Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

The economy after the epidemic

There is now talk about the need for a widespread period of austerity after the economic shock of the epidemic. Such a policy could not be more wrong. It is exactly what is not required. Those who advocate it could not be more wrong. It is time to think outside the box which has constrained economic thinking since 1945. Keynesian theory identified what he called ‘shortage of aggregate demand’. Wages are apparently too low to enable people to purchase everything that they produce. If you stop and think about that, it is an absurd proposition, but leave it to one side for the moment.

From 1945 until 1974 the ‘solution’ was monetary expansion, which gave rise to accelerating inflation, a housing price bubble (in reality a land price bubble) and a crash, precipitated by the oil crisis. Recovery eventually occurred by bank deregulation, which resulted in another land price bubble and the crash of 1992. Further expansion of credit generated a recovery of sorts, resulting in a third land price bubble and the crash of 2008. This was eventually addressed by quantitative easing, ie more expansion of debt, which has kept the land price bubble inflated, now disguised under the label of ‘asset bubble’. The financial system is fundamentally unstable; the coronavirus epidemic just dislodged the house of cards.

The apparent shortage of aggregate demand was, long before Keynes, identified as the supply-side blockage caused because the land market is dysfunctional. Rents and land prices never fall to market-clearing levels, as is obvious from the forest of estate agents’ boards to be seen in most town centres and industrial estates around the country. Given that no business can operate without suitable premises and that a major constraint on is the limitations of those premises and lack of availability of better, it should not be hard to understand that dysfunctionality of the land market is a constraint.
A further issue is the shape of the tax system, with its focus on labour-related taxation; these taxes are in reality a burden on employers and are an important reason why wages cannot drop to market-clearing levels. Here we have a second supply-side blockage.

Getting the economy back on course is in principle simple: it is a matter of mobilising resources as quickly as possible. The easiest way to do this is for governments to inject the money directly into the economy. If the additional money is backed as the Rentenmark was, then there will be no inflation; the Rentenmark, was the monetary device devised by Hjalmar Schacht to stop the hyperinflation of 1922-3, with complete success.

Kommentarer

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

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.

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...

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...