economics – Page 2 – davelevy.info

On Labour’s industrial policy

a factory billowing smoke into a cloudy sky

I wrote an article on Industrial Policy which was published in Chartist Magazine. In the article, I try to describe the white paper, and probably my conclusion is best summarised with this quote, which I lifted from an article in this blog,

The big unasked question is whether investment/innovation industrial policies can work. Some economists including Meadway, Graeber, Dillow and Edgerton question the effectiveness of industrial policy, especially that aimed at innovation and start-ups, not least because of the need to combat climate change. Meadway & Graeber argue that the climate crisis is or should be changing the nature of the questions of economics. Dillow argues that the multiplier effect of investment is low and that identifying the successful future is too hard. Edgerton argues that the goal of policy should be a better life, not more jobs and that investment needs to be directed at health and education, both of which can offer comparative advantage.

I also comment in my review of the Autumn statement. …

Macro-, Welfare and Hero-voters

Rachel Reeves in front of No 10/1 with a red box

Why are Labour yet again looking at the DWP budgets? The reasons are based on the wrong macro-economic theory but also on political values and electoral strategy.

There are 2½ theories on how the economy works. The first is neo-Keynesianism which understands that a national economy is unlike a household, policy focuses on expanding demand, usually by focusing on exports or investment. The second theory is quantitative monetary theory (QMT) which focuses on money supply and interest rates. Labour’s leadership have chosen the latter but the Labour government’s desire to squeeze Social Security otherwise known as welfare budgets is based on a mean puritanism and should be condemned and opposed.

The fear of inflation by both the Parties and the markets are seen as a constraint on public finances, but inflation is either demand pull or cost push. If not caused by external factors, QMT believes in increasing the interest rates to take money out of the economy and reduce demand, Keynesianism’s response is to increase taxes. Recent inflation has been caused by external shocks and as such could be ameliorated by a more interventionist energy pricing cap.

The ”Golden Fiscal Rule” of Corbyn’s leadership was designed to protect investment, not the deficit.

Progressives should be arguing that the deficit is not a constraint on government activity, not that we will fund that deficit with wealth taxes. Wealth taxes are necessary as part of “from each according to their ability” and both Income/wealth equity and the business cycle stabilisers require a guaranteed decent benefit floor. More equal societies grow better, so it is right that we implement wealth taxes and maintain benefit levels, but this is because it’s the right thing to do, not to fund the expenditure.

Another failure in the growth strategy though is that Labour are not investing in Higher Education or research nor in social/commercial structures to encourage the adoption of technology and of course, the elephant in the room for inward foreign investment and import/export is Brexity and the European Union.

On electoral strategy, in his article in the Express of all places, Andy Twelves says, “There’s a deep-rooted misconception in British politics. The belief that winning elections depends on endlessly chasing voters who are fundamentally sceptical of you.”. This would seem this is true, but in the words of Capt. Blackadder, “there’s one problem with this theory”, and it also didn’t work in 2024. The Labour Party is continuing its so-called strategy of courting “hero voters” who are polled as not wanting to pay for those they see as feckless. Again, it is a task for progressives is to defend universal benefits, it’s the right thiong to do and a positive contribution to economic growth.

Image: from free malaysia today Licence: Attribution 4.0 International CC BY 4.0 …

Win/Lose vs Win/Win & Trump

I was pointed at an article on Trump's negotiating style, ,and was advised, that, "Everybody I know should read this accurate and enlightening piece...". It is probably the best, most cogent and elegantly simple explanation into the inexplicably destructive negotiating processes of the President, by Prof. David Honig of Indiana University. Fore the original article, use the "Read More" button ...

The Draghi report on European competitiveness.

I have been trying to get on top of whether the Draghi Report on European economic competitiveness is really a game changer. Without study it seems to be a call for more EU (as opposed to member state debt. I am of the view that within the UK, there needs to be transfer union i.e. that borrowing and wealth from London needs to be shared with other parts of the country.

I found this article from the FT, which is headlined, “Europe can learn fiscal lessons from the UK on how to achieve its goals”, and subtitled, “ A co-ordinated reform agenda is crucial if the EU is serious about becoming a climate leader and geopolitical player”, written by Draghi. On diigo, I highlighted the following lines,

The UK government has chosen to significantly raise public investment over the next five years and has adopted precise rules to ensure that borrowing is used only to fund this investment. … Moreover, in order to ensure the quality of spending, transactions will be validated by independent authorities.

To which I reply, “Of course Draghi would argue for independence. The near cultish following with which his recent comments have been greeted is based on the desire by politicians and capitalists to ensure the macroeconomic policy and regulation is outsourced to non-democratic agencies. Central bankers underestimate the ability of democracies to present a wisdom of crowds, even on investment decisions. An example of this is the EU’s horizon investment valuation process, which ranks proposals and select winners from a competition. The technocrats and democrats, particularly representative politicians also underestimate the value that citizens assemblies may bring to these decisions.

Draghi continues,

“A more efficient use of Europe’s high private savings rates requires integrating its capital markets. To redirect private investment from mature industries to more advanced sectors will hinge on completing the single market. … innovative firms in fast-growing sectors such as digital services will not be able to scale up and attract capital. And, as a result, investment will remain locked in old technologies.”

Is this true? Perez, whose theories I summarise on my blog, argues that the declining profit of now legacy industries will ensure that investment goes to new innovative industries. Also, like most Draghi is betting on digital services as the driver; Perez’s theories suggest that IT is now reaching its stagnation stage and will be replaced although we maybe in a stage where the political power of legacy capitalism is too powerful to be overcome. This is why corporate lobbying power is so destructive to human progress. …

A budget that “needs improvement” &“exceeds expectations”

The budget headline is a £127bn deficit and current account stabilisation where the Tories had planned further reductions in expenditure. I am on the side of those who say, it’s not too bad and could have been worse. It, in the words of most performance management systems, “Exceeds expectations”, although most of those were set by themselves. There remain some unsolved problems and some risk but I think this response from Jeremy Corbyn and the Green Party misses the mark, it is not austerity light. There's much more, overleaf ...

Are there any public sector efficiencies to find?

In order to prop up the markets, Kier Starmer wrote an article in the FT, once again extolling the need for public sector reform. His article covers more than that, it seeks to address innovation & growth, and public sector reform, yet misses the implications on industrial policy, university investment and local authority services. I explore these themes in more detail overleaf ...

Growth, institutions and Brexit

Several commentators on the UK budget, including the OBR, have suggested but there’s insufficient growth stimulus planed. The OBR predict that the economy will grow slightly less than under previous plans; I don’t know how this can be when the proposed deficit is £89bn. They also however predict that the effect of Brexit his -4% of GDP and yet no one in parliament, except for Ed Davey has mentioned this as a growth opportunity.

The OBR and the Bank of England are both institutions designed to protect economic policy from democratic control. Time to abolish one and reform the other. …

More on growth & debt

The problem with the Truss mini-budget was not that they had an ‘unfunded’ deficit but that there was no mechanism between the deficit and investment. Rich people tend to save and for the deficit to do any social good, the banks would have to lend to investors i.e. entities looking to buy or make capital goods; which they have never done. Private sector domestic investment has usually been funded by retained earnings!

The lesson here is that the markets were not frightened of the deficit, just its purpose.

See also Growth vs public debt management on this blog. …

Growth vs Public Debt management

You don’t have to be a modern monetarist to believe that the UK has a debt crisis. There are a number of well evidenced and widely believed economic theories that support the use of a Government deficit to induce growth which is the surest way to reduce national debt. Those that argue austerity is a choice are bang on the money.

Debt fetishists need to get this, but so do those who argue that we should fund some desirable programme, be it pensioner’s winter fuel allowances, doctor’s recruitment or student debt forgiveness because we can fund a defence budget. How we use and deploy our military is of course a matter of other priorities but arguing we need to accept austerity by applying the cuts elsewhere is ignorant.

Investment led growth requires expenditure in increasing the productive capacity of the techno-economy, although there is some recent writing and research that traditional industrial policy focused on startups and R&D doesn’t work and that looking at public service outcomes is a more effective growth measure. I’d add that investment in labour force skills is another investment which means that University [& FE] funding and student finance should be considered investement, although none of this seems important to this Government who are prioritising reducing the public debt before investment. Housing is not an investment in productivity; the reason for doing this is social, and not based on macroeconoic policy goals.

You can’t grow the economy while reducing the deficit! It works the otherway round. …

Austerity is a choice

Debt fetishists need to get this, but so do those who argue that we should fund some desirable programme, be it pensioners winter fuel allowances, doctor’s recruitment or student debt forgiveness because we can fund a defence budget. How we use and deploy our military is of course a matter of other priorities but arguing we need to accept austerity but applying the cuts elsewhere is ignorant. …