Modern Monetary Theory

MMT is just the old Keynesianism in a new bottle.  Its essential innovation is to say that we do not need to define in advance what level of money creation will be inflationary.  We spend UNTIL we discover when the money issue is becoming inflationary.  Inflation is still the bugbear but we do not need to fear it so much as monitor it.

I and most economic commentators have been very much surprised by the vast leeway in the system. On conventional understandings, the Obama/Trump orgy of currency creation should have bid up demand and resulted in roaring inflation.  It did not.  Hence MMT to explain that.

So without intending it, Obama, Trump and their compliant congresses have revealed a new economic truth.  And it is in a way a conservative truth:  We cannot know in advance how much money-printing will lead to inflation.  We just have to try it and see. We don't stop printing until inflation actually emerges

Horror stories in Weimar Germany, Zimbabwe, Venezuela etc simply arose when their governments refused to heed the inflation signals that told them that they must stop their creation of new currency.

But it remains surprising how many greenbacks can be created without creating excess demand in the economy.  Why is all that new money not bidding up prices?  Currency hoarding both overseas and at home is probably a large part of the answer. We know for instance that there are billions sitting in Chinese banks doing nothing and there are probably many countries and entities stockpiling U.S. dollars worldwide.  On that reading, the USA has much larger room for monetry expansion than most other nations do

And printing during lockdowns is simple common sense. In a lockdown, total private spending is much reduced so the government can reasonably create whatever money is needed to cause a take-up of the available goods and services.  That is what Keynes said about periods of reduced overall demand


Like it or not Stephanie Kelton is an economist whose ideas are making a huge splash in the world of economic thinking. She currently serves as a professor at Stony Brook University but more notably served as the Chief Economist on the Senate Budget Committee as well as the senior economic advisor to the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign. This background should give you some insight into her latest book, titled The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People’s Economy.

Published in 2020, this book may be the flagship literature of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), as it is not only accessible to the average person but also well-written. Perhaps that is also what makes this book rather dangerous as it combines rigorous theoretical concepts with rather deceptive analogies about how these ideas might work, and a decent amount of progressive political talking points.

It is part textbook, part persuasion, and part manifesto. Despite my disagreements with the content, I must admit that it is a thought-provoking piece of literature that provides insight on what may be a very real economic idea to be reckoned with in the near future.

The Myth Surrounding Deficits

Dr. Kelton starts off her book with a basic point about the way the federal government works. Contrary to the way most politicians talk about the federal budget, there is nothing necessarily wrong with running a deficit and accumulating debt. Economists can debate to what extent debt accumulation and spending are healthy but a basic tenet of MMT is the universal truth that the United States government CAN spend money it doesn’t have. Kelton writes

“What if the federal budget is fundamentally different than your household budget? What if I showed you that the deficit bogeyman isn’t real? What if I could convince you that we can have an economy that puts people and the planet first? That finding the money is not the problem?”

The foundation for MMT is the idea that the federal government is different from a household in that it does not need to raise money before spending it, that it can accumulate debt without any constraints on its fiscal capabilities. The United States government can and has routinely printed money it wishes to spend even though it may not physically possess it, such as the most recent stimulus checks in response to COVID-19.

With a yes or no vote the federal government has spent trillions of dollars that have not been generated from tax revenue or borrowing money. This is possible because the government is a money supplier. It has a monopoly on currency production and can print as much money as it desires.

Whether or not it should spend more than it brings in with taxes is another debate entirely. The core foundation of MMT is the fact that a sovereign currency issuer like the United States, Japan, or Australia can continue to print money and therefore never run out. Under this logic, budget deficits are simply imaginary constraints; the real constraints to spending lie elsewhere.

Dealing With Inflation

This shift in understanding as described by Kelton is that

“MMT clarifies what is economically possible and thus shifts the terrain of policy debates that get hamstrung over questions of financial feasibility.”

In a way, governments around the world essentially practice MMT in a limited capacity as they print the money they don’t have to use in complicated monetary maneuvers. However, Kelton and MMT advocates believe that we should take this way of thinking to its limits. She extols the possibility of building new infrastructure, improving healthcare, and essentially funding a whole slew of projects that would otherwise be impossible without excessive taxation.

Essentially we can have our cake and eat it too, getting more government services without higher taxes. Obviously one of the main concerns with this idea is that inflation would skyrocket if we simply pumped trillions of dollars into the economy. If inflation gets out of control, the country will follow in the steps of Weimar Germany, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe, dooming us to economic collapse. Kelton addresses this concern by clarifying

“Do I believe the solution to all our problems is to simply spend more money? No, of course not. Just because there are no financial constraints on the federal budget doesn’t mean there aren’t real limits to what the government can (and should) do. Every economy has its own internal speed limit, regulated by the availability of real productive resources.”

Powerful economies like the United States can afford to print and spend more money than a country like Haiti. MMT doesn’t necessarily posit that poor countries can print themselves to prosperity, more so that all countries with sovereignty over their currency can increase their potential by printing more money. Policymakers also need to be cognizant of what she refers to as “slack” in the economy which would be underutilized resources and opportunities. If there is enough “slack” in the economy, printing money will not result in inflation as productivity would increase with the money supply.

The main problem with this premise, however, is trusting politicians and bureaucrats to make these incredibly sophisticated decisions. How could one know how much capital exists in the economy and what the correct amount of money to print in proportion to economic growth will be? This is a knowledge problem that needs to be reckoned with before we embark on this highly theoretical trip to the monetary unknown.

The Sovereignty of Currency

Kelton reminds us that the idea of balanced budgets and deficit constraints may have been important in the past when we were on the gold standard but now that we have moved into the world of fiat currency these restrictions no longer apply. This is again true; however, she believes we should take the idea to its logical extreme.

To explain the importance of monetary sovereignty she explains that

“In addition to the United States, countries like the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, and Australia enjoy a high degree of monetary sovereignty… Some nations have weakened their monetary sovereignty, either by pegging their exchange rates (e.g. Bermuda, Venezuela, Niger), abandonment of their national currencies (e.g., all nineteen countries in the Eurozone, Ecuador, Panama), or by borrowing heavily in US dollars or other foreign currencies (e.g. Ukraine, Argentina, Turkey, Brazil). Doing any of these things compromises a nation’s monetary sovereignty and diminishes policy flexibility.”

By diminishing their monetary sovereignty, these countries have lost their capacity to print money in order to execute policies like stimulus spending during economic downturns and financing more government programs.

She adds that

“Most developing countries are at the weaker end of the sovereignty spectrum…That’s because most poorer developing nations rely on imports to meet vital social needs.”

Although this is certainly correct, whether or not this is the reason why some countries are poor or whether or not increased government spending will be more helpful in developing countries is another debate to be had. Whether or not that is a good thing would depend on whether one sees government intervention as the source of prosperity rather than the private sector. Does the government have a significant role to play in directing the economy like the Soviet Union or should it simply guarantee life, liberty, and property so that its enterprising citizens are free to prosper in a way they choose?

Lastly, if countries with strong currencies decide to do as Kelton says and start printing trillions of dollars to finance projects even if it’s proportional to inflation what message will that send to users of the currency? An article in Forbes warns that

“These numbers are so large that they no longer have any meaning; they are simply abstractions,”

“Pointing to warnings made by former Fed chairman Paul Volcker that “it is a governmental responsibility to maintain the value of the currency they issue. And when they fail to do that, it is something that undermines an essential trust in government.”

“After you throw a few trillion dollars around, people start to believe that it’s all a big joke.”

Perhaps the United States can get away with a COVID-19 stimulus bill and maybe we can afford to finance a round of infrastructure improvements by printing a few trillion dollars. But what about the next round of repairs, the next crisis, the next pressing issue our government is called upon to address? Can we just keep printing more money and is this sustainable? These are some of the ultimate questions that proponents of MMT must address if this theory is ever to be viewed as sustainable.

The Role of Taxes

One of the immediate questions one may have when presented with a monetary system that proposes to pay for everything with the printing press, and that budgets are now irrelevant, is why should we keep paying taxes?

Kelton is very upfront with her view of taxation, which isn’t to raise funds for programs as the government is already the sole provider of currency. It is as she writes,

“To get the population to do all that work, the government imposes taxes, fees, fines, or other obligations. The tax is there to create a demand for the government’s currency. Before anyone can pay the tax someone has to do the work to earn the currency.”

Kelton contends that money was first distributed by the government. In order to make it worth something, the government imposed taxes so that people could exchange them for government services and also work to earn the government’s money. Government is therefore responsible for creating the medium of exchange that society uses to conduct trade and also incentivizing people to conduct useful activity.

According to Kelton taxes serve four essential purposes:

To incentivize work by creating demand and scarcity for money
To manage inflation by taking money out of the economy
To redistribute income
To discourage negative activity like smoking and carbon emissions

In this view, taxes do not exist to support the operations of the state through a democratic process agreed upon by the electorate, but to simply exercise the levers of power.

The conventional theory of money and taxes is that money arose as a convenient medium of exchange amongst individuals in the marketplace desiring a universal system of value exchange. That productive activity exists regardless of government and taxation is a process in which the government either forcefully or consensually takes from the population to fund generally agreed upon public services such as raising a military.

These are two fundamentally contrasting views of the role of the state; one positing that it is the central component that enables civilized life and the other holding that it is an entity that is supported by the fruits of a civilized society and is, therefore, a humble servant.

Some Thoughts on MMT

Aside from the concerns with the monetary aspects of MMT such as controlling inflation, maintaining confidence in our currency, and embarking on an unprecedented experiment in monetary theory, I am most concerned with the political economy surrounding MMT.

Kelton contends that such policies will create a “people’s economy” where politicians and not the Federal Reserve will make monetary decisions. Where we will not have to abide by the traditional constraints created by budgets, interest rates, and so on. On this topic, AIER has written extensively on why we should not politicize the Federal Reserve and monetary policy more generally.

Kelton also makes the case for a federal jobs guarantee financed almost entirely by printed money. She contends that such a program would help alleviate job disruption brought about by technological advancement, recessions, and industry disruptions brought about by free trade. This will cost an obscene amount of money combined with the other promises she makes to fix infrastructure, fund Social Security, and provide free college, fund a Green New Deal, and so on.

How can we know this will fit within the appropriate spending to economic growth ratio that she keeps reminding us is the real consideration we should be making? Furthermore, a federal jobs guarantee alongside all the other government programs she advocates for will crowd out productivity from the private sector. Large government programs such as a jobs guarantee will not only artificially divert labor and capital from productive sectors, but it will also drive up inflation when countless individuals are being given checks for government jobs that may not be adding any value to the economy.

If the country embraced MMT, there would be massive concerns with cronyism as politicians would be unleashed to give virtually as much money to their friends as possible. There will be a populist tug of war over the printing press as the different political interests attempt to supercharge their favorite spending habits. The electorate, emboldened by the prospect of simply enriching itself with the printing press will trap politicians in a position where the one who promises to print the most money wins. We don’t need to look any further than the current welfare state to see this in action. If this happens then the careful management of the money supply and inflation which Kelton holds as the main concern with making MMT work will be broken in short order.

Finally, there is a question about the very role of government. Kelton contends that MMT will make it more democratic. I believe that unchaining the state from the constraints of budgets and taxation will make it more despotic. Whatever the government can give, it can also take. MMT seems to favor one that can give endlessly and take everything.

When we look to the state, do we see a deity to kneel before? Or do we see a government instituted among men, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed? A government that will live and serve within the means that which we democratically assign to it.

Kelton may be right that the old mechanisms of the gold standard, balanced budgets, and debt may be instruments of the past in the face of MMT and fiat currency. However, they also provide a service that goes beyond money and finance. That is maintaining a government that is prudent, humble, and sustainable.

Conclusion

Stephanie Kelton’s book is well-written and serves as an accessible insight into the world of Modern Monetary Theory. Although I have many objections, I found it a great read nonetheless, especially knowing that this is a field of economic thought that may be much more relevant in the near future. There are parts of the book that are essential pieces of economic knowledge that define the modern state, some that are questionable premises, and some that are blatant political talking points.

As a contribution to economic thought, I find it to be rather questionable. It also features circular logic, as well as bait-and-switch style arguments. As an accessible insight into an increasingly relevant monetary theory and the world of public finance, I believe the book does just that.

SOURCE 






Portland Mayor Finally Admits Violent Riots Aren't the Same as 'Peaceful Protests,' After 68 Nights

On Thursday, after the 68th consecutive night of violent riots in Portland, Mayor Ted Wheeler (D) finally urged activists who seriously desire police reform not to join the murderous and destructive antifa mob wreaking havoc in his city. Better late than never? While Wheeler finally issued a full-throated condemnation of the violence, he also warned rioters that they are “creating the B-roll film” for the campaign to reelect President Donald Trump.

Wheeler’s remarks on Thursday marked a clear departure from his previous tactic of blaming all the violence on the president. After Gov. Kate Brown (D) agreed to dispatch state police to aid in the defense of the federal courthouse, the surplus federal law enforcement officers Wheeler and other Democrats had demonized left the area, leaving Wheeler no scapegoat to blame for the violence.

“Last night, 200 to 300 people went to East Precinct intent on violence. The purpose was to attack the East Precinct facility and the people therein,” the mayor said. He noted that “exits were blocked, they were barricaded shut,” and ” accelerants were set and used to grow fires.”

“The attack was immediate, it was intentional, and it was planned. It was intended to cause serious injury or death, and it very well could have,” Wheeler added. He noted that the police used tear gas, which “was authorized by every agency involved.”

“When you commit arson with an accelerant, in an attempt to burn down a building that is occupied by people that you have intentionally trapped inside, you are not demonstrating. You are attempting to commit murder,” the mayor insisted. “And by the way, this building is in a residential neighborhood.”

“I believe that city staff could have died last night,” Wheeler added. “This is not peaceful protest. This is not advocacy to advance reforms or transform any system.”

Finally!

Yes, this is exactly the message that conservative journalists have been repeating until we are blue in the face. When lawless antifa rioters throw Molotov cocktails, set fires with accelerants, throw commercial-grade fireworks, and use commercial-grade lasers to blind federal officers for days, they are not engaging in peaceful protest.

Yet for nearly 70 days, left-leaning journalists and Democratic politicians have excused this violence as if it were a “myth,” even when outlets like The Post Millennial and PJ Media have repeatedly shared real footage from the riots. Perhaps Mayor Wheeler has finally given them permission to acknowledge that these “peaceful protests” have devolved into violent riots.

Not everyone seems to have gotten the memo. When the Pacific Northwest Youth Liberation Front announced another round of riots on Thursday and when Portland Police answered that this call for violence “will not go unanswered,” Portland Mercury editor Alex Zielinski tweeted, “If anyone is inciting violence tonight, it’s PPB.”

If you’re a peaceful protester, don’t go to the riots!
Whether or not Wheeler’s newfound acknowledgment of the reality of violence helps, he did make a valiant attempt to convince Portlanders not to join the violent riots.

“If you are a non-violent demonstrator, and you don’t want to be part of intentional violence, please stay away from these areas. Our community must say that this violence is not Portland, that these actions do not reflect our values, and these crimes are distracting from reform, not advancing it,” he said. “And they’re keeping our police officers from responding to historic levels of violence in our community.”

NOW he tells them! If only Portlanders had known the “peaceful protests” would devolve into violent riots every night after 11 p.m. or midnight. Maybe they wouldn’t have gone…

Just how naive does Ted Wheeler think his audience is?

He repeated this advice later on in the press conference.

“If you do not view yourself as wanting to be associated with or be part of the criminal activity that we saw last night, I would ask you not to show up. And if you do show up, say something,” the mayor urged Portlanders. “To my eye, it looked like there were a couple of hundred people just standing around, saying nothing, not intervening, and in some cases even cheering those activities on.”

“If you are a non-violent demonstrator and you are demonstrating for racial justice and equity in police reform, you don’t want to be part of this. You don’t want to show up,” Wheeler advised.

Then the mayor had to get in his jab at President Trump. As a final thought, he said, “Don’t think for a moment, if you are participating in this activity, that you are not being a prop for the reelection campaign of Donald Trump, because you absolutely are.”

“You are creating the B-roll film that will be used nationally to help Donald Trump in this campaign. You don’t want to be part of that, then don’t show up,” Wheeler urged.

He did not explain why, exactly, footage of the riots would help President Trump’s reelection campaign. Americans do not like to see violent antifa rioters storming a police precinct, attempting to set it on fire. They do not like to see violence on the streets of American cities.

Footage of the riots could only be “B-roll” for the Trump campaign if the party opposing the president had attempted to cover up or ignore 68 nights of violent riots inspired by far-left Marxist propaganda — which is working its way into the Democratic platform. Footage of the riots could only be politically viable if — get this — the president had called for law and order and offered to send extra federal law enforcement to help cities that are overrun with antifa rioters, and the Democratic mayors of those cities had refused him.

Perhaps the footage would be particularly powerful if, in a certain city, rioters had carried out violent attacks for nearly 70 nights while the city’s mayor told police not to engage, demonized the federal law enforcement whose lives the rioters threatened, and actually joined the rioters. Oh, it might also be effective if the mayor in question — not naming any names — had claimed that there was no justification for tear gas even though rioters were setting off explosives right behind him.

Oh, all of that happened? Wait, it happened in Portland? No wonder Ted Wheeler is terrified of footage getting out there.

Here’s the kicker: While all of this was happening, presumptive Democratic nominee Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. attacked Trump, claiming the president was attacking “peaceful protesters.” Yes, that footage does belong in campaign ads. Americans need to know what’s really been going on Portland, and it seems Ted Wheeler is only now realizing just how much trouble he’s in.

SOURCE 






AG Barr suports the police in person

We have the right guy at the Department of Justice. Period. William Barr could possibly be one of the best, if not the best, cabinet picks during his tenure in the White House. The man is calm, collected, professional, and easily shreds any liberal nonsense hurled his way. He’s obviously in support of our police who are under assault by far-left lawmakers across the country who are trying to defund their departments. The rioting in some of the most liberal bastions of the country has taken a wild turn, with left-wing clowns in Portland and Seattle trying to systematically destroy the city.

It’s no longer about George Floyd. It’s about Marxism. It’s quite clear that the BLM movement was a vehicle for the far left to latch onto like a barnacle to mobilize for their agenda items. It got so bad that federal agents had to be deployed to be problematic areas, which caused local leaders, who did nothing to bring calm to the situation, to go apoplectic. Too bad, kids. The federal government has every right to step in and enforce law and order, and to protect federal property. In Portland, they tried to burn down the federal courthouse there. If you people didn’t quasi-endorse leftist militias seizing portions of the city, as they did in Seattle, then maybe federal agents wouldn’t be needed. Only a total idiot would buy that this deployment was a prelude to a fascist takeover, or Trump laying the groundwork to steal the 2020 election, or an occupation.

The tinfoil hat nonsense about Operation Legend initiated by the DOJ has been beyond insane. So, with Democrats, liberals, and far-left wingnuts spitting on police, with the latter assaulting, shooting, and running them over in cities across the country during the Floyd riots, a small gathering of folks in Virginia supporting law enforcement caught the eye of AG Barr, who asked his FBI detail to make a quick pit stop so that he could personally thank these people.

His spokesperson at DOJ, Kerry Kupec tweeted a video of the event.

“This is awesome,” said one person as the attorney general ventured into the small, but passionate group of “Back the Blue” supporters.

Barr also thanked some of them for their kind words regarding his recent testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in which Trump-deranged Democrats spent hours berating him and refusing to let him speak, despite the fact that he was invited to do so in this setting. It was a de facto 2020 campaign rally, where Democrats could put on a show. Barr was still cool as a cucumber. And there was a reason why Democrats didn’t allow him to speak: he would have eviscerated their arguments, as he’s done in the past.

The DOJ was in the lonely position of neutral before Barr was confirmed. Now, he’s righting the ship. It’s the little things that have big impacts. Barr’s actions and his no-nonsense attitude towards enforcing our laws and getting to the bottom of the Trump-Russia fiasco already should have assured us that he’s the right guy for the job there. This act of gratitude towards those who support our police is just another checkmark in the positive column.

SOURCE 






Australia: Incompetent guards hired for hotel quarantine in an attempt at social inclusion

Minorities hired regardless of their fitness for the job.  The result was a disastrous failure, with the virus being spread instead of contained

A senior Department of Jobs official has been shifted from their role as evidence mounts that the decision to use private security guards at Melbourne’s quarantine hotels was partly driven by a well-meaning attempt to provide jobs under "social inclusion" policies.

A leaked email from another public servant, the department's deputy secretary for inclusion, also paints a picture of how rushed the implementation was, describing "heroic efforts" over a weekend in late March as bureaucrats became "expert in the delivery of hotel concierge services".

Departmental sources insisted on Saturday that the official’s secondment to another senior job creation role was not a reflection on their performance in contracting private security firms for hotel quarantine.

The revelations will increase pressure on the Andrews government over whether it put too much emphasis on finding jobs for marginalised Victorians without ensuring that those guarding hotel guests were trained in infection control and supervised by authorised officers.

A spokesman for the Victorian Department of Jobs denied that job creation was the main driver: "Supporting an effective quarantine program was the department’s motivation, not job creation.”

Infection outbreaks among security guards at two quarantine hotels in Melbourne are widely believed to be responsible for the state's second devastating wave of coronavirus, which has killed dozens of people and put hundreds of thousands out of work.

The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald can now reveal that officials in the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions employment division and its international trade agency, Global Victoria, were responsible for engaging private security firms for hotel quarantine on the weekend of March 28 and 29. They also had an ongoing role overseeing the quarantine operation.

The task of contracting the security firms was given to the department’s executive director of employment, whom The Age and Herald have chosen not to name. The official has since been replaced by two acting directors on the latest version of the department's organisation chart. The officer has retained their senior role at the department.

Media reports from 2013 reveal the official had professional dealings with the Sydney-based security company given much of the hotel quarantine work, Unified Security, in their previous role as general manager of work and learning at the Brotherhood of St Laurence.

The charity and Unified established a partnership in 2012 to provide security training and jobs for marginalised people. The official also did some work with Unified in 2019 in finding a small number of positions under a Jobs Victoria project.

As an Indigenous-owned company, Unified satisfies the government’s criteria for contracts under its social inclusion procurement policy. It won the security contract for Metro Trains last year and specifically referred to its Brotherhood of St Laurence partnership in briefing documents supplied to government.

A Monday March 30 email written by the department's deputy secretary for inclusion, David Clements, refers to the rush to get arrangements in place to handle returning travellers over the weekend. Mandatory 14-day quarantines had been authorised the previous Friday by national cabinet.

"I have had a crazy weekend, getting roped in to helping with arrangements for 'standing up' the hotels accommodating passengers returning from overseas for their 14 days of quarantine," Mr Clements wrote in the email.

"Suffice to say there have been some heroic efforts from numerous of your colleagues across DJPR to make this happen – including from [the executive director of employment] who is now an expert on contracting hotel security; the Global Victoria team who are now expert in the delivery of hotel concierge services."

The revelation of Global Victoria’s role in hotel quarantine raises further questions for the government because the agency has no experience in security or public health measures. Global Victoria manages Victoria’s trade relationships and international marketing.

The hotel quarantine inquiry will examine the decision-making process that led to the hiring of security firms - and questions will be asked about who decided the Department of Jobs be given responsibility for contracting security providers and overseeing the rollout.

Premier Daniel Andrews on Thursday said he was unable to explain how the decision to rely on private security guards was made and Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton said on Friday he had found out about "rumours and reporting around deficiencies with the workforce ... when I read it in the newspapers".

The rushed procurement process to find guards for hotel quarantine resulting in contracts being awarded to three security companies: Wilson, MSS and Unified.

The appointment of Unified proved controversial because, unlike Wilson and MSS, it was not on the government’s preferred panel of security suppliers. Despite this, Unified ended up doing the bulk of the hotel quarantine work. All three companies had to rely on sub-contractors to supply their guards – some of whom were recruited via WhatsApp messages – at short notice.

In early April, well before COVID-19 began crippling Victoria, Mr Andrews and Jobs Coordination Minister Martin Pakula released a media statement highlighting the government’s role in creating jobs for 1300 Victorians whose employment prospects had worsened due to the global pandemic.

The press release specifically referred to 450 jobs being created in the hotel quarantine program “including transport operations, security and cleaning”. International students and temporary migrants were key targets under the jobs program.

Private security companies, including Unified, were also used in NSW hotel quarantine, but private security guards in Sydney were overseen by police or Border Force officials in each hotel. In Victoria, the government decided against using police or defence force personnel, and there remains considerable confusion in public service ranks and security companies about which department had ultimate responsibility.

The Age and Herald have previously revealed leaked emails in which officials from the Department of Jobs requested Emergency Management Victoria and the Department of Health and Human Services get police involved in hotel quarantine in late March amid doubts about the preparedness of private security.

Some senior police at that time were privately frustrated Victoria has not been declared a state of disaster by Mr Andrews.

Such a declaration would have empowered police as the state’s authorised officers to lead crucial aspects of the pandemic response instead of those powers remaining with health department officials under the less serious state of emergency provisions.

Mr Andrews declared a state of disaster recently when Melbourne was moved onto stage four restrictions.

The inquiry into hotel quarantine led by former state coroner Jennifer Coate will begin public hearings later this month. Ms Coate will deliver her report in November.

SOURCE  

********************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 
`
************************************