Constituent’s Letter to Tory MP about Bombing Syria

Quote

Dear John Whittingdale,

I understand that you voted with the Government yesterday to bomb Syria.  Following our meeting two weeks ago when we presented you the petition about tax credits you mentioned amongst other things that you didn’t like John Maynard Keynes.  May I draw your attention to a few words written today by Michael Rosen.

Vote for war.
We’ve got to keep this economy going somehow.
Keynes wasn’t right.
But Keynes for killing makes sense.
Pump prime the arms economy, stimulated growth.
You see, everything connects.
When they don’t there’s trouble.
And when there’s trouble we pour oil on troubled waters.
Oil? Who mentioned oil?
Not me.
You must be thinking of someone else.
Thank you.
Bombs away!
Chin chin.

I think it says it all.  Keynes to suit a Tory agenda for war.  It seems to me that the West is nothing more than the military industrial complex.  It exists only to feed the war machine not for what is right but for money.  Arms dealers and politicians create the enemy and feed the enemy whilst we are treated to never- ending rounds of duplicity and deception and you spout sanctimonious words about freedom, democracy and keeping us secure.

All the while you threaten us by keeping us fearful for ourselves and our families.  You vote to kill innocent people in a foreign land where you won’t have to face the terror, blood and destruction which will result.  Lives of people just like you and me.  We rarely hear (apart from a few brave journalists who speak out) why terrorist attacks on the West occur – the elephant in the room is studiously ignored in a deliberate fashion.  And all the while Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are still in pieces as a result of Western interference.

When Secretary of State Kerry called Assad’s gassing of nearly 500 children a moral obscenity he had obviously forgotten Madeleine Albright’s assertion that the death of 500,000 children due to sanctions in Iraq were ‘worth it’.  Surely this shows that the so called moral compass of our politicians only applies when it suits their agenda.  The hypocrisy of our leaders is pathetic and deplorable.

So finally to remind you, last week at the Spending Review George Osborne said there was no money.  We have to tighten our belts, cut services, destroy people’s lives and all to satisfy an evil ideology not based on any sort of necessity.  This week suddenly there’s plenty of money for war equally to destroy people’s lives but in the most horrific way possible and with complete disregard for the victims.  Collateral damage I believe you politicians call it.  I can’t even bear to think about the terror that will be caused by our actions let alone the consequences for the future.  The past 14 years of spurious wars are testament to the stupidity of our leaders and an inability to learn any lessons at all.  Not that you want to learn the lesson, it would seem.

So do tell me Mr Whittingdale where is the money coming from if we didn’t have any last week?  I’m afraid I believe that these are political choices made by wicked men for the benefit of a few rich people who are determined to have it all at the expense of us all.  For someone who calls himself an economist you clearly either choose not to understand how our economy really works or you know but prefer to indulge in duplicity rather than the truth.

Yours sincerely,
Prue Plumridge

 

 

Arms manufacturers stocks soar after UK decision to join Syria bombing

Andrew Smith of Campaign Against Arms Trade told CommonSpace: “Unfortunately, where most of us see war and destruction the arms companies see a business opportunity. It is conflict and military intervention that fuel arms sales, and companies like BAE are only too happy to cash in from it. These companies don’t care who uses their weapons or the damage they cause, the only thing they care about is profit.”

The arms sales of the world’s four biggest corporations alone are equal to more than $100bn for 2013. 

 

Whatever Osborne says, not all ‘debt’ is the same

Quote

Corbynomics: winning with policy clarity by Michael Burke first posted 15th october 2015

Economic policy is central to the survival and eventual victory of the new Labour leadership, even though it is clearly not the only issue.  Contrary to the usual Tory media reports, Jeremy Corbyn and his Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell registered an advance with the debate and vote on Osborne’s risible Fiscal Responsibility Charter.  That advance came because the correct position of voting against was adopted.  As this question will not go away, further advances will require even greater clarity.

The measure of the advance can be summed up in its political aspect with an analysis of the vote.  Just 20 Labour MPs rebelled against Labour’s line by abstaining on the Charter.  It may be recalled that of the 35 nominations, Jeremy Corbyn received from MPs in the leadership contest, only about half of them actually supported him.  During that campaign, the vast majority of MPs followed the line of abstaining on the Tories massive cuts in the Welfare Bill.  Now the overwhelming bulk of the Parliamentary Labour Party has voted against the key Tory legislation of permanently enshrining austerity and ruling out borrowing for investment.  This is despite the fact that, as recently as May, the party’s economic line was ‘fiscal rectitude’, ‘zero-based spending reviews’ and sticking to outlandish Tory spending cuts in the first two years of the Parliament (something the Tories could not do in their own June 2015 Budget).

Politically, the 20 abstainers have isolated themselves within the party (although they will no doubt find regular berths in the BBC studios and lots of column inches in the Murdoch press).  Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell have led the PLP to a much better economic position by opposing Tory economic policies.  As the Tories are committed to austerity and this will be central to the economic debate over the next five years, that leadership will need to keep moving forward.

Exposing Osborne’s fallacies

Labour lost the last election because its economic policies were not credible.  There is a concerted effort to distort this factual finding to suggest that Labour was too anti-austerity.  Therefore, the debate on economic policy is central both to the future direction of Labour policy and its election prospects.

Osborne’s great fallacies, like most distortions of the truth, have some connection to popular understanding otherwise it would be impossible to explain their political power.  A central fallacy is to treat all debt as essentially the same, with equally negative consequences.  Instead, as Socialist Economic Bulletin (SEB) has repeatedly shown John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn have made the correct distinction between borrowing for consumption and borrowing for investment.

In the homely analogies beloved by this Chancellor and by Margaret Thatcher, ordinary households understand very well the difference between different types of borrowing.  Borrowing to buy a home, or borrowing to pay for night classes, or a new work-related computer all provide an asset or additional income and so are an investment.  But borrowing to pay the electricity or grocery bills is not sustainable.  It may ‘circulate more money in the economy’ but can only be done in extremis and not in the long-term.

Likewise, businesses understand cashflow.  Business makes an appraisal of investment opportunity on the basis of cost-benefit analysis.  If a reasonable expected rate of return exceeds the cost of borrowing then the investment will be made.  But if the business is borrowing to meet day to day expenses it will soon face insolvency and possibly bankruptcy.

Government relies on these economic agents for its income.  But in truth it is not unique as all three agents, government, business and households rely on each other for their income both directly and indirectly.  In that sense, government is no different.  Government borrowing for investment delivers an economic return, either direct or indirect, will expand the economy and, just like business a key criteria will be whether the rate of return on the investment exceeds the borrowing cost.  Contrary to views Keynes did not hold, but which are misleadingly entitled ‘Keynesianism’, borrowing for day to day consumption will not necessarily expand the economy – this depends on whether extra production increases profit, and in a number of situations expansions of demand may not increase profit and may actually reduce it.  Consumption should usually be met by current revenues from taxation.  If there is a shortfall between desired government current spending and revenue, wasteful spending can be cut (e.g. Trident) and/or taxes can be increased.

SEB has repeatedly demonstrated that investment is the decisive input for growth and consumption cannot lead growth, and from this it follows that government borrowing should be used for investment over the business cycle (running deficits/borrowing for consumption as well as investment may of course be valuable in economic downturns)

Alliances

The clear opposition to the Fiscal Responsibility Charter from the ‘Corbyn/McDonnell’ team on the Labour front bench was supported by strong economic arguments from a number of quarters, not all of them long-standing allies.

In the Commons debate, Caroline Lucas said, “The Chancellor is incredibly irresponsible to imply that borrowing is always bad. If we borrow to invest, we increase jobs, stabilise the economy and increase tax revenues. That is good for the economy, not bad for it…… If we are investing in jobs, that gets taxes going back into the Revenue, which is good for the economy.”  And:

“The Chancellor is deliberately misleading the public by continuing to claim that all borrowing is irresponsible. It is not. What is irresponsible is failing to borrow to invest, providing we are able to sustainably meet the cost of borrowing.”

Jonathan Reynolds, describing the Charter as intellectually moronic said, “It essentially commits this House to never borrowing to invest, even when the cost-benefit analysis of that investment is such that the country would benefit greatly.  That is why it has not one serious economist backing it.”

Helen Goodman said:

“One of the most pernicious things about the rule that the Chancellor has chosen is that it treats capital and current spending the same.  He is ignoring the fact that investing in housing, science, broadband, transport and the university system is a way of strengthening economic productivity and increasing growth in the British economy.  Nobody thinks that it is right to max out the credit card to pay the weekly grocery bill—of course not—but families up and down this country take out mortgages to buy their homes.  There is a precise parallel here.”

Regarding what John McDonnell himself said, as much of the press will not report it accurately, here are some of his key points:

“The worst false economy is the failure to invest.  This will be a direct result of Government policy embedded in this charter, with its limits on all public sector borrowing.  This Chancellor’s strategy has given us investment as a share of GDP lower than all the other G7 countries, falling even further behind the G7 average in recent years.  It is incomprehensible for the Chancellor to rule out the Government playing a role in building our future.  For him to constrain himself from doing so in the future, no matter what the business case for a project, has no basis in economic theory or experience.”

“We will not tackle the deficit on the backs of middle and low earners, and especially not on the backs of the poorest in our society.  We will tackle the deficit, but we will do it fairly and to a timescale that does not jeopardise sustainable growth in our economy.  We will balance day-to-day spending and invest for future growth, so that the debt to GDP ratio falls, paying down our debts”.

“That is why we will establish a National Investment Bank to invest in innovation across the entire supply chain, from the infrastructure we need to the applied research and early stage financing of companies.  To tackle the growing skills shortages, we will prioritise education in schools and universities along with a clear strategy for construction, manufacturing, and engineering skills to build and maintain sustainable economic growth.  The proceeds of that growth will reach all sections of our society.”

Outside the Chamber, Chi Onwurah had previously written a strong piece deriding Osbornomics’ refusal to invest “The Osbornomic farmer wouldn’t borrow to buy a tractor unless crop prices were falling.  The Osbornomic househunter would not take out a mortgage unless her salary was being cut.  The Osbornomic CEO would only invest in a new product line when revenues were falling.”

Long-standing Corbyn/McDonnell ally, Diane Abbott made a series of similar points on Twitter:

“Osborne’s Fiscal Responsibility Charter effectively outlaws the equivalent of taking out a mortgage…..Osborne’s Fiscal Responsibility Charter is a con-trick from a charlatan. Outlawing borrowing for investment means long-term stagnation….Every household and firm knows that borrowing for investment boosts incomes. Only Osborne and the austerity fanatics are unaware of this.”

These analogies are extremely useful for popularising the alternative to austerity, which is investment.  The new leadership team has shown it can command an overwhelming majority in PLP with clear opposition to Tory austerity.  Developing a broader understanding of the distinction between borrowing for investment and borrowing for consumption, and why Labour should support the former will be key in pushing back the Tories in the period ahead.

Thatcher’s economics has generated ‘poverty in the midst of plenty’

Quote

By Prue Plumridge

Lord Wolfson, chief of the Next retail chain said recently that the national living wage could drive up inflation as the retailer would have to raise prices to offset the cost of the new minimum wage of £7.20.

The word ‘living wage’ (which £7.20 is not) clearly strikes fear into the hearts of rich businessmen.   The business mantra is that paying people a decent wage can only lead to the bogeyman of inflation or job losses and is the usual stick with which the workforce is beaten to keep it fearful and compliant.

Let’s first put a context onto this claim by Lord Wolfson.  According to Professor Bill Mitchell, Wolfson claimed that a living wage of £6.70 was ‘enough to live on’ and a ‘decent amount for a lot of his staff”.  He also said that it was not necessary for Next to raise wages because ‘the clothing chain had 30 applicants for every job advertised’.  Professor Mitchell went on to note the salary and benefit arrangements for Wolfson who had a base pay of £743,000 in 2014/15 along with a range of other benefits and bonuses which brought his salary to a total of £4,666,000.

A report published by Citizens UK recently noted that:

‘An estimated 5.24 million people in the UK are employed on less than the living wage. Many low-waged workers are in receipt of benefits and tax credits, policy tools used to top up their incomes [and are] criticised in popular media and policy circles.

The calculation of the public subsidy is a new way to think about low pay.  In effect it is low paying employers who are subsidised by state payments to their employees without which they would be unable to meet their basic needs and continue to work for low wages.’ 

In other words this is nothing more than corporate welfare on a grand scale which costs the tax payer a gigantic £11bn a year.  To put this into context benefit fraud is £1bn. Companies, in effect, have no incentive at all to pay decent wages when they know for certain that the State will (for now) pick up the tab through benefit payments.

To understand claims that increasing the minimum wage will lead to an inflationary loop or job losses we first have to understand from where this idea originated.  The post war period between 1948 and 1973 was known as the Golden Age.  Production had increased, there was full employment and living standards had risen.  In the words of Harold Macmillan in 1957 ‘most of our people have never had it so good.’  During this period before the attack on fiscal deficits occurred across the advanced world inequality was lower than it ever had been, workers were more upwardly mobile and GDP was averaging much higher growth.  The country was riding high on the post-war economic boom which had also seen the foundation of the National Health Service, a social security system and education for all and all despite the so called ‘National Debt’.

This was, in fact, the classic era of Keynesian economics which served as the standard economic model in the latter half of the 1930s and the post second-world war years.   Keynes’ theory was that problems such as unemployment were nothing to do with moral shortcomings but were more to do with imbalances in demand and the point at which a country was in its economic cycle – expanding or contracting.  As such he believed that at times of economic downturn when an economy could no longer sustain full employment government should step in to ensure that resources were fully utilised.  To this effect government spending, he believed, should be used to increase overall demand which, in turn, would increase economic activity and reduce unemployment.  It challenged the reigning laissez-faire model which had its roots in the Classical economic theories of 18th century thinkers like Adam Smith and David Ricardo who believed that markets worked better without government interference.

The 1973-74 recession changed all that.  The certainties of the golden age were to be challenged as unemployment rose and prices spiralled.  The trigger for this was the OPEC oil price crises in 1973 and 1979.   Inflation combined with recession was a new phenomenon and, as it turned out, proved to be the crucible for what is known today as neoliberalism.  The ideas of such economists and thinkers as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman came into their own and quickly began to take root.  By the end of the 1970s, it dominated economic thinking amongst the educated elite in universities and the political and business world.

The study of economics was elevated to that of a science in the belief that through the use of modelling and formulae the future could be predicted accurately and the full employment agenda of the post war years, government intervention and market regulation was abandoned in favour of the magic of market forces.  Such interventions, it was believed, would cause inflation or result in increased unemployment through destabilising the market process which, naturally, sought to find its equilibrium.

Karl Polanyi, who explained the deficiencies of a self-regulating market and the potential dire social consequences of unfettered market capitalism in his book ‘The Great Transformation’ predicted:

‘To allow the market mechanism to be sole director of the fate of human beings and their natural environment…. would result in the demolition of society.’

From the 70’s onwards we start to see a shift in economic thinking which can be summed up in a speech by Prime Minster James Callaghan who told the Labour Party conference in 1976:

“We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending.  I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists, and in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion since the war by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next step.” 

Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979 and she fully embraced the expansion of neoliberal ideas through government policies.  Her aim was to break with the post war political consensus and pursue policies which deregulated financial markets, rolled back the state through privatisation of publically owned assets and weakened welfare support, undermined union and employment protection and abandoned full employment goals.  The results were that the bargaining power of workers was seriously undermined.  By the mid-80s unemployment had trebled and there was widening income inequality.  Margaret Thatcher who said ‘It is our job to glory in inequality’ laid the foundations for the growing perception that the individual controlled his or her own fate.  On that basis, poverty was a result of one’s own shortcomings and not a failed social system.

Tony Blair’s Third Way attempted to humanise the market by reconciling traditional left of centre values with laissez-faire capitalism.  However, it still accepted the neoliberal doctrines linked to income distribution and the idea that there was a natural rate of employment which was determined by supply and demand.

As Professor Bill Mitchell commented recently:

“They preached equity yet watched income and wealth inequality rise under their stewardship.”

As part of this new Third Way approach, a minimum wage was introduced in 1999 by the Blair government.  However, whilst it was seen as one of the best achievements of New Labour and didn’t lead to the predicted job losses and increased costs the truth was that it was set at too low a level to have any real impact on people’s lives.   What is more, although unemployment fell during its first two terms in power overall, it did increase and the lowest unemployment rate it achieved was still more than 1% higher than in the early 1970s.  This combined with the fact that the low public investment as a share of GDP, which began under Thatcher, largely continued under New Labour and the effects of weakened bargaining power and wage stagnation further increased pressures on the working population.  Furthermore, Blair’s human face of neoliberalism was betrayed by a step change in attitudes to welfare when the Blair government moved to cut single-parent benefits in 1997 and tried to introduce cuts to disability benefits in 1999.  This culminated in 2008 with James Purnell’s Welfare Reform Paper under which everyone would have to do something in return for their welfare payments.  Tony Blair also boasted that the UK had ‘the most flexible labour market in Europe’ but we shall see shortly at whose expense.

When the Conservatives returned to power in 2010, the framework was virtually in place for a full scale assault on the public sector and workers’ rights.  Workfare forced claimants to work for nothing but their benefits under the guise of work experience and training and Tony Blair’s flexible labour market literally found themselves on an even faster race to the bottom.  Temporary contracts, zero hours and low paid work have all facilitated the normalisation of a flexible labour market which is a trademark of neoliberal economics.  In addition, as part of their goal to reduce public spending, the Conservatives also introduced high fees for employment tribunals which has led to a noticeable reduction in claims, clearly at the expense of working people’s rights.

In May 2015, the Tories were re-elected and in only a few months we have seen yet more attacks on Trade unions and working people’s rights and benefits.

Caroline Lucas summed up the last four decades in an article in the Independent:

‘The economic project that has dominated politics since the 1970s has had at its heart the strangulation of the Trade Unions. Why? Because it is the unions which stand as a last line of defence against repeated Government attempts to privatise, deregulate and cut back on the public services upon which we all rely.

The results of that economic project – skyrocketing inequality, the loss of thousands of public sector jobs and increasingly precarious work for many – are plain to see. For more than 30 years, successive Governments have sold off our national assets and deregulated our economy – but to continue the project the Conservatives know they need to remove a key barrier to change: the remaining power of the millions of members of Britain’s trade unions.’

One of the premises of neoliberal thought is that wealth trickles down as a result of markets having the freedom to act without government interference.  We have not found this promised market equilibrium.  What we have seen instead is wealth pouring into the hands of fewer and fewer people.  Unemployment, underemployment and low wages have become a scourge in our society as they disempower people and dispossess them of dignity and the means to ensure their well-being.  Market competition and globalisation have spurred a race to the bottom by allowing companies to suppress real wage growth and accept unemployment as part of the price we have to pay for reaching the promised-land.

So this bring us back to the start of the story.  We have nearly 2 million unemployed people but the real picture is of many more millions who are underemployed, on low incomes and temporary and zero hours contracts having no job security at all and facing the prospect of reduced income support from the State.  Ninety percent of the McDonald’s chain work on zero hours contracts – that’s 82,800 people, Sports Direct employ 20,000 and J D Weatherspoon 24,000 on such contracts.  The employers’ justification for such working arrangements is that it makes Britain more competitive in a harsh economic climate.  Compare that assertion to an increasingly unequal income distribution in which those at the top benefit at the expense of those at the bottom.  Remember Lord Wolfson’s salary last year.

With high unemployment, companies have no trouble finding people to work at the prevailing wage rates.  And yet, whilst profits and bonuses increase, the price for market competition and globalisation is being paid by those least able to ride the waves of economic uncertainty.

Michal Kalecki in his work ‘Political Aspects of Full Employment’ posits a number of reasons why industrial leaders are opposed to full employment.  Although it was written in 1943, his propositions seem as true today as when he wrote it.  Business leaders were, he said, averse to government interference in employment matters, feared losing control of government policy, loathed the idea of public investment and disliked the idea of publically funded welfare.

In 1943 the Times editorial explained why full employment was not a good idea. It said:

Unemployment is not a mere accidental blemish in a private enterprise economy. On the contrary it is a part of the essential mechanism of the system, and has a definite function to fulfil.  The first function of unemployment which has always existed in open or disguised form is to maintain the authority of master over man.  The master has normally been in a position to say if you do not want the job there are plenty of others who do.  When the man can say if you do not want to employ me there are plenty of others who will the situation is radically altered.’

As Kalecki describes it very succinctly:
“For here a moral principle of the highest importance is at stake.  The fundamentals of capitalist ethics require that ‘you shall earn your bread in sweat’ — unless you happen to have private means.”

The Golden Age, for a short period of time, challenged the status quo and the power of big business to dictate terms but since that time the ascendance of neoliberal thought has restored the balance in favour employers and has been supported by ever more government legislation to undermine working people’s rights.  As Lord Wolfson’s assertion indicates, they now have considerable control over the labour market and wages and people have become mere pawns in a global game to be exploited in the name of profit.  The cost to the economy and society of unemployment and underemployment is huge in terms of the outcomes on health and well-being and as a consequence on society as a whole.

So how can this imbalance be best addressed? Jeremy Corbyn stood on a platform of anti-austerity and has promised a radical programme. This will require first that he and his Chancellor wholly reject the neoliberal framework of deficit reduction and balanced budgets. These two positions are irreconcilable. Secondly we need to address urgently the issue of unemployment. In the words of Hyman Minsky in his book ‘Ending Poverty: Jobs, not welfare.

they involve a commitment to the maintenance of … full employment and the adjustment of institutions, so that the gains from full employment are not offset by undue inflation and the perpetuation of obsolete practices.’

So what would this mean in practice?

Philip Pilkington in an article published in the Guardian in 2013 summed it up very neatly with reference to the work of Hyman Minsky:

“Minsky’s theories of financial instability suggested that capitalist economies were prone to serious downturns in which huge amounts of the labour force would find themselves unemployed. What’s more, this would lead to large shortfalls in demand for goods and services which would further exacerbate such downturns. The result was a vicious circle that would become worse and worse as the financial system evolved into an increasingly fragile entity and households and businesses became increasingly mired in debt. The only way out of this was to build robust institutions that insulated working people from the excesses of the system. While progressive taxation and unemployment benefits went some way toward both protecting workers and propping up demand during downturns, it did not, according to Minsky and his followers, go nearly far enough. They believed that governments should offer a job to anyone willing and able to work and then pay for these jobs by engaging in increased deficit spending – as they currently do with unemployment benefits during downturns.

We have a capitalist system which, in fact, has generated ‘poverty in the midst of plenty’.   Poverty, rather than as suggested being the result of the shortcomings of the individual is, in reality, the consequence of unemployment, underemployment and low pay. The primary objectives of government, therefore, should be to ensure that working people are paid a wage which is sufficient and gives them dignity, and the provision of a job guarantee for all those who want to work.  This should be supported by an adequate welfare system to help those who are physically or mentally unable to work through illness or other misfortune.

Those who, like Mark Carney, decried Jeremy Corbyn’s economic plans for PQE by saying it would imperil the recovery, drive up inflation and hurt the poor and the elderly are in denial and should question the very basis upon which they construct their economic assumptions.   Firstly today’s global economy is suffering from deflationary pressures rather than inflationary and even a Governor of the Bank of England should know that some inflation is beneficial.  And secondly, the economic paradigm which advocates austerity, deficit reduction and balanced budgets is bogus and has been for over 40 years.  It has been used to justify the creation of a small state on the false basis that the private sector is more efficient.

We should understand as L Randall Wray said in his introduction to Hyman Minsky’s book that:

‘…. the primary barrier to attaining and sustaining tight full employment is political will’.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. 
The neoliberal paradigm is foundering but those supporting it will not give up without a struggle since so much is at stake. There is an alternative and with Jeremy Corbyn we now have a mandate to take the ‘road less travelled’ to secure the necessary changes which will rebalance the economy in favour of a fairer distribution of available resources and income.

Our next step must challenge the status quo by understanding how we can best implement that alternative and build the mass movement we need to make change happen.

References:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/business/next-boss-warns-living-wage-6421023

http://ineteconomics.org/ideas-papers/interviews-talks/demystifying-modern-monetary-theory

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/07/labour-jobs-guarantee#sthash.ikqwo08O.dpuf

Ending Poverty: Jobs not welfare: Hyman Minsky

Political Aspects of Full Employment: Michal Kalecki

http://www.theweek.co.uk/business/54485/zero-hours-contracts-mcdonalds-flexible-or-exploitative

Rejecting the TINA Mantra and the second ‘gilded age’ http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=31888

Jeremy Corbyn’s new politics must not include not lying about fiscal deficits http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=31888

A short history of neoliberalism

http://www.globalexchange.org/resources/econ101/neoliberalismhist

From Keynsianism to Neoliberalism: Shifting paradigms in Economics

http://fpif.org/from_keynesianism_to_neoliberalism_shifting_paradigms_in_economics/

http://www.marxist.com/neoliberalism-dead-or-sleeping.htm

Politics in the Pub Your Rights 2 Work

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS7AOaYY6Lo

Published on Sep 4, 2015

Dr Victor Quirk of CofFEE (Centre of Full Employment and Equity) outlines the history of employment policy in Australia, tracing it from the 1940’s policy of full employment and questions why it’s no longer Government policy.

Yvette Cooper hasn’t got the economics right

Quote

In the last of the Labour leadership debates, Yvette Cooper repeated her attack on Jeremy Corbyn’s economic strategy.  As a New Keynesian, she believes that since the economy is finally growing, the time for government investment or a fiscal stimulus has passed.  She should tell that to the 2.3m unemployed and the millions more who are underemployed.

In the re-posted article below, Richard Murphy explains why her belief that Peoples’ Quantitative Easing would be inflationary, is simply not true.

Re-posted from Tax Research UK

 Why no inflation?

POSTED ON 

The question of inflation is coming up time and again in the Labour leadership election. Yvette Cooper is certain that People’s Quantitative Easing will lead to a mass outbreak of hyperinflation in the UK. It’s time to address the issue.

First, some general background. PQE is simply a way of injecting money into the economy. Such injections have happened before: £375 billion happened from 2009 to 2012. The US has only just stopped its QE programme. Japan is still doing one. The EU is near the start of a €1-trillion programme. Money printing is normal. There has been or will be about ¢5 trillion of it over a relatively short period.

And around the world there is almost no inflation. After QE the UK has got to zero inflation.

Japan would love inflation but can’t manage it.

The whole point of the EU programme is to create inflation, and many doubt it will.

In the US the inflation rate is 0.2%.

What is more, as the FT reports this morning, a Boston Fed official with some influence is today reporting that the Chinese slowdown is already making him doubt that the US can reach its 2% target inflation rate anytime in the foreseeable future. I have some considerable sympathy with that view. In fact, let me summarise what almost all the world’s central bankers are looking for right now: it is a magic bullet that might create the inflation that they want.

So the question has to be asked as to why they can’t get it? The Wall Street Journal raised this question last week. As they noted:

Central bankers aren’t sure they understand how inflation works anymore. Inflation didn’t fall as much as many expected during the financial crisis, when the economy faltered and unemployment soared. It hasn’t bounced back as they predicted when the economy recovered and unemployment fell.

As they then note, this is a massive issue. If you can’t predict inflation then what is the point of central bank independence which is all about controlling inflation as if it is the only task of significance in an economy? What if, in other words, all the priorities are wrong and for reasons central bankers and some well-trained economists (like Yvette Cooper) don’t understand inflation simply is not the threat it was? And in that case what new policies are needed?

Let me explain why I think the inflation conundrum exists i.e. why we can’t deliver the inflation we want.

First, it’s because inflation measures are measuring the wrong things. We have had massive inflation in asset prices, for example, many of which have real impact on well-being, but asset price inflation is not included in our inflation measure.

Second, some inflation measures fail to measure the right things. So, for example, in the UK there is a current belief that we will have inflation soon because we supposedly have wage inflation right now. But firstly, that is wage inflation after eight years of decline and with GDP per head only at pre-crash levels. And second, this measure might be hopelessly inaccurate. That’s because it excludes the earnings of the at least 5 million UK self-employed, who we know have had seriously declining income. That decline may be enough, given their number and the relatively small increases in wage growth to neutralise that wage increase impact entirely: the reality is that this measure of apparent inflation might be completely wrong.

Third, what the decline in self-employed earnings shows is that inflation risk is being outsourced: it is now passed on to some elements within a profoundly deregulated labour force, many of whom are suffering unrecorded real earnings decline of such extent that they are in poverty, but so destabilise the rest of the labour market by accepting any offered pay rate (which rates are beyond the control of minimum wage regulation) that  any amount of upward pressure on prices can simply be externalised into this unmeasured pool of labour meaning that anticipated inflation outcomes simply do not happen.

I stress, I am speculating. But let’s suppose across 25 million workers there is a 2% pay rise and across 5 million self-employed people a 10% wage drop (which is not impossible) then there is no net wage inflation at all: the wage rate data is just wrong as a result because it is missing an important variable that did not matter at one time but is now deeply significant.

In that case the amount of inflationary pressure in the UK economy might well come back to being effectively nothing at all, whilst we have at the same time unemployment, under-employment and a stark need for real investment which is the only way to boost earnings growth for those most in need of it, which is the only true economic goal a Treasury and a central bank should have. But because of poor inflation measures, poor theory and poor appraisal of why we do not have inflation at present, when if theory was right we should, we are denied that possibility of investment for the common good. I find it deeply frustrating that adherence to economic thinking that is obviously past its sell-by date should be used to oppose necessary ideas for reform that could massively benefit the people of this country.

Yvette Cooper is an able person. She seems to have read Keynes. She would be wise to recall his maxim that:

Practical people who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.

I fear that may be the case.

It is time to move on. There is no inflation risk right now. PQE probably will not change that: if it did then without major labour market reforms the impact would be modest, at best. But many wish for even that modest inflation impact, and most of them are central bankers. Yvette Copper should take note.

 

Creative Commons License
Tax Research UK Blog by Richard Murphy is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License. – See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/09/02/why-no-inflation/#sthash.Mp9XSmlK.dpuf