As the FT has reported this morning:
Higher inflation caused by the Iran war will cut the real-terms value of UK public spending by £24bn by the end of the decade, forcing chancellor John Healey to make tough choices to keep debt in check and fund new policy commitments, an influential think-tank has warned.
They added:
The National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR) said the energy price shock was set to push inflation up to a peak of 3.8 per cent in early 2027, with the Bank of England returning it to 2 per cent only in 2029.
Almost every aspect of this report is depressing.
The whole premise of this think tank's work is the belief that because there is a war in the Gulf over which we have no control the UK government must cut its spending budgets in real terms because it is believed inevitable that the Bank of England must increase interest rates in the UK to counter inflation and that government borrowing costs will rise as a result and so, to comply with arbitarty fiscal rules regulating debt ratios, other elements of government spending must be cut.
That is presumed to be the case although there is no link whatsoever between UK interest rates and any change to the cost of oil resulting from that conflict, meaning that the change in the Bank of England base interest rate giving rise to those additional government borrowing costs will not in any way alter the rate of UK inflation, unless it is to increase it by increasing the cost of money itself.
This also assumes that UK debt must be contained even though there is no evidence that this is necessary, most especially when the risk of a recessionary environment exists.
As an example of the profound poverty of thinking that pervades so much of modern economics, this is a perfect example. Two uncorrelated activities, war and UK interest rates, are related in a way that is deliberately construed as creating a requirement to cut the level of spending that the UK government can undertake solely because it is assumed that entirely arbitrary inflation and debt targets must be achieved.
The reality is that external cost adjustments must, as a matter of fact, work their way through our economy, with wages and prices being allowed to adjust as a consequence. No interest rate adjustment is required as a result.
Nor is there any change in government spending required, because the fiscal rule that says this is necessary is itself entirely arbitrary and inconsequential for absolutely anyone but those economists who have made it into a false idol, and the politicians who declare it to be a sign of their virility.
What this report is, then, saying is that because we have set meaningless inflation targets and debt targets, and couple these to a wholly incorrect understanding of how to manage inflation created by activity beyond the UK economy, the government must impose additional voluntary costs upon itself by increasing its interest expenditure. That additional cost will benefit those with wealth in the economy whilst requiring cuts to government expenditure, which will both harm those who are dependent upon government services and simultaneously depress economic activity within this country in a way that can only assist the onset of recession, which is a risk that the increased oil prices that we know we face will, in any event, create.
What we end up with, therefore, is a set of economists who are quite unable to work out the real linkages, needs and demands of the economy in which we actually live, who are demanding, on the basis of their artificial constructs, that we voluntarily punish most of the people of this country because of events over which they have no control, whilst simultaneously benefiting a few whilst leaving the country as a whole worse off.
Why is this depressing?
That's because this is the perfect example of incredibly poor economic thinking creating bad economic outcomes by deliberate design because of the inability of those promoting these ideas to imagine any alternative to the false mantras that they have created.
If the NIESR gets its way, we will have a worse recession than we already risk facing. That would be a policy choice, not a necessity. That is why this is depressing.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Are economists or the think tanks that employ them too stupid to work out that the consequences of their approach will impact on them, potentially no job.
Or do they believe that they will be immune from the austerity they preach because the small state billionaires will keep funding them?
Do they think?
Might a comment from Ai Overview be of interesr/relevance?
”Depressing the economy can benefit the wealthy by lowering asset prices, weakening labour power, and increasing market control.”
What might be the contexts and unstated purposes of “official” economic sources?
Quite. The problem is that this line about the need to raise interest rates and cut government spending will be repeated throughout the media – including the BBC and accepted without question so people will think its both necessary and inevitable. It will also have the effect of dampening peoples spending activity and inducing less economic activity!
Correct
“an influential think-tank has warned.”
I was reminded of Baldwin’s comments on newspapers in the 1920s. One could equally apply “power without responsibility” to “think-tanks” (oxymoron? “a-tank-full-of-morons” or harlot’s? take your pick)
“…………..What are their methods? Their methods are direct falsehoods, misrepresentation, half-truths, the alteration of the speaker’s meaning by publishing a sentence apart from the context…What the proprietorship of these papers is aiming at is power, and power without responsibility – the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.”
A bit unfair to harlots!
The BBC has a piece on the NIESR titled ‘Burnham has no scope to increase borrowing, think tank warns’ To quote ‘Stephen Millard, Niesr’s deputy director for macroeconomics, said: “There’s clearly no scope for increasing borrowing, so it is about choices.”…”The triple lock on pensions, that is very, very expensive, and will get more expensive as we age.” Something in defence of it or a better pension system would be timely. (Will have a blog search in due course!)
They undoubtedly write as they did to secure such outcomes.
These people are not neutral.
To rework a comment a reviewer of a biography of MacMillan made about him, is there an economist or think tank member with sufficient wit about them to prevent them and their profession from ending up hung from lamposts by the mob?
Ow.
You will get in trouble saying that
Totally agree Richard! Its almost as if there is a deliberate plan to drive us all into the ground with constantly depressing news! Just a quick note connected with the energy crisis caused by the Iran War. You recently reiterated your warning of the dire consequences, even while some are doubting it will get any worse.
I recently watched this YouTube video which argues that the only reason it hasn’t already happened is thanks to China quietly saving the world, by reducing its own oil demand rapidly. The piece also explains a few reasons why they have done so. I found it quite a compelling argument and wondered whether you had heard it yourself already… https://youtu.be/BkA0bkb6ZO0?is=cIyl9h4btXgMydJb
Regards…Bob
Bob
The argument is good, but short term. The war is not over – the missiles flew last night – so this will not finally solve the porblem. But it has deferred it, I agree.
Richard
“Arbitarty fiscal rules”. I love it. Forgive me but I will refer to them that way always!
Do!