. The government aren’t listening to us simply because we haven’t made any stand against them.
    I’d love to encourage the self employed to hold back their VAT payments and PRSI payment for a start. Mathis might encourage others to withhold taxes to government and garner public support until such time as the government come begging for their money and actually have to listen before payment is handed over.

    Reply
  • My other half and I are facing a very bleak future, here in Ireland. First of all, we are both unemployed, then we are both in our mid forties, and therefore have no prospect of being employed, as both of us have been on the dole for a long time, me for six years now and him for nearly three. After paying the current household bills, I have only 5 euros at the end of the week, to support myself, my hubby has nothing, after putting diesel in the car, and as we live in a rural area, we have to drive miles to a cheap supermarket, as the local shop is very expensive to get groceries. We will not manage at all, when these extra taxes come in, in fact not at all, and there might come a time, when it is a choice between, buying food or the extra taxes. The cutting must come first from the top, down, but the government will ignore this,and there will be mayhem in the country. We like many others, will have to emigrate, if we can’t make ends meet, and have already talked about leaving to search for work elsewhere. This will definitely be a lost decade, as regards emigration, and we will only be left with school going children and old people, with the people in the middle gone.

    Reply
  • We need to force huge change in the civil service and privatise everything from motor tax offices to schools.
    We need change to start in the smallest town lands and villages in Ireland. We need a new community spirit to force change and become more efficient.
    Think of the spirit of Ireland campaign that is thinking big and creating lots of jobs in the economy and saving us from spending €100 million a week from leaving Ireland and going to oil producing nations.

    We need to save our pubs and restaurants by cutting massively on the alcohol duty with on sales purchases our state takes. Our pubs and restaurants are labour intensive and need help now!
    We should subsidise them like they do in Spain so people could afford to eat out for lunch and jobs would be saved and retained.

    The supermarkets employ far fewer people then pubs and restaurants so the government should hike up off licence alcohol duty supermarket sales this would cut the price difference between on and off sales and encourage people to socialise in the local again.

    It is far nicer being served a pint in the local that sitting with a supermarket can of beer. But with the huge price difference people are staying at home. So hike up duty on off sales and reduce the duty on on sales thus creating thousands of jobs in the hospitality sector and making Ireland less expensive for our valuable tourists.

    Reply
  • Aaron for Taoiseach I say.
    When Irelands economy got into difficulty in the 1970’s, the then government opted for the orthodox Keynesian solution. They borrowed money on the markets and poured it into the economy in the hope of stimulating growth. It became clear after nearly ten years that this wasn’t working. Unemployment continued to increase, stagnation persisted & the public finances deteriorated, while national borrowing reached unsustainable levels.
    In 1982, the then FG/Labour government decided on a fiscal correction to try to resolve the public finances. The focus of the correction was on tax increases with less emphasis on reducing spending (similar to the last budget. The result was a spectacular failure. Economic decline accelerated, unemployment rates increased and the tax take actually fell despite increases in marginal rates.
    In 1987, FF/PD’s attempted another correction. This time the focus was on spending cuts. The results were the opposite. Sustainable gradually began to emerge in the economy. This ultimately lead to the Celtic tiger. Fianna Fail cemented their dominance in Irish politics, while FG/Labour were confined to the wilderness.
    For some reason, we have to again reinvent the wheel and our government stubbornly refuse to learn the lessons of their past.

    “An economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance our budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits”
    John Fitzgerald Kennedy

    Reply
  • Very little specific suggestions for what the government should do to cut the massive deficit. Just plenty of complaints about what they’re doing wrong. Seen all too often on this site.

    Reply
    • Why do you think we elected these people? They have done nothing constructive but cut services and raise taxes not very innovative or creative in fact it had damaged the economy. It is our right to complain about broken promises and incompetence of our politicians. We must never allow a bunch of parasites like the last government think they can do what the want with the people of this country. Critical thinking should replace faith in all aspects of public life.

      Reply
    • Agreed, hurlers on the ditch are two a penny. The present situation is troika driven, simply because our dumbheads couldn’t, or didn’t come up with, and still haven’t, an alternative strategy.

      Reply
    • This is part 6 of 10 looking at different ways around the crisis, I think there’s plenty of specifics here and elsewhere. The present system is troika driven, but so long as we meet our targets do they care if we look after Croke Park or anything else? No. The choices are our own, and we still spend over €50bn, only coming down into the high €40′s, and decide what to do with that not insignificant amount.

      Cut the deficit through more spending cuts is fairly specific and a move from the present mantra of cut-as-little-as-possible. So too is the prioritisation of services, like in hospitals, versus indiscriminate cuts through natural wastage.

      I think fairly implicit in the argument is the idea that, for example, we ought to cut quangos. Fine Gael identified 145 to go or be merged or otherwise cut down. That was cut to a few dozen, with the same slow pace of action as Fianna Fail held when it promised to cut 43 quangos and 32 eventually avoided the chop.

      There needs to be a commitment to these programs, because if you don’t select what you cut then you end up (for example) losing a third of your midwives in one region with little recourse to hire any new ones back.

      The explosion in healthcare costs has gone largely unhindered, with VHI premiums – a direct correlation of costs – rising at 12 times inflation in recent years. This is a global problem with some innovative solutions, but so far in Ireland it seems to have gone only one direction. This is not helped by the lack of real reform to the over complex administration and management structure of our health service.

      We haven’t tackled waste in our social spending to the degree we ought to. We cut out payments for communion dresses, but the Department of Social Protection still bleats inability when asked to means test the €2bn a year child benefit payment so that a family with an annual income of €200,000 can’t claim the same as a family living on €20,000

      The list goes on. Cuts will hurt someone, always. But the collective punishment of tax increases and indiscriminate cutbacks to public services is far worse than a real strategy of targeted cuts. Targeted cuts where politicians won’t look at disabled children for a reduction in services until they can look them in the eye and say that every unessential quango, every wasteful program, every non-vital function of government has been taken from first.

      Reply
    • Hard to argue with that, and yet I’m going to. Cut the quango’s, I don’t think many would argue with that. Look into the rising cost of healthcare costs, no arguement here. But when you talk about tackling waste in the Department of Social Protection in areas like communion dresses, hmmm, these are real people who are suffering real poverty. While I appreciate we, as a nation, have to make savings in the tens of millions if not billions and such savings count, the Department of Social Protection may be the last port of call for many people before going to a money lender, please don’t be dismissive of those who find themselves in poverty or desperate need. It isn’t a crime, yet. Cuts shouldn’t hurt the poorest and most vulnerable surely?
      I can’t speak for everyone, and wouldn’t try to, but a friend of mine has an autistic son, I’d rather pay a few euro extra tax to pay for services for his son, disabled children and those who need it rather than see them cut. Yes you have a point about child benefit and probably several others too, by all means get stricter with handing out payments and cut them back but if they’re genuinely needed then they’re genuinely needed.

      Reply
    • Brian, here you have to ask “What is the purpose of government?” and, in this specific case, social welfare.

      There probably aren’t too many more communion dress payments, but if we address that as an example: The social welfare safety net was set up, when all is said and done, to stop people starving. If we have decided now that it goes beyond that, and that it ought to fund a lifestyle – and a lifestyle isn’t luxurious, but let’s say it’s anything above putting food on the table in a warm home – then so be it.

      But I don’t think that that is the purpose of the welfare system. I think its purpose is to help all those who are needy to get by, and in combination with the other facets of the welfare state – healthcare and education primarily – to to help them be in a position to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

      It’s difficult to get an education if you’re hungry. It’s distracting to go to school in shoes that let in the rain. But you don’t have to be in a new dress to get a communion.

      Disabled children I believe I address specifically. Services to them should not be cut. But if we give the same child benefit to a family earning €200,000 as one earning €20,000 there is less left over to fund services for other disadvantaged individuals.

      Fundamentally we need to decide what the state is for and stick to those objectives. Government spends plenty of money on things that, if we sat back and took a look, we could decide to do without.

      Reply
    • Aaron makes good points – surprisingly well accepted on a left leaning website – but the realpolitik of the situation isn’t discussed. The big white elephant, omitted from the article, is Labour. The party of the public sector unions is not going to vote for the government cutting public sector jobs in a targeted, strategic way through compulsory redundancies based on function. Instead costly early retirement schemes, open to all, are the only thing acceptable. And a lot of the time it is front line workers who subscribe to these schemes.

      Reply
    • @ Aaron

      Please see this excellent audio-visual explainer on how the macro economy actually works. It’s based on the US system but is equally applicable here in the fundamental operational essentials, with minor tweaks to the government side instututions. It includes the JOB guarantee option to show how this works.

      http://econviz.org/how-the-economy-works-visual-tutorial/

      Best wishes

      Reply
    • Shane: Gov. bodies need to stop doing wrong, so IMHO it is legitimate to call a stop. Isn’t this only one place to do so, and fine yes we do need more specifics, at the appropriate level. All going to flesh out why you are both right and wrong.

      Reply
  • Sorry Aaron, but this is completely muddled thinking from start to finish. You clearly don’t have a proper grasp of ‘macro’ economics – the economics of whole economies – & how it functions totally differently to the ‘micro’ economics of your business.

    It’s a common failing of people who’s main focus is business. But you’re not helped by institutions like Harvard University’s economics faculty. It’s the home of Greg Mankiw & the ideological bias toward the neoclassical/neoliberal economics (that has monumentally failed most of us) is on a theological scale. Key sections of Mankiw’s own textbook, on macro economics are flat wrong. Did you know his students walked out last year in protest at the narrow bias in teaching curriculum there? It’s more like a religeous seminary peddling ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ economics.

    And as for those Harvard ‘studies’ you mention, well I wouldn’t wipe my bottom with them.

    The net aggregate demand effect difference of spending cuts versus tax increases is ‘thin’ to nothing. The level of detail in the data from an entire ‘macro’ economy to make a judgement otherwise on that simply doesn’t exist. But the sheer quantity of obfuscating bullshit in a Harvard (or other) typical paper on the topic is truly breathtaking. Unfortunately, the elephant in the room remains – the ‘fallacy of composition’. No amount of their contortions escape the basic reality that ‘micro’ does +not+ scale to macro in any meaningful way in the real world.

    It’s hard to know in any individual to what extent they are simply fooling themselves, but I’m minded of two quotes that bear on the situation with mainstream economics – particularly ‘macro’ – thinking.

    The first is that famous directive by a tobacco corporation executive expressing his company’s strategy, knowing full well the harm their products do…”…all we need do is sow the seeds of doubt..”

    The second, who’s attribution I forget, was it Mark Twain, Chomsky?

    “It is very hard to get a man to understand something when his livelyhood depends on him not understanding it.”

    If you really want to get a flavour of just how rediculous the key assumptions upon which modern mainstream economics stands are, read Professor Steve Keen’s book ‘Debunking Economics’. You can get a copy here:

    http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/

    Incidentally, Keen was one of a very few economists who accurately predicted the financial crisis & had a solid prior stated (‘accounting’) methodolgy for doing so. This fact is universally aknowledged. It’s probably why, despite his demolishing criticisms of 99% of his profession’s ‘work’, he was the only economist Bloomberg selected to write a piece in their prestigious World Economic Forum (Davos) newsletter. Just so you know I’m not offering you a ‘crank’ ;)

    Anyhow, back to your piece. Wandering off into criticisms of what ‘value’ or ‘efficiency’ in delivery of real goods and services government spending produces doubtless offers you & others a few cathartic soundbites for your ideological prejudices. (You got Seanie (let’s get rid of all government, everyone for themself, I’m ok!) above salivating.) But, well that’s just what they are – your (I’m ok!) preferences & predjudices. Sure, there’s doubtless improvements to be made in ‘efficiency’ – like the rest of human affairs – but it has absolutely feck all to do with your starting topic considering the macro economic effects of aggregate demand/spending.

    I note even more ideological bias in your discussion comparing the figures for gov spending & taxation before the banking crash vs now. You didn’t bother to enumerate, on the spending side, the increased cost resulting from trebling (at least) the number of people for whom there is no job, that automatically bumps up gov deficits in these circumstances. Unless your preference is for them all to be homeless & starving, so clearly an area of profligacy, but don’t have the cojones to actually come out & say it.? Perhaps that’s not what really what you want, and a little harsh, but the gov +has+ cut back on vital public services to some of the most vulnerable in society (with lots more to come if we carry on with disastrous ‘austerity’). You want more?

    The point about all that increased spending, on foot of reduced employment, is that as far as the spending of unemployment benefits into the economy is concerned, their €1 is just the same as anyone elses. That spending has helped enormously to maintain other jobs & stability in the economy as a whole. Without it, well, Greece is a good example of what it would have been like otherwise – or even worse.

    Importantly – the other point you miss – is that the € from what you consider to be some ‘inefficient’ public sector worker’s income, when spent, has also just the same effect as anyone else’s in terms of aggregate demand & jobs that follow. One could make some distinction as regards the highest income public servants, who simply earn so much that they either ‘hoard’ a large proportion of income, helping no one, or use the opportunity their bounty presents to travel the world & spend it elsewhere. Of course, this applies equally to a high earning private sector worker, such as yourself. But, in either case, whilst I do think high earners have gained disproportionately in recent times, some like top bankers rediculously so, the overall effect of clawing back some of that would only have a marginal effect overall on our current circumstances.

    What we need above all is to recoup the lost economic activity of some 15 to 20% of our population, & the double whammy (but entirely moral purpose) of maintaining them with a life of some basic dignity. More austerity, more of a failed & unreformed financial sector, more of a failed & unreformed currency union is +not+ achieving that, nor will it for much of a whole generation’s lives.

    (Nor will ‘shifting the deckchairs’ on some ideological crusade such as Mr McKenna proposes. We’ll have plenty of time for ‘tweaking’ later by hopefully a truly democratic process.)

    There are real & available alternatives to dramatically reverse the mess. Only politics & ignorance (with some malice of the top few percent & their ‘landlords’ agents’) stands in the way.

    One such is the Job Guarantee scheme, to properly stimulate aggregate spending/demand, financed at no ‘cost’ by ECB ‘created’ money, which I’ve outlined in my posts here: (with links to the key source materials & body of work)

    http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/column-here%E2%80%99s-what-it%E2%80%99s-like-to-be-one-of-the-long-term-unemployed/?new_comment=1&jUID=#comments

    (It’s entirely consistent with Steve Keen’s work too.)

    Reply
    • I get your points (though I disagree with some); but if we borrow more, we pay more in interest. That goes from 25 cents in each euro to 30 cents, 40… And we’re running harder to stand still.

      That’s the basic flaw. Every euro that is spent beyond what we take in has to be borrowed, at interest, and the spiral of austerity/borrowing continues.

      I know this is the clash of great economic ideas, spend vs cut, but at the end of the day you can’t argue with your debt interest repayments.

      Reply
    • Indeed I can ‘argue’ with your statement about the ‘public’ debt of +any+ (fiat) currency +issuing+ authority. Which conditions could readily be met with the appropriate structural changes to the Euro system.

      What you say is true for households & businesses, but not the case where a government has directly, or in partnership, currency issuing powers. Which is what the ECB has amply demonstrated in it’s LTRO ‘creation’ from thin air of €1,000 billion to ‘lend’ to commercial banks in the last two months. I put ‘lend’ in inverted commas because whilst nominally to be repaid after 3 years, these loans may just as likely be rolled over ad infinitum. Note also the interest rate of only 1%, compared to the punitive rates being asked of struggling economies. What purpose is being served by this?

      The Job Guarantee I’ve proposed (part of MMT) has zero cost, debt or interest to anyone. We could have rapid recovery.

      [Do not be swayed by the usual 'Weimar' bullsh1t. How can increasing the money supply needed to simply restore the level of employment we had before the crash result in excess inflation? It can't & won't - pure nonsense. IF, at some point in the future, WHEN we've recovered, inflation begins to rise, we can easily nip it in the bud by cutting back spending or increasing taxes in the appropriate sector - it's not rocket science.]

      Further, the fact of such low interest rates, even within the pretence that a sovereign currency +issuer+ must ‘borrow’, is the reason why Japan has no problem with over 200% of GDP in gov debt. For the same reason, UK & US gov debt is sustainable at much higher levels than ours. No bond interest effect from S&P’s laughable ‘downgrade’ of US gov debt – why so? The currency +issuer+ is in control, not the ‘market’ (& can’t +ever+ go ‘bankrupt’ ROFL).

      Historically, the US has never repaid significant sums of its cumulative gov debt. With normal economic growth, there is little need to – and with a proper understanding of the ‘sectoral balance’ accounting identity (exactly in the way of your businesses’ annual ‘funds flow’ statement), there are +very+ good reasons not to. Fundamentally, with the current (exports) account in balance, the (domestic) private sector (households+businesses) ‘Net Accumulation of Financial Assets’ is in surplus to the exact dollar of the Gov sector deficit (for the period). Please see the Modern Money Primer here:

      http://www.neweconomicperspectives.org/p/modern-money-primer.html

      Want to really put extra money (spending power!) into the ‘wallets’ of private businesses & households? Only two ways (by accounting identity) that can happen. 1. Net Exports must be in surplus…and/or…..2. Gov must run a deficit (for the accounting period).

      Our (unusually large, MNC) export sector has rebounded after the crash – so far so good. But the rebound is slowing & when all our trading partners are shrinking their economies with austerity, well, we can’t +all+ be in net export ‘balance’ simultaneously, can we? ‘Fallacy of Composition’, ‘Paradox of Thrift’ etc.

      So that only leaves one ‘sector’ to go into, or extend, its deficit (for the period, funds flow statement, remember, like Kompletts annual accounts), so that we can spend. YUP! THE GOVERNMENT! (Shock! horror! the ‘deficit’ is +not+ a matter of a Gov ‘choice’, but the macro economic outurn of net exports combined with the net savings/spending desires of the domestic private sector (households+businesses)….!)

      Of course, in the Eurozone, there actually IS one other entity in the macro economy that +could+ net spend (at no cost to anybody!)…..YUP! THE ECB, Euro Central Bank ISSUER OF CURRENCY! Yippee! We’re SAVED!

      Oh….wait….what do you ECB guys mean….you CAN for the banksters…..but NOT for US, THE CITIZENS!….because of some arbitrary ‘political’ nonsense???? Who the hell set up this cr@p!….oh, OUR elected politicians did it…oh…..who told them to do that? (they can’t tie shoelaces on their own)….what!?….the banksters & chums at the ECB did!? Who’s supposed to be in charge??….right, the politicians (sigh)….

      WELL THEY CAN DAMN WELL PUT THAT RIGHT THEN!… …..(Vote NO to the referendum! They ain’t going to listen otherwise.) ;)

      (Ok, my playwriting isn’t Shakespeare…or even Dara O’Brien…)

      Again Aaron, with all due respect (I do appreciate your engagement) you are thinking, reasonably, given your profession, as a (business) currency +user+, which must always be able to repay & meet interest demands. This insight does not transfer to all sectors of the macro economy.

      In fact, the reality of monetary operations, as they exist now, is that government spending (or that of the currency issuing authority) must +precede+ ‘borrowing’ & any other transations. Otherwise how did the economy aquire the money (financial assets) to ‘lend’ or spend in the first place. Think about it… any other way could only be counterfeiting, & that’s illegal.

      I’m sure Komplett keeps you very busy, but if you have time do read the links I’ve provided thru’ the link I gave.

      There is indeed a great clash of economics ideas going on, and with good reason. Neoclassicism/Neoliberalism has monumentally failed (for most of us). Sadly, & disgustlingly, the debate that should be taking place, in the mainstream of economics & wider public sphere is being stifled by vested interests, knowingly or unknowingly.

      Reply
    • Mike, thanks for you concise, balanced and illuminating commentary on Mr McKenna’s fine piece.
      I will not have the opportunity the reply to everything you’ve written (including your misrepresentation of my views). However, I do have a query regarding Steve Keen. Has he published work prior to the crash specifically warning of a crash? As this seems to be difficult to locate.
      http://www.news.com.au/business/economist-steve-keen-loses-housing-bet-against-rory-robertson/story-e6frfmbi-1225793985120

      Reply
    • Mike, a link to an article on Austrian economists predicting crisis going back to the Great Depression including references of published work.
      http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Austrian_predictions

      Reply
    • @ Sean

      Ref Steve Keen’s predictions, see here:

      “No One Saw This Coming” : Understanding the Financial Crisis Through Accounting Models

      http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/15892/1/MPRA_paper_15892.pdf

      Keen has previously explained his rather ‘throw away’ prediction re Australia’s housing market. It’s not at all significant to the legitinacy of his core work.

      Re Mises & Austrian economics

      There is not a snowball’s chance in hell that we will revert to a ‘gold standard’. Nor is it any way desireable. In general the Austrian school is simply a government hating ideology, not economics. If anyone thinks that inequality in society today is a serious blight, adopting Austrian ideology would make 19th century colonial Ireland look like a tea party.

      Mystic Meg makes predictions, occasionally they are right. Any fool might see a financial bubble rising. It’s having a repeatable methodology that matters.

      Reply
    • Thanks for the article Mike. I won’t have time in the next few days to read this. I would note two points. It’s not written by Keen and it was published 2 years after the Lehmans collapsed.
      The reason I queried his published work is that I have read articles claiming his predictions as tenuous at best.
      The Austrian article I posted references precrisis published work of dozens of economists including at least one Nobel laureate, an economist tipped to be next fed chairman and an Irish-born economist who has forecast two crisis.

      Reply
    • @ Sean

      Then I strongly suggest you stop reading those who think Keen is not credible.

      http://rwer.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/keen-roubini-and-baker-win-revere-award-for-economics-2/

      Do you really think that Keen would be one of very few economists invited to speak at the World Economic Forum (Davos) – most especially one who has described publicly 95% of the macro economics work of the contemporary mainstream as complete rubbish, based on nonsense assumptions, if his work was not credible?

      Why don’t you just read his work, his book ‘Debunking Economics’ and come back & critique it rather than throwing up spurious third hand comments?

      Keen’s important thesis is that +none+ of the worlds’ most prestigious economics institutions & their multi-million $ analysis & modelling budgets had the vaguest clue the crash was coming. Keen points out this was because their basic assumptions led them to believe that the operation of banks & effects of debt/credit had no relevance to macro economic outcomes. (Nor did any ‘Nobel laureates.) How monumentally wrong such ‘authorities’ were – as the events irrefutably demonstrated. The same & other flawed assumptions has continued to inform policy with the result that even 4 years on the situation gets worse not better,

      But the most important thing now is to find solutions to the debilitating high unemployment & economic contraction with no end in sight.

      I have seen nothing from ‘Austrians’ by way of solutions. If you think they have, then skip the links to some ideological rant or cant & post up in plain english (as I have done), the ‘what’ & ‘why’ with the underlying economics principles.

      Reply
    • @ Sean

      Er…no. If you actually read the article, Joye is referring to Keen’s original throw away ‘prediction’ back in 2008.

      The rest is the author’s ‘opinion’ on where the Australian housing market may be going over the next decade compared to Keen’s view. The author also merely ‘says’ what Keen says about this but provides no links or actual quotes from Keen.

      The author also talks about an article written the week before, to which he ‘says’ Keen responded. He provides no links for either the artice or Keen’s supposed response.

      So more spurious article posting from yourself Sean. And it looks like you didn’t even read it properly.

      And, of course, no actual discussion in your own words on the topic of Aaron McKenna’s article & prospects for the Irish economy or the underlying macro economics thinking informing present policy.

      In short, your comments here just look like some rather poor ‘Troll’ effort, peddling some pet ideology that you either don’t understand are unwilling to explain in plain terms.

      Reply

Add New Comment