The general drift of neoliberalism

Two headlines caught my attention today; from these we get a clear picture of the general drift of neoliberalism.   The Times of India (see link below) declared:

SOCIOECONOMICS: BIG TALK, TIGHT FIST

Funds cuts pinch edu & health schemes

Slashing the education budget and keeping the outlay on health static in Modi government's first Budget was seemingly based on the sound logic of the Finance Commission giving bigger share of taxes to states.

But three months later, harsh reality has sunk in. Mid-Day Meal (MDM) cooks, anganwadi workers and Mahila Samakhya workers have hit the streets and state governments are feeling the heat ….

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Modiversary-Socionomics-Big-talk-tight-fist/articleshow/47378636.cms

The other headlines that was an interesting contrast to this was in the Livemint.

Industries call on Modi to spend Rs.1 trillion (Rs.100,000 crore) to boost economy

… At the top of India Inc.’s wish list are investments in infrastructure, simplification of rules for acquiring land and implementation of a proposed national sales tax. Executives say the government should take the lead in financing new roads and public projects to give the maximum boost to Asia’s third- biggest economy.

V.S. Parthasarathy, group chief financial officer at Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd, suggests Modi make a dramatic move by investing as much as Rs.1 trillion ($16 billion) on infrastructure in the next six months. That would provide the country with tangible assets, signal confidence in the future and inject cash that would cascade through the broader economy …

http://www.livemint.com/Politics/hdj6dPF4mtUUilQnHe8ShM/Indian-industry-calls-on-Modi-to-spend-Rs1-trillion-to-boost.html

So is industry really against spending and deficits per se or does it prefer one kind of spending to another?  And the government?  Let’s be clear.

MMT cautions us against reacting to such headlines

Fed said to have emergency plan to intervene if U.S. defaulted on debt

WASHINGTON | BY SARAH N. LYNCH AND JASON LANGE

Reuters, Markets | Mon May 11, 2015 6:59pm EDT

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/11/us-usa-debt-idUSKBN0NW1YS20150511

RICARDIAN EQUIVALENCE: IT SOUNDS SO PROFOUND IT MUST BE TRUE

In a recent piece, Tarun Ramadorai of the Said School of Business, Oxford University, has evoked upon Ricardian Equivalence (RE) to base his argument for optimal debt management.

Does economic theory offer any guidance about the optimal management of government debt?

One of the fundamental concepts in thinking about government debt is Ricardian Equivalence. David Ricardo posited in the 1800s that since debt must eventually be repaid by governments, it is essentially equivalent to future taxation (and will be perceived as such by taxpayers). Essentially all work in economics on public debt management relies on this concept in one way or another.

If debt and future tax policy are two sides of the same coin, the obvious step is to think through the role of debt in the context of sensible tax policy. 

His article can be found at:

http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/RJDJPFZ7X65Kqa4DlbSZPK/Public-debt-management-back-to-school.html


Without examining what he says about this, it is interesting to see how economists evoke RE to build upon their arguments.  RE simply does not hold true in a world of fiat currency.  Ricardo's principle perhaps held true in a world of commodity currency but economists seem indifferent to this changed reality.

The fundamental flaw with RE have been examined in this piece by Auerback and should be read.

https://www.creditwritedowns.com/2010/07/why-ricardian-equivalence-is-nonsense.html

But what interests me is how economic jargon and hi-sounding terms like RE find their way into popular discourse and are swallowed by general readers.

Decentring Fiscal Deficit Target Numbers

You can find my article in the Economic & Political Weekly of 09-05-2015.  Or follow this link:

independent.academia.edu/SashiSivramkrishna

The article questions the obsession with fiscal deficit traget numbers like 3.1% of GDP or 3.6% or 3.9%. Does it really matter?  Should it be the goal of macroeconomic policy??