The UK is on double dip recession.

Osborne offered us his vision two year ago.  It was of “expansionary fiscal contraction”.

His argument was that the more he cut government spending the more  people would spend, liberated by knowing that if he succeeded in his aim of balancing the budget tax cuts would follow, letting them repay debt they’d take on now to spend.   It hasn’t happened.  People who face the prospect of unemployment, increased cost for things that were previously provided by the state, lower pensions, higher cost of childcare  and the uncertainty of recession have simply stop spending.

And Osborne argued that  as government cutback business would rush to fill the space that he would create in the economy because they would be liberated from the yoke of government interference in their activity.  It hasn’t happened.  Businesses have seen that their biggest customer is not spending and have cut their investment, reduced their employment plans, closed their premise, withdrawn from the High Street and battened down their hatches in the hope of survival: the  last thing that they have done is expand.

Of course, all of this was completely predictable, and was predicted.  I was one of those who did so.  With the Green New Deal group I suggested an alternative approach to fending off recession as long ago as the summer of 2008, before the banking crisis developed.  Osborne ignored  us then, and I have little doubt that he will ignore us now but the price that we will pay for that will be an enormous one.

I suspect that during the course of this year we will come out of recession, but only just.

Much more importantly, I think unemployment will continue to rise as this year progresses, with there being no prospect of any real reversal in  site at any time in the foreseeable future as the government continues its programme of reckless cuts that guarantee a continuing downward spiral in confidence that will reduce investment for years to come, and at the same time will destroy any hope of creating a balance in our economy, or, just as importantly, a balance in our budget.

There is only one way to restore that balance in our economy and that is for the government to spend now on the creation of new infrastructure projects, new green energy projects, on the backlog of repairs that need to be undertaken in our public sector properties, in providing services that people need, and in investing with business in our future in sectors such as non-carbon energy.

This spending will, of course, require additional funding, but there is over £2 trillion invested in pensions at present in this country with more than £900 million (or thereabouts) in the larger pension funds. In that case money seeking a proactive home on which a positive return can be paid does exist. In addition, business itself has £750 billion of cash on its balance sheets right now, none of which is being spent. It is this combined cash that has to be brought into use in our economy if we are to get out of recession and nothing George Osborne is doing  will achieve that goal.

We don’t, as a result, need corporation tax cuts for big business right now: we need them to pay more tax now so that investment can take place to fund demand for their products.  That gets the business cycle going again.

And we need a condition to be placed on pension tax relief saying that 25% of all money going into tax funded pension arrangements has to be invested in projects that can create jobs in the UK right now.

Simple measures like that could get us out of recession. Nothing Osborne is doing can.

It is time for change.

 

Apple have made record profits.

As Aditya Chakrabortty showed in the Guardian yesterday, this is in no small part as a result of shifting production to China. As he also argued, they could still be massively profitable making their product in the US.

The problem for Apple and so many companies is a simple one. It is that if you make a mass produced product your workers have to be able to buy it. Henry Ford realised that. It was the basis of his success. As globalisation hollows out western markets leaving more and more unemployed in its wake increasingly that won’t be true, not least because the replacement workers are, by definition, paid much less.

This, amongst many things, is the failed logic of the neoliberal model of globalisation.

 

Larry Elliott is in good form in the Guardian this morning. As he pints out the IMF has just issued their latest forecasts, and for the UK the message is clear, and is that Osborne’s economic policy is not working. The deficit forecasts have got persistently worse, not better, and there’s no sign of them clearing by 2017, whatever Osborne would like to represent. In fact, all the movement is in the wrong direction now.

As Larry notes:

A number of conclusions can be drawn. First, it is not true that the deficit reduction plan set out by the coalition is working. Progress has been much slower than forecast.

Second, unless the government’s supply-side reforms can boost the economy’s potential growth rate, knocking the public finances back into shape will require yet more austerity.

Third, it is something of a miracle that the markets have yet to latch on to the UK’s combination of weak growth and unmet deficit-reduction targets. The fact that Britain is not part of the single currency, and can thus allow its currency rather than its bond market to take the strain of adjustment, probably has something to do with it.

Fourth, ministers would be unwise to imagine that the UK will remain a safe haven for ever. Should the economy continue to flatline for a further six months, the markets might start to look at Britain with a more critical eye.

I am in broad agreement.

There is only one way to clear our deficit now – and that is for the government to boost demand by spending. That is the only hope we have of getting people back to work, off beenfits and into paying tax. Nothing else can do that. Nothing else will solve this problem. Nothing else will address the crisis of unemployment.

Labour has to say so, now.

If it doesn’t it too has no way to solve this issue.

 

Open Democracy is starting a new debate under the above title.

The opening salvo has been fired by Will Davies, who says this:

It is time to acknowledge an uncomfortable truth about the public status of economics as an expert discipline: it has grown to be far more powerful as a tool of political rhetoric, blame avoidance and elite strategy than for the empirical representation of economic life. This is damaging to politics, for it enables value judgements and political agendas to be endlessly presented in ‘factual’ terms. But it is equally damaging to economics, which is losing the authority to describe reality in a credible, disinterested, Enlightenment fashion.

Worth a read.

Time for the Courageous State, I say.

 

From Heather Stewart in the Observer this morning (a gift that just keeps on giving today):

In the heady days before the credit crunch, the logic was that business leaders must be allowed to become filthy rich, so they would go on sprinkling their fairy dust on the rest of us.

But that won’t wash any more. … [T]he myth of the “wealth creator” has been well and truly shattered. Many of Britain’s top earners are not entrepreneurs in any meaningful sense: they’re financial engineers, speculators or smash-and-grab venture capitalists, whose winnings are earnings, pure and simple, and should be taxed as such.

Precisely so.

Now all we need to do is get at least Labour to understand that.  It may be a step too far for the so-called business friendly Tories who are anything but.

 

I referred on Friday to a TJN blog on  a dramatic statement by senior and highly respected former staff members of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), highlighting what appear to be attempts by the global financial services industries, via their representatives in developed country governments to neuter UNCTAD’s analysis of financial globalisation, which has often stood out against the prevailing financial orthodoxy.

Now, courtesy of Tax Justice Network senior adviser David Spencer, we have an even more dramatic statement on the same issue, which was issued on Friday.

The statement is entitled Statement by H.E. Ambassador Pisanu Chanvitan On behalf of the G77 and China Preparatory Committee, At the Preparatory Committee of UNCTAD XIII, 13 April 2012, Room XXVI, Palais des Nations, and it begins as follows:

“It is with deep regret that I make this intervention because it means the current situation warrants some very candid words from the Group of 77 and China. It means that we have reached the point where high diplomacy – the finest diplomacy – is needed. It also means that the time for candor is needed more than ever. I will therefore be clear and candid.”

Paragraph 2 reads:

“While we have always held firmly to our principles, the Group of 77 and China has tried to be as flexible as possible on how we have articulated them in our various negotiations in UNCTAD. Throughout our preparations for the Conference, we have felt that perhaps our constructiveness was viewed as weakness, and our accommodation viewed as capitulation.”

And it does not let up. Paragraph 3:

As a result, some of our partners regressed to behaviour perhaps more appropriate for the founding days of UNCTAD, when countries of the North felt they could dictate and marginalize developing countries from informed decision-making. I have to be blunt and single out the handling of the JIU issue by one coordinator as reminiscent of the darkest days of the North-South divide.

And there is a whole lot more. Now read on.

NB: Based on a TJN blog, here

 

This come’s from Nick Shaxson’s blog - and is important, so I reproduce it here:

“I have been sent a remarkable letter published yesterday by senior former staff members of UNCTAD, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, including some very big names in economics, such as Dani Rodrik, professor of International Political Economy at Harvard, and Robens Ricuperio, Brazil’s former Minister of Finance. Essentially, the letter is arguing that developed countries are trying to silence UNCTAD because its analysis of global financial and economic issues has stood out too far against the prevailing orthodoxies. The letter begins:

Silencing the message or the messenger …. or both?

Statement by former staff members of UNCTAD Geneva, 11 April 2012

“Since its establishment almost 50 years ago at the instigation of developing countries UNCTAD has always been a thorn in the flesh of economic orthodoxy. Its analyses of global macro-economic issues from a development perspective have regularly provided an alternative view to that offered by the World Bank and the IMF controlled by the west.

Now efforts are afoot to silence that voice.”

John Burley, who worked for UNCTAD for many years in senior positions, and who coordinated the letter, gave a presentation in Geneva in which he provided some background information:

“The next conference, UNCTAD’s next conference, is going to be held end of next week in Doha, Qatar. An attempt is going to be made there, on the basis of what we hear … at the moment, to change UNCTAD’s mandate by denying the organisation the right to continue – and I emphasise: to continue – to analyse and report on global macroeconomic issues, including the role of global finance in development.

UNCTAD has always looked at these issues in the context of interdependence . . . meaning the realtionship among the various flows of trade and finance and technology, and how that interrelationship affects development. This aspect of UNCTAD’s work has never been popular with the developed countries.
. . .
But in the end, all counties have accepted that a full understanding of the development process requires inclusion of this aspect of macroeconomic analysis. What is now at stake is a continuation of that acceptance. In other words, in plain English, part of UNCTAD is to stop what it has been doing.”

The letter continues:

Why is the UNCTAD message so unwelcome? The fact that UNCTAD has no formal responsibility for the global management of the international economy and none of its own funds to dispense means that its analysis is free of vested interests. No organisation correctly foresaw the current crisis, and no organisation has a magic wand to deal with present difficulties. But it is unquestionable that the crisis originated in and is widespread among the countries that now wish to stifle debate about global economic policies, despite their own manifest failings in this area.

Because of the crisis, we do now have a better explanation of the inter-relationships between the real economy and the world of finance. Those explanations are now a good deal closer to what UNCTAD has been saying for nigh on three decades about the dangers of finance-driven globalization.

And it is precisely in its analysis of interdependence that UNCTAD brings added value to an understanding of how the functioning of the global economy impacts on the majority of the world’s population who live in developing countries. Given the current pressure on the organisation and its secretariat, that contribution could now be gone for good (our emphasis).
. .
The developed countries in Geneva have seized the occasion to stifle UNCTAD’s capacity to think outside the box. This is neither a cost-saving measure nor an attempt to “eliminate duplication” as some would claim.”

The full letter is here.”

Nothing surprises me about this.

But the world should be outraged that an economic system that supposedly espouses competition will tolerate no alternative thinking.

 

Andrew Goodall is a professional tax journalist who writes for the Tax Journal. He also has his own blog, which is fast becoming compulsory reading.

Take his latest blog, posted yesterday. As he put it:

This extract from Robert Peston’s blog appeared in Tax Journal news (29 March):

Press watch: ‘Big business and Treasury capture government’

‘It looks to me like the triumph of big business – or rather the triumph of the Treasury’s view of what big businesses need and want … it is trebly true of the cut in the top rate of income tax, the accelerated reductions in corporation tax and the reform of taxation for multinationals based here (the controlled foreign company rules).

‘Now many of these policies have been desired by the official Treasury for years: they were developed under the last Labour government as required to improve the competitiveness of the British economy but are only now being implemented by this coalition.

‘Some of the measures, such as on corporation tax, can be identified with the personal preferences of George Osborne, but most pre-date him. So, to use the jargon of the City, there has been a reverse takeover of the government by the gents (yes they are mostly of that gender) of the Treasury, the officials not the elected politicians.’

Robert Peston, Business Editor, BBC News (27 March)

Peston was not the only leading commentator to question the direction of UK corporation tax policy after the Budget. Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator at the Financial Times, wrote in his column ‘A Budget without economic significance’ (21 March):

‘Vastly more dubious are the cuts in corporation tax … Zero-sum competition among governments to attract mobile headquarters cannot make sense. Nor is there any reason to suppose the fiscal and economic benefits will be large. Meanwhile, the reduction in corporate tax will encourage retentions over distributions, while doing nothing to raise investment. A far more sensible proposal would be to increase investment incentives and maintain – or even raise – headline rates. The broad aim would be to make the system neutral between retentions and distributions while encouraging investment, which is extraordinarily low.’

Two years ago politicians argued that ‘Britain should try to wean itself off financial services and rediscover honest manufacturing and small and medium-sized enterprise’, according to a leader in The Economist (24 March). But the Budget ‘sends a different signal’, The Economist said. What the country is good at is ‘financial services and luring foreign investment; in short, milking globalisation’.

Does dependence on financial services justify further cuts in corporation tax for the biggest companies? And if the UK and other major economies were to engage in a corporation tax race to the bottom … what then?

I won’t borrow one again – but this gives some evidence of Andrew’s style.

I recommend it.

 

Ha-Joon Chang has a great article in the Guardian this morning. In it he points out that South Korea – his country – is the model of what capitalism should deliver. There’s been massive growth and, as he notes:

The country is, per capita, the third most innovative in the world, after Japan and Taiwan, when measured by the number of patents granted by the US patent office. It has one of the world’s highest university enrolment ratios, and schoolchildren who rank in the top five in virtually all standardised international tests.

It’s also after Hungary the second most unhappy place in the OECD. Why: There’s little welfare. There is massive job insecurity. Financial deregulation means investment is falling an debt is rising. The pressure ion children to perform with no promise of work to follow is ruining childhoods. A weak medical system means ill health can destroy families.

As he concludes:

The sad tale of my country should serve as a salutary warning to Britain and other European countries that are embarking on major cuts to welfare. They believe that such cuts will reduce budget deficits and make their economies more productive by making people compete more vigorously. However, the Korean story shows that insecurity actually makes people less, not more, productive, and also desperately unhappy. Surely, that is not what they want.

Well, actually, you’d think that’s exactly what our politicians want right now. If you listened to my local MP, far-right Tory Liz Truss, you’d think if only we could sack anyone at will all the world’s problems would be solved, but that’s about a step removed from economic insanity and is certainly closely linked to callousness.

Of course, what we really need is a Courageous State. That would deliver exactly what the people of Korea have not got. And what the people of Bradford West have not got either.