Charles Adams has a piece on Progressive Pulse that I strongly recommend. This is on the quantity of money in the UK economy and the fact that despite QE this has flatlined since 2010, as this chart that he has shared shows:
Charles' piece is worth reading in full. It builds on discussion here recently on the quantity of money in the economy. What I really like though is his analysis of why this policy has failed:
In the UK, the government had hoped that by reducing corporation taxes they would encourage companies to borrow, to invest, to raise productivity and grow the economy, but it did not happen. At the same time they were trying to reduce government spending. The Oxford economist Simon Wren Lewis calls this, “the most damaging UK macroeconomic policy mistake in my lifetime”. The problem is that if households are paying down debt and governments are reducing spending then comsumers have less surplus money and there is a lack of demand. If there is no demand, companies have no incentive to invest and the virtuous circle of rising production, rising wages and rising demand cannot begin. Also, by lowering corporation taxes, companies can increase profit without trying. If you look at the graph in Follow the money you can see that only corporations are sitting on a surplus. Households are back in the red which cannot last long.
Keynes' 'paradox of thrift' - that saving can work for individuals in isolation but not when everyone does it - is writ large over both this outcome, which is a tale of failure and the policy prescription that so clearly resulted in that tale. In July 2008 my Green New Deal colleagues and I said that the downturn we were then predicting required that the government spend to counter the private inclination to save in a time of crisis. It required, in other words, big thinkers who understood macroeconomics and the need to act counter-culturally when faced with the household model of economic management to step up and do what was required for the country as a whole - which was to mop up the savings glut and use it for constructive purposes by issuing bonds to finance the radical and sustainable change in our economy that was so obviously needed then and still is now.
That vision failed then.
And we got small-brained politicians in charge instead.
But the precription remains the same. Those with wealth - whether wealthy individuals, or larger companies in the corporate sector or from overseas - are still saving enormously in the UK even whilst many others are dependent on credit to survive. And the savings glut of the wealthy still needs to be tackled by higher tax, by proactive government investment and by giving business reason to use its funds for social purpose. But still we're not hearing a word of that from this government.
Labour needs to say this time and again, as do all other opposition parties, whatever they said in the past
And unless talk of a new centre party is of one built on the rejection of austerity and the logic of managing the economy as a household then such talk is not just a waste of time but is positively harmful.
There is one issue that needs to be embraced now right across the political spectrum. It is that government is a key player in the economy. It's not just a backstop in time of crisis - which is what QE did and which stopped M4 falling in Charles' chart. It's actually central to making the economy work again.
This is the antithesis of the economy logic of Charlottesville and Chicago but the logic of the far right and it's think tanks, such as the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Adam Smith Insititute is now very obviously bankrupt. It's time to move on, to accept the role of government and to build a new mixed economy, including strong, well regulated and transparent markets.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
An interesting article. It is a shame that the startup inertia of Progressive Pulse is petering out with fewer posts (and many days without any), from fewer of the contributors listed and few comments. A good effort but perhaps better to absorb the posts as guest posts here where the many who don’t understand economics can congregate and comment..
People are free to offer contributions to Progressive Pulse
Trying to help people to understand economics is my main purpose. Calling out politicians when they lie to us about money is a crucial step towards building a fair and decent society.
If you think there are topics Progressive Pulse should cover please let us know, and as Richard says everyone can contribute.
Reading the offerings by both yourself and Richard Murphy has opened my eyes. I’m no economist, but I am an engineer and I understand progressions and how government can create ‘free’ employment. The problem is that most of the people on, say Facebook, don’t want to understand anything but easily digestible rubbish they’re fed by politicians. I really want to see something out there that will reach many more people, and change their perceptions and I can’t see that many staying interested for too long in page long explanations. Can we get some really concise/dumbed down stuff on real economics.
” Calling out politicians when they lie to us about money is a crucial step towards building a fair and decent society.”
Personally I was originally reluctant to believe this but now I entirely agree – see http://www.progressivepulse.org/economics/deceit-not-ignorance/
so this is key to solving the country’s alleged resource problems and we have to publicise and disseminate the truth of what money is. And also show that the economy is not the weather http://www.progressivepulse.org/economics/basic-econimics/what-is-the-economy-for/
If Charles does the research I hope I can give ideas on how the concepts can more generally be explained and ‘sold’. Because we certainly have a communicating job to do.The gold standard seems to be hardwired – yesterday I couldn’t really persuade a Doctor that money was a societal construct…
I agree: people want to believe there is something to it
I just wish someone could explain all those graphs to me. I just read a Bank of England report on the Progressive money site that said that money was exploding and was all created by banks, not by the government. But now you, the experts, say that money is not increasing. Frankly, I am befuddled and could do with an explanation
Money is continually created
It’s created when government’s spend and when banks lend
It’s destroyed by tax and loan repayment
So net it can be stable
The state is a relatively modern concept of power and order designed to allow elites to achieve their purpose which is to stay in power. Politicians occupy the seats of power and they have a randomised knowledge base about economics much like many others. I think demand management is not their objective but rather the appearance, the gloss. The macro-economic critique is well placed in theory, but neo-classical propositions / arguments are not about demand management. Our past almost 40 years has been madness if you are of the social democratic and corporatist ilk or if you are one of the dependent classes /precariat. However if you are of the pure morally high minded and socially detached ilk you are comfortable that purity has prevailed despite the destruction it has caused. The state is detached from the people and that is what we must address, the state must wither and the people must arise.
I disagree: the state is the only viable mechanism for delivering what people want