In my experience there is a close to 100 per cent correlation between the stated belief that society is suffering from a decline in “civility” and a willingness to proclaim that we are all being oppressed by “political correctness”. John Howard neatly illustrates this. A week or two ago, he was denouncing public schools as hotbeds of political correctness, and the excessive concern with offending religious minorities that (allegedly) led to the curtailment of Christmas celebrations. Now he’s calling for more civility.

The common analysis underlying both demands for “political correctness” (this actual phrase was never used, except jocularly as far as I know, until critics seized on it, but terms such as “sensitivity” or “inclusive language” cover much the same ground) and for “civility”, is that offensive words give rise to offensive acts. In both cases, there’s some ambiguity over whether the problem is with the offence to the recipient or with the reinforcement of the hostile/prejudiced attitudes of the speaker, but the central claim is that modes of speech are an appropriate subject of concern and that some form of government action to encourage more socially appropriate modes of speech, ranging from subtle pressure to direct coercion, is desirable. The only difference between the two positions is that they have different lists of inappropriate words.

I don’t have a sharply defined position on any of this, except that I find people who think that being “politically incorrect” is exceptionally brave and witty to be among the most tiresome of bores. I doubt that changes in speech will, of themselves, produce changes in attitudes. The obvious evidence for this is the rate at which euphemisms wear out and become as offensive as the terms they replaced (for example, ‘handicapped’ for ‘crippled’). On the other hand, I think there’s a lot to be said for avoiding offensive words and forms of speech and can see a place for (tightly drafted and cautiously applied) laws prohibiting or penalising various forms of collective defamation.

In keeping with the blog tradition of bringing you tomorrow’s talking points today, I thought I’d look a bit further than the current election campaign and consider the implications of a Bush victory. On past form, there’s no reason to suppose that a second term will lead Bush to abandon his tax cuts, or to propose any significant net reduction in expenditure. At least not when there’s an obvious alternative, that only a few shrill Democrat economists and some incredibly out-of-date Republicans would ever object to. The US government has at its disposal and endless source of costless wealth – the printing press that turns out US dollars. Hence there’s no need to do anything tough like raising taxes or cutting Socil Security benefits. The only problem is that, according to some economists, reliance on the printing press as a source of government finance is likely to cause inflation.

As a first line of defence, the views of these economists can be criticised. There are plenty of Keynesian critics of monetarism who’ve pointed out that there’s no simple or automatic relationship between the money supply and the rate of inflation, and probably there are some who’ve been incautious enough to deny that there is any relationship at all. In any case, in the new era, the dynamism of the US economy is such that everyone wants to buy US dollars as fast as the Treasury can print them (ignore any recent observations on currency markets that might suggest otherwise).

Still, these are only delaying tactics. What will really be needed is a set of talking points showing that inflation (properly referred to as price appreciation or something similarly positive) is actually a good thing. In the hope of bringing the debate forward a bit, I’ve advanced a few.
Read More »

Until fairly recently, macroeconomic policy (the management of unemployment, inflation and the exchange rate) was the central concern of economic policy. Since the early 1990s, and particularly under the Howard government, these concerns have shifted to the periphery.

The Hawke government abandoned targeting of the exchange rate with the floating of the dollar, but Keating in particular continued to regard the current account deficit as an important policy target, at least until the early 1990s. Excessive concern with the current account deficit was widely seen as one of the factors behind the policy miscalculations that produced the 1989-92 recession. The counterargument, put forward most prominently by John Pitchford, was that, in a deregulated market, the current account balance is ultimately determined by the corresponding set of borrowing and lending transactions, and that these should not be a concern of macroeconomic policy. This view is now fairly generally accepted. Even though the current account deficit is as large in relation to GDP as it was in the 1980s, only a minority of commentators[1] express concern about it.

More significantly, the government abandoned the idea of using fiscal policy to manage the economy, and ceased to take an active role in the determination of monetary policy, leaving this entirely to the Reserve Bank. Although the Reserve Bank, unlike other central banks did not take the view that it should be concerned solely with inflation, the resulting policy regime was one in which inflation targeting was the primary focus, and unemployment was, at most, a matter of secondary concern.
Finally, the government abandoned Labor’s target of an unemployment rate of 5 per cent, and declined to set an alternative target.

fn1. I’m a member of this minority