Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

Time to get “Wealth of Nations” off the shelf

As the outlines of the Brexit settlement emerge, it is important to study Adam Smith and break out of mercantilist habits of thought; to keep the focus on IMPORTS as well as EXPORTS. A balance of payments surplus means that there is a net flow of real wealth out of the country. The surplus is other countries’ paper. The EU negotiators are behaving stupidly, in particular, because they ignore the effect that treating the UK as a third country will have on IMPORTS to the EU. Ireland in particular, will be badly hit because the UK is a major source of so many goods. After Brexit, the Irish will suffer as they will either have to pay the EU tariffs or the extra transport costs of bringing goods from continental Europe instead. They will be hit with a price hike. In other EU countries, there will be specific problems as UK products become more expensive and difficult to obtain – for example, Swedish microbreweries like to use UK malted barley.

The best thing that the UK government could do is to announce that it is committed in principle to allowing unrestricted importation of goods from everywhere in the world (including the EU), without waiting for the governments of other countries to reciprocate. I was going to say ‘reciprocate the favour’, but reciprocation is doing their own consumers and manufacturers the favour; they are the ones who want or need UK products – they do not buy them as an act of charity. The only politicians who seem to have been aware of this and understand why are some in the European Research Group. If the principles they advocate are not followed, the UK will not get the most out of Brexit. There are people outside the UK who want to see Brexit succeed and set the example to other countries of the benefits that will come from a return to the British free trade tradition. Waiting for reciprocation is not part of that. If the other countries’ governments do not reciprocate, it’s their own funeral.

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...