Quote of the day

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

Friday, 10 May 2024

Industrial strategy - pretty much a ready-made essay:

 And have a look at the Chinese factory at the end (via Twitter/X):


Britain doesn’t make enough. We need to reindustrialise to compete

The doubters will say it’s impossible, but look at the range of industries in other developed countries

A man walks past the Alstom train manufacturing facility and factory

After the turbulence of a global pandemic, war in Europe, trouble in the Middle East – and an aborted experiment in Trussonomics – Rishi Sunak has stabilised the economy. Yet the question of longer-term reform lingers. What must Britain do to increase our productivity, prosperity and security in the decades ahead? 

In A Conservative Economy, our new report endorsed by Michael Gove, Gavin Rice and I set out our answer. As part of our Future of Conservatism project based at the think tank Onward, we propose not only radically different policies, but a radically different way of thinking about economic policy itself. 

Consensus economists and politicians see policy in terms of wafer-thin efficiency. Global supply chains are cheaper, therefore better, than local production. Comparative advantage – the idea each country should do what it is good at, and buy the things other countries are good at – is unquestioned. Even though unfettered capitalism has the tendency and power to destroy the non-capitalist public goods it depends upon, markets are deemed unstoppable, immovable forces that must always come first and will indeed always prevail. 

We disagree. While of course free markets are the most efficient way to allocate capital and generate growth, private investment is almost always more effective than state delivery, and widely shared growth is preferable to redistribution as a means of spreading prosperity, we need to think differently about the purpose of policy. 

The nation state provides the best social forum for the promotion of community, good work, solidarity and altruism. It is not a neutral entity to be bought and sold, or made the object of international rent-seeking. Equally we must challenge the idea of maximal economic efficiency – or at least the kind of short-term efficiency sought by consensus policymaking – at any cost. Instead, the objective of policy must be the flourishing of workers, families and communities. 

On these terms – indeed even on its own – our existing economic model is bust. Like in many other Western countries, our growth is sluggish, and wages stagnant. Our birth rate is declining, and immigration is rocketing. Investment is low and productivity is poor. We have trade and budget deficits and a large stock of debt. Our exposure to the bond markets means there are no easy shortcuts, so tax cuts without big spending cuts, or debt-fuelled spending sprees, are off the table. 

At the heart of our problems is a simple truth. We cannot go on consuming and importing more than we produce and export. As the US economist Tyler Cowen noted this weekend, Britain does not make, do or sell enough of that the world needs, nor even enough of what we consume. 

Consensus policymakers insist that the trade deficit does not matter. They say we can make up for it by attracting inward investment instead, since the flow into Britain of foreign capital creates jobs and sustains the currency. But our desperate need for foreigners to buy assets in sterling leads to all sorts of perverse outcomes. 

The capital we attract is not always productivity-improving investment but extraction and rent-seeking: just look at the treatment of the water companies by their foreign owners. And not only with these most egregious examples, we end up with less control over our economy, and owners who are less interested in taking responsibility for recruiting and training local workers, helping to build up local supply chains, or respecting the environment. 

The trade deficit leads to our budget deficit, because to pay for our consumption – unmatched by what we produce – we import the world’s savings. And as we do that, we compound the problem with our unbalanced regional economy. 

While London is a net exporter, much of the foreign capital we seek to compensate for our overall trade deficit gets sucked into the south-east – increasing regional inequality and overheating asset prices where they are already unaffordable for many families. 

Our solution is the reindustrialisation of Britain. Amid the defeatism and intellectual impoverishment of British politics, it is inevitable that many – not least many of those inside the Treasury and Bank of England – will say it cannot be done. But the argument that high-end services are the limit of our comparative advantage, or that we are in the low-growth late stages of development are clearly absurd. From the United States to Switzerland, many Western countries are richer than us, per capita. Almost all have a more diverse range of industries than Britain. 

Now is as good a time as any to pursue reindustrialisation. Global transport costs are high, geopolitical insecurity is a risk, and new technology means we can move production closer to customers. 

Brexit – maligned by consensus policymakers as economically damaging – is already leading to the reformulation of supply chains. 

But we will need to do far more. As our report makes clear, we need internationally competitive industrial energy costs, which means decarbonisation must come after security and affordability in the so-called energy trilemma. 

We need new planning laws with radical zoning policies in the cities and place-based liberalisation to get new infrastructure built. We need more investment, with the profile of public spending shifted, more private saving, and more of our savings directed towards equities not government debt. 

We need tax and regulatory reform to remove disincentives to invest and build. We need to end the addiction to low-skill, low-paid immigration, returning annual net migration to the tens of thousands. 

We need radical changes to the provision of post-eighteen education and training. 

And we need an industrial strategy that maximises our existing strengths, builds up supply chains, encourages high-growth sectors, protects strategically vital industries like steel, and supports industries of importance to specific regions. 

Of course we need other things besides – not least more support for parents and families, and a demographic correction caused by higher birth rates – but for Tories in pursuit of a big idea and a plan to revive the country, we believe this is it.


https://x.com/LoftusSteve/status/1788689047956635658


Wednesday, 8 May 2024

Fiscal Imprudence

 

America’s reckless borrowing is a danger to its economy—and the world’s

Without good luck or a painful adjustment, the only way out will be to let inflation rip

Dollar coins coming out of a purse hole.
illustration: carl godfrey
Listen to this story.
 Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

If prudence is a virtue then America’s budget is an exercise in vice. Over the past 12 months the federal government has spent $2trn, or 7.2% of gdp, more than it has raised in taxes, after stripping out temporary factors. Usually such a vast deficit would be the result of a recession and accompanying stimulus. Today the lavish borrowing comes despite America’s longest stretch of sub-4% unemployment in half a century. The deficit has not been below 3% of gdp, an old measure of sound fiscal management, since 2015, and next year Uncle Sam’s net debts will probably cross 100% of gdp, up by about two-fifths in a decade. Whereas near-zero interest rates once made large debts affordable, today rates are higher and the government is spending more servicing the debt than on national defence.

How has it come to this? The costs of wars, a global financial crisis and pandemic, unfunded tax cuts and stimulus programmes have all piled up. Both Republicans and Democrats pay lip service to fiscal responsibility. But the record of each side in office is of throwing caution to the wind as they indulge in extra spending or tax cuts. The biggest economic decision facing the next president is how generously to renew Donald Trump’s tax cuts of 2017, a step that will only worsen America’s dire fiscal trajectory.

chart: the economist

This profligacy cannot go on for ever—at some point, interest costs will rise to intolerable levels. The binge must therefore come to an end in some combination of three ways.

The least painful is that good fortune comes to the rescue. Until recently, falling global real interest rates contained the cost of servicing debts even as these grew in size. Today Japan just about manages with net debts about half as big again as America’s, relative to gdp, thanks to near-zero rates. If inflation is defeated and real interest rates fall back from their present highs, America could be off the hook, too. Another source of relief could be productivity growth. If it surges, say because of artificial intelligence, America could outgrow its debts.

Yet good luck cannot be assumed. The most responsible way for politicians to end the budget binge would be to correct course as the interest bill rises. The imf estimates that America will need to cut spending, excluding debt interest, or raise taxes by 4% of gdp to stabilise its debts by 2029. It has managed a similar adjustment before, between 1989 and 2000, when “bond vigilantes” were said to have cowed Washington into submission.

The trouble is that the circumstances were then well-suited to belt-tightening. The end of the cold war yielded a peace dividend: falling defence spending accounted for fully 60% of the fiscal adjustment. As a share of the population the labour force climbed to an all-time high. A real-wage boom made the pain of higher taxes more bearable. But today war and rising global tensions are pushing defence spending up and baby-boomers are retiring in droves.

That leaves the third and most worrying option: making creditors pay. America would never be forced by the markets to default, because the Federal Reserve can act as a buyer of last resort. Fiscal laxity could cause inflation, though, which would mean bondholders and savers taking a big real-terms hit.

One way this could happen is if a populist like Mr Trump were to take control of the Fed. His advisers have floated ideas for influencing monetary policy that include appointing a pliant chairman and giving Congress oversight of interest rates. Mr Trump likes low rates; if they were combined with a growing deficit, inflation would surge.

Even if the Fed kept its independence, it could become impotent if Congress allowed debt to rise without limit. When the government’s response to rising interest rates is to borrow still more to service its debts, then tight money can stoke inflation rather than containing it—a feedback loop with which Latin America is all too familiar and which mavericks say is already under way in America. Their doomsaying is premature, but higher rates can feed into the budget very quickly. After accounting for the Fed’s balance-sheet, the median dollar of debt is on a fixed interest rate only until June 2025.

A less stable America would cause pain at home because of higher interest rates, more uncertainty and an arbitrary redistribution from creditors to debtors. But the costs would also be felt globally. The dollar is the world’s reserve currency. Through it America provides a unique service: a supply of plentiful assets backed by a vast economy, the rule of law, deep capital markets and an open capital account. No other asset can perform this role today. Even if the dollar attracted a risk premium to compensate for the danger of inflation, the world would probably have to keep using it.

A world whose reserve currency was being debased, however, would be a poorer one. Capital would be more expensive everywhere; the global financial system would be less efficient; and investors would be on a constant search for a viable alternative to the greenback, with the threat of a chaotic transition if one ever emerged. America’s fiscal mess is home-made. But make no mistake: it is the whole world’s problem. 

Tuesday, 7 May 2024

Innovation in the UK

 

British driverless car start-up Wayve raises $1bn

Company backed by SoftBank, Nvidia and Microsoft
Alex Kendall co-founded Wayve in a garage in Cambridge in 2017
Alex Kendall co-founded Wayve in a garage in Cambridge in 2017
SIMON JACOBS FOR THE TIMES

Wayve, a British driverless car company, has raised over a billion dollars from three of the world’s most influential tech companies to commercialise its products.

Led by investor SoftBank, with contributions from Nvidia and Microsoft, the funds will help develop the start-up’s artificial intelligence software, which can make any vehicle hands-free.

It is the biggest venture investment to date in a European AI start-up.

The $1.05 billion series C funding round could value the London headquartered company at several billion dollars, although the business and investors would not discuss the figures.

Wayve was founded in 2017 by Cambridge University PhD students Alex Kendall, 31, and Amar Shah in a garage. The pair, who researched machine learning, computer vision and robotics, wanted to explore a different approach to developing driverless cars.

Rather than feeding computers rules to account for every driving eventuality, its technology “teaches” autonomous vehicles how to drive, using videos and data from real life, collected by partners including Asda and Ocado.

This means vehicles can navigate any environment they are in and are more responsive to the unexpected occurrences which happen while driving, such as someone running out into the road or another vehicle swerving.

• Cambridge helps academics take punt on commercialising research

“It is general purpose driving intelligence, agnostic to a specific vehicle or domain,” Kendall said. “There’s work to get it integrated into vehicles, and we’re working with a number of leading car companies to make that possible.”

Part of the challenge is teaching autonomous vehicles about consequences “to understand the implications of their decisions. How pedestrians and cyclists might react to our behaviour and vice versa, making sure that we understand how scenarios are going to unfold so that we can behave in a way that’s safe”.

Kendall added: “The funding will allow us to scale up these capabilities and take it from a demonstration to a proven and robust product. It’s pretty magic to have the opportunity to take technology we’ve developed and get it shipped around the world. Not many deep technology companies get to do that”.

Inside the boot, the cars have a computer, about the same size as the tower of a desktop computer. The rest of the “brain” is behind the dashboard, and there are six cameras around the edge of the car which allows it to “see” where it is going.

Reflecting on the company’s early days Suranga Chandratillake, a partner at Balderton Capital and one of Wayve’s first investors, said: “They were a smart team in a sleepy university city, cracking a seemingly intractable problem with next to no money. It was a compelling, contrarian concept. Exactly what everyone in venture capital dreams of discovering”.

Human error is a contributing factor in 88 per cent of road collisions with distractions such as mobile phones among the causes of accidents
Human error is a contributing factor in 88 per cent of road collisions with distractions such as mobile phones among the causes of accidents
GETTY IMAGES

Kentaro Matsui, managing partner at SoftBank Investment Advisers, who has taken a seat on Wayve’s board as part of the investment, said Masayoshi Son, SoftBank’s founder, was personally involved: “We have a vision of a peaceful world, free from traffic accidents. Once we learnt that we shared a common vision, our team members and Masa were excited and felt we needed to help. We are very proud that we are taking part in this effort.”

The company complements others in the investor’s portfolio, which reads: “Ride hailing, mapping, telematics, we have so many companies in this sector. We also have an extensive network of technology companies and we are already making introductions to help accelerate its growth.”

Wayve has offices in London, California and Vancouver and employs 290 people, its headquarters are in Kings Cross, London,which has become a magnet for some of the world’s leading AI companies including Google DeepMind and Meta.

The company has many high-profile backers including Yann LeCun, Meta’s chief scientist, Ilya Sutskever, OpenAI’s chief scientist, and Sir Richard Branson. Shah left the business in 2019.

It has steadily raised capital over the past five years, with a series A round of $20 million in 2019 and a series B round in 2022 of $200 million, both led by Eclipse with other investors including Balderton, Ocado, D1 Capital Partners and Virgin.

Partnering with Microsoft and Nvidia gives the company access to the computer power necessary to process vast amounts of data. Kendall said: “The scale of infrastructure you need just goes far beyond anything we’ve seen in the AI space so far.”

Kendall, who hails from New Zealand, is “a once in a generation brain”, Chandratillake said. “He could have stayed in academia, drawing equations on a board, instead he has become an amazing leader, building a world-changing business”.

Wayve’s cars, marked “vehicle under test, keep your distance” are able to drive around London’s roads, with a safety driver behind the wheel. They are yet to have an incident, the company says.

There is growing optimism about the future of autonomous vehicles which could be on UK roads as soon as 2026, Mark Harper, the transport secretary, has said. The Automated Vehicles (AV) Bill announced in the King’s speech in November, set out a legal and safety framework for the technology and is currently in the final stages, before it reaches royal assent.

Last year, Elon Musk changed his strategy to adopt the same method as Wayve at Tesla, collecting vast amounts of driving data into a supercomputer called Dojo. Other competitors include Waymo, owned by Alphabet, and Mobileye.

In the US, robotaxis already operate in Phoenix, Los Angeles, Las Vegas and San Francisco, although not without incident. In November Cruise, owned by General Motors pulled all of its automated vehicles from the road after a pedestrian was dragged by a car.

The UK government believes driverless cars could cut road deaths and injuries by lessening those caused by people who drive drunk, speed or use mobile phones at the wheel, for example. Official statistics show that human error is a contributing factor in 88 per cent of road collisions.

“Ultimately it is this technology that will drive road accidents and road deaths close to zero,” Kendall said.

Cambridge is not invested in the business.

Rishi Sunak, the prime minister, said: “I’m incredibly proud that the UK is the home for pioneers like Wayve. We already have the third highest number of AI companies and private investment in AI in the world, and this announcement anchors the UK’s position as an AI superpower.”

A surreal, blood-pressure rocketing experience — but great fun

Alex Kendall and Katie Prescott, who went for a ride in a Wayve car on the streets of London
Alex Kendall and Katie Prescott, who went for a ride in a Wayve car on the streets of London
SIMON JACOBS FOR THE TIMES

Driving in London is a nightmare. So I get into the passenger seat of Wayve’s automated Jaguar iPace with more than a little trepidation, unsure how I feel about letting a computer navigatethe dangers of our chaotic, crowded capital (Katie Prescott writes).

My life is in the hands of artificial intelligence; the brain is software stored on computers in the glove compartment and boot while the eyes are cameras fixed around the car’s body. There is nothing artificial about Darren, the safety driver sitting next to me; a stipulation of letting the car loose. His hands hover under the steering wheel, resolutely not touching it.

As we set off into the rainy roads around King’s Cross, the wheel eerily turns by itself which takes a while to get used to. The car niftily negotiates a narrow lane between a set of roadworks and a lorry — the sort which would prompt my father to say “breathe in!”.

The car behaves in a strangely human-like way. It moves with confidence through the red and white barriers filtering the road to one lane and then slows at the traffic lights, before smoothly taking off at green. Darren is still just sitting there, no hands.

“Idiot!”I can’t help but shout, as a man opens his car door in front of us, an occurrence which feels even more alarming than usual. The Jaguar gently swerves past.

Then my stomach lurches a man stumbles off the electric bike he’s trying to rent, into the road ahead. I stamp my foot onto an invisible brake but our car nips round him with confidence.

The whole experience is surreal and great fun. Yes, this short journey of hazard spotting sent my blood pressure rocketing, but the car proved itself capable of staying safe — an improvement on many drivers you see on London roads, though I’m not sure how I’d feel without Darren’s poised hands.