Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

Inflation target missed

Inflation was once defined as "undue increase in the quantity of money". Such increases usually occurred when governments resorted to the printing presses. The effect, after a delay of a couple of years, was a generalised increase in all prices.

Nowadays, inflation just means an increase in prices of a basket of goods and services included in some index or other, such as the retail price index or the consumer price index. Governments have a vested interest in choosing an index which shows a low figure, especially as pensions, savings and benefits are linked to the selected figure.

It is unfortunately the case that housing costs have been excluded from the UK indexes for several years. Had they not been, the higher inflation figures revealed now would have shown up long ago. Now those high housing costs were indeed caused by an undue increase in the quantity of money, but it was not money created by government but by the banks. Eventually, this money will be paid back but that will be far into the future. In the meantime, people have borrowed money on the equity of the higher land values pumped up by the banks' easy lending policies. This money is now circulating and will tend to drive up prices generally.

The present round of "inflation" is attributed to higher food and energy costs, but if there was no more money in the system, the prices of other things, including, and principally, land, would be driven down. Thus housing costs should fall, and if these were included in the index, there would be no inflation.

That is in theory. But in practice, land prices are "sticky downwards" - they do not fall in response to falling demand but instead, land (property) is simply held off the market. Under a regime of land value taxation, owners could not afford to do this and would exert themselves in getting land onto the market and into use. In that situation, land values would respond smoothly, upwards or downwards, in response to changing demand and economic conditions. But there is no such system in place.

And so there will be an increase in vacant properties the property market will become sluggish. Since housing-related industry such as refurbishment is important for the economy, all sorts of related businesses will be short of work. This is the way to recession.

A repeat of the "stagflation" of the nineteen-seventies is unavoidable. My hunch is that inflation will be 11% over the next 24 months. How bad the recession will be is still a matter of guesswork, but the the growing gap between energy supply and energy demand is going to have an impact, as is the increasing amount of meat-eating in developing countries, which puts a disproportionate pressure on food supplies and food prices. Expect trouble ahead.

Kommentarer

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

Importing people to sustain demand

I got involved in a discussion with a Youtuber called “Philosophy all along”. This was in connection with criticism of Trump’s policy of deporting illegal migrants, which he argued would be bad for the economy as it would reduce demand. This implies that there is a need to import people to sustain demand. There is no obvious reason why a population should not be able to consume everything that the same population produces. If it can not, then something else is going on. It is a basic principle that wages are the least that workers will accept to do a job. Wages are a share of the value added by workers through their wages. The remainder is distributed as economic rent, after government has taken its cut in taxes. Monopoly profit is a temporary surplus that after a delay gets absorbed into economic rent. Land values in Silicon Valley are an example of this; it's like a gold rush. The miners get little out of it. Rent and tax syphon purchasing power away from those who produce the g...

The dreadfulness of British governance

I wrote to my MP on two entirely separate issues recently. The first was to do with the replacement for the Inter City 125 train, which at £2.6 million per vehicle, is twice as expensive as it ought to be. The second concerned the benefits of a switch from business rate and Council Tax to a tax based on site values. In both cases, the replies were full of spurious, unsubstantiated assertions and completely flawed arguments. This is typical. You will not get an iota of sense from the government on any area of public policy at all - finance, economics, trade and employment, agriculture, housing, health, transport, energy. All junk. If you write to your MP you will invariably receive answers that are an insult to your intelligence, no matter what subject you are writing about. Of course they cannot understand statistics. They are innumerate. Whitehall is staffed with idiots with a high IQ. Look at their IT projects. And mind your purse, they will have that too.

How much more will the British tolerate?

The British are phlegmatic, tolerant and slow to rouse. Thus there was no great reaction after the terrorist attack in July 2005. The murder of Lee Rigby created a sense of outrage, but nothing more, since it appeared to be an isolated incident. Two serious incidents within a fortnight are another matter. Since the first major terrorist incident in 2001, authority has tried to persuade the public that Islam is a religion of peace, that these were isolated events, or the actions of deranged "lone wolves", having nothing to do with Islam, or to reassure that the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were infinitesimally small. These assurances are are beginning to wear thin. They no longer convince. If government does not act effectively, people will take the law into their own hands. What, however, would effective action look like? What sort of effective action would not amount to rough justice for a lot of innocent people? Given the difficulties of keeping large n...