Quote of the day

“I find economics increasingly satisfactory, and I think I am rather good at it.”– John Maynard Keynes

Thursday 29 February 2024

Some ideas to consider (for the Budget Challenge final)

 I do mean consider - the writer loves to challenge the consensus but be wary of lifting anything wholesale; it is the general drift that is relevant:


The ‘greedy good’ are destroying Britain’s economy

Liz Truss is right – wokeonomics is destroying the West

Britain's former Prime Minister Liz Truss speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC)
Former PM claims the establishment does not want things to change because it benefits from the status quo CREDIT: Amanda Andrade-Rhoades/Reuters

The Office for Budget Responsibility and the Bank of England were against her. The quangos were intent on sabotaging her plans. And civil service set itself against her plans, as did the IMF and even US President Joe Biden.

Liz Truss did not mince her words in her speech to the CPAC in the United States this week, blaming the “deep state” for blocking her attempt to drag the British economy out of stagnation. 

Sure, Truss bears part of the blame for her own failure. The timing and presentation of the mini-Budget, and more pertinently the huge energy bills support package, gave financial markets fright. But she is also on to something.

The “wokenomics” she called out in her speech is fatally undermining the economy. Until we find a way to fix that, we will never get back to the 2pc-plus growth rates we surely need if we are to have any hope of maintaining our standard of living. 

It was a more sympathetic audience than one she is likely to find in the UK anymore. In her speech in Maryland, Truss took apart the forces that, in her view, blew up her short Premiership. 

“There’s a whole bunch of people – and I describe them as the economic establishment – who fundamentally don’t want the status quo to change because they’re doing quite fine out of it. They don’t really care about the prospects of the average person in Britain and they didn’t want things to change and they didn’t want that power taken away.” 

In short, the lesson she has learnt from her short time in office is that the “deep state”, as the Americans call it, was so horrified by the assault on its privileges that it was actively working to undermine her.

True, it might be self-serving, and the reality may be more nuanced, but in fact Truss is making a valid point. 

In the 18 months since spineless Tory backbenchers evicted her from office, her fundamental point about Britain’s miserable growth rate has become more and more glaringly obvious to everyone. 

The idea that simply stabilising the economy with tax rises to balance the books would restore growth has been exposed as a complete sham. Instead we have destroyed incentives with huge increases in tax rates, but we have still collapsed into a recession, with a shrinking labour force, and miserable levels of investment. 

With an economy that is now incapable of any meaningful expansion, we are trapped in a doom loop of rising taxes, huge deficits, rising welfare bills, and stagnant real wages. 

When Labour takes power, as it inevitably will, that will become even more entrenched. It is hard to see that we would have been much worse off if we had stuck to the Truss growth plan from the Autumn of 2022, even if sterling was a lot lower against the dollar. At least by now, there might have been some glimmers of a revival.  

The core point is this. There is an economic establishment committed to “wokenomics” that runs from the civil service, to the major corporations, to quangos and think tanks, and takes in central banks and, perhaps surprisingly, the financial markets as well. Collectivism dominates all of those institutions. 

We can see it in the central banks, not least the Bank of England, that printed vast quantities of money and slashed interest rates, inflating asset bubbles while ignoring their basic duty to regulate the markets effectively. 

We can see it in the fiscal watchdogs that are now largely in charge of policy despite their abysmal record on forecasting any further than lunchtime, and which refuse to acknowledge that tax cuts can stimulate growth. 

We can see it as well in the think tanks that constantly argue for higher and more complex taxes without ever acknowledging that it might be the money that the state already takes out of people’s pockets that is destroying incentives and growth. 

It has infected the private sector just as seriously as the public. The major corporations that dominate the FTSE 100, driven by activists and “environmental, social and governance” (ESG) rule books and targets, seem now to be more focused on political activism than on building new factories, launching new products, or delivering better returns for their shareholders. 

In return, the state increasingly shelters them from competition, labelling it as “unfair” and protecting the quasi-monopoly profits that allow executives to award themselves huge pay packets without any of the entrepreneurship or innovation that might justify those rewards. 

And the financial markets, dominated by banks and brokers that are dependent on central bank decisions for cheap financing, and make most of their money financing vast state deficits, impose ESG standards on any companies that risk defying them. Meanwhile they dismiss tax cuts as “unfunded” and “unsustainable” and sell the currency of any government that tries to break away from the suffocating big state, high regulation consensus. 

It is a toxic mix, and one that now makes any form of genuine expansion more or less impossible, especially for an ageing developed country with a huge welfare state to support such as Britain. 

At a certain point the UK will have to take on this anti-growth coalition. For now, it remains in the ascendancy, and over the coming five years the Starmer government will make it ever more powerful. 

It shouldn’t be impossible to challenge that, but it will mean replacing much of the upper ranks of the civil service, stripping quangos such as the OBR of their power, reforming a moribund central bank, and stopping activist lawyers and judges from blocking developments, while backing entrepreneurs and disrupting markets through deregulation. 

Until that happens, however, we will be stuck with pitiful growth and rising taxes – and nothing is going to change that simple fact. 

Saturday 24 February 2024

Supply side - red tape

 Good examples and analysis of red tape issues is hard to come by; it is often talked of but where are the data? Here, apparently:

Saturday 10 February 2024

Great article on the dangers of protectionism

 


author-image
COMMENT

Donald Trump’s plan for tariffs is a wrecking ball for the WTO

Would-be president’s proposals threaten economic harm and the unravelling of a rules-based order

The Times
Share
Save

Donald Trump as president took the United States in a clear protectionist direction. Imposing new tariffs on friends and foes, his mercantilist “America First” doctrine manifested in a laborious renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada, new tariffs on steel and aluminium and a trade war entailing tariffs on over $250 billion of Chinese goods.

Regrettably, Joe Biden largely maintained Trump’s policies, judging them popular. Yet that’s merely fuelled Trump’s desire to up the protectionist ante. Should he defeat Biden and become president again in November, Trump now threatens 60 per cent tariffs or higher on all Chinese imports and a minimum 10 per cent universal tariff worldwide. This combination doesn’t just threaten economic chaos; it’s a wrecking ball aimed at the pillars of the World Trade Organisation.

The quintupling of the average tariff on China is most striking, particularly given the failures of the first foray. Economic research finds the present China tariffs were borne overwhelmingly by American consumers, not Chinese exporters. David Autor, the prominent economist, and his co-authors recently showed, too, that the tariffs didn’t create jobs in protected sectors but sacrificed them in American agriculture after Chinese retaliation.

While modest goods tariffs have a limited aggregate impact on a services-led economy, a 60 per cent rate is huge. Companies adjusted to Trump’s (and Biden’s) tariffs by assembling goods with critical Chinese parts in third countries such as Vietnam, but a costly 60 per cent tariff makes intolerable the risk of Trump introducing “rules of origin” regulations to thwart this workaround. That uncertainty could compel industries to completely sever China’s critical role in supply chains, triggering a substantial, costly global supply shock.

That’s before the retaliatory fallout. “This policy would be a violation of a basic rule of the WTO, the most favoured nation rule of non-discrimination, which prohibits discrimination between and among products imported from other WTO members,” James Bacchus, a former US trade representative, told me. The 60 per cent rate also clearly exceeds many of America’s pledged WTO tariff ceilings. The United States thus would become legally susceptible to China slashing trade concessions for American exporters, costing billions more in trade disruption.

Mitigating this havoc by removing trade barriers with other allies — so-called friendshoring — isn’t on Trump’s radar, either. He plans to scrap even Biden’s largely symbolic “Indo-Pacific Economic Framework”, mockingly branding it “TPP 2.0,” a throwback to the Trans-Pacific Partnership from which America withdrew while Trump was in office.

Meanwhile, his blanket 10 per cent global tariff idea, far above the existing 2.2 per cent US average, shatters any myth that he’s merely responding to “unfair” foreign practices or defending “national security”. Instead, this regressive tax will both unpick existing US free trade agreements and breach tariff maximums to which America has committed.

The inevitable consequence not only would be increased input costs for American manufacturers and consumers, but also lengthy disputes and appeals, involving years of WTO consultations and rulings. US stonewalling of jurist appointments for the WTO Appellate Body from Trump onwards means that even clear violations by America will then be subject to appeals by the US until they are pushed into a legal void, with the WTO powerless to enforce lawful sanctions.

Donald Trump intends to step up his trade confrontation with the rest of the world if he is successful in regain the US presidency
Donald Trump intends to step up his trade confrontation with the rest of the world if he is successful in regain the US presidency
ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES

Here’s where things could really break down. While countries with US free trade agreements could file successful complaints, “many other countries value playing by the rules and would ideally like to have a ruling by an international tribunal before retaliating”, Simon Lester, of WorldTradeLaw, told me, “but they may decide not to wait for that and just retaliate immediately. If the US isn’t going to play by the rules, why should they?”

It’s a good question. Under Trump and Biden, the US has stretched and flouted international trade law. Trump’s new tariffs threaten not merely economic harm but the unravelling of a rules-based order that relies on good faith sovereign buy-in.

Ryan Bourne holds the R Evan Scharf chair for the Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute