Deconstructing Austerity I. Money

The narrative of austerity as proposed by Osborne and his cronies is that our huge national debt is the responsibility of feckless Labour politicians and their uncontrolled spending. An examination of the data from the Debt Management Office shows clearly that this is nonsense (this is shown in the graphic and discussed in more detail in my paper 'Who Owes Whom?'). The many billions that were spent as an emergency to prop up failing banks and prevent the financial system from crashing are the real explanation for the huge increase in the public debt. Osborne is a liar by omission because he will not discuss whether he would seriously have refused to invest this money and allow cashpoints to seize up.

 

The reality is that under Osborne far more money has been poured into preventing the cardiac arrest of the economy that results from a lack of circulating money. This is the money created through quantitative easing and the difference between it and what was spent by Darling during the crisis is that the QE money was direct credit creation whereas the money spent by Darling was generated through the sale of bonds and hence features in our national debt.

Since 2009 £375 billion has been created directly by the Bank of England and poured into financial institutions. They have greedily hoovered up this money and paid it to shareholders as well as improving their balance sheet position. They have barely loaned any of it to businesses or invested it in the economy, although the government could have used it for such direct investment, as I argued at the time. This explains why the wealthy and those with interests in finance are flourishing while the rest of us are suffering austerity. The £80 billion created for Funding for Lending has similarly not resulted in an increase in debt and has also been kidnapped by the banks rather than being fed into the real economy.

The Treasury bonds that were bought during the quantitative easing programme are still sitting inside the Bank of England presumably with a big label saying 'do not touch'. If they were to be cancelled, which they could be since they are IOUs issued on our behalf, nearly a third of our national debt would be wiped out in an instant. What a marvellous way of reducing the burden of austerity - or not depending on your political objectives.

These are political choices and hence the narrative of austerity politics that there is no alternative is simply a lie. Darling could have created money directly to save the banks; Osborne could create money directly now for investment in a renewable energy transition. Darling's unwillingness to resort to direct credit creation in the early days is hard to fathom and perhaps resulted from a failure of understanding. Osborne's refusal now to engage in any type of monetary policy that would assist the real economy is a consequence of his desire to use the financial crisis to achieve his long-term policy goal of destroying the public sector.

Almost without challenge Osborne portrays himself as the saviour of the economy while Cameron claims deceitfully to have reduced the debt. The national debt is of course still increasing (see the Spectator graphic) and while the deficit is slightly decreasing we're way off Osborne's original projections. However, this is all smoke and mirrors since the Conservatives have no intention and no desire of reducing the national debt: it's far too useful to them politically.

.

Tweet

Austerity Breeds Outrage

Two reports came out on 21st May which was also, incidentally, my birthday. The first was the report of the Environmental Audit Committee's inquiry into the Green Economy. I gave evidence there on behalf of the Green House thinktank, following up on our written evidence. I was in an evidence session with David Powell from Friends of the Earth and a representative of the TUC. It is encouraging that, as well as Green House's evidence, WWF, NEF, and others were clear that a green economy will be one that respects planetary limits and recognises that we must restructure our economy so that it does not rely on perpetual growth.

The Committee chose as its media hook for the report the fact that deregulation is undermining attempts to move towards the green economy, a rather dull angle which failed to arouse much interest. The real political question of our time - whether we can ever or should ever return to growth - was ignored. Perhaps it just seemed too far from the hegemonic idea of the urgent and unassailable need to return to growth as the only solution to our economic woes.

The EAC's report focuses rather on 'current patterns of economic growth', in spite of clear evidence from Tim Jackson about the fact that decoupling growth from resource and energy use is a chimera. However, they did quote at length a list of groups who took a hardline view on growth:

'52. Many saw the Government’s current agenda as focusing too much on growth and too
little on measures to protect the environment and ensure environmental limits are not
breached. David Powell of Friends of the Earth believed that current government policies, including Enabling the Transition, were being presented as “growth first ... let’s try and make it green and anything else we can do is fantastic”. . . We also heard concerns that, without a definition of sustainable development being included within the new planning guidance, proposals to introduce a “presumption in favour of sustainable development” would lead to unsustainable development. RSPB believed greater thought should be given to whether the “continued push for growth is in fact in conflict with prosperity in the longer-term”. The Packaging Federation believed there was little sign that the Government understood a “real danger of a fundamental incompatibility between UK climate change goals and economic growth”. Green House believed that a strategy of export-led growth was incompatible with a green economy as “it relies on lengthy supply chains and hence an extensive use of energy and so contributes to climate change”.'

Our idea of 'transitional growth' was also cited: 'Green House believed that economic growth was only possible in the short-term as part of a transition strategy to move us towards an economy that is in a steady state. Such economic growth would be confined to replacing infrastructure to enable self-reliant economies stabilising the economy within our national resource limits.' And we were quoted as stating that 'because of the “unfeasible nature of the increased efficiencies required and the nature of rebound effects associated with technological improvements”, seeking to decouple economic growth and production from CO2 emissions “is an example of psychological denial”.

Oxfam also gave evidence, which brings me to the second report I wanted to draw attention to: Be Outraged: There are Alternatives, an attack on the present absurd economic policies being followed by Western nations from a group of development economists published by Oxfam. The report states 'that the austerity approach to reducing deficits and debt is counterproductive; it is leading to a downward spiral of incomes and government revenues making it more difficult to reduce the debt and undermining growth prospects.' The report is authoritative and useful in bringing together clearly and critically the consequences of misguided economic policies including: 'More than 10 per cent of European adults are unemployed, up by 50 per cent since 2008. More than one in five- 22% - youth under 25 are unemployed and in some countries over 40%' or 'Top incomes have soared in the UK and US especially: the globe’s richest 1 per cent (61 million people) earn the same as the poorest 56 per cent (3.5 billion)'.

Overall, though, the report is fairly standard Keynesian stuff and, although Oxfam gave evidence to the EAC and devote attention to the structural problems with the growth economy, this line of their work does not seem to join up with their attempts to challenge austerity politics. As the Green Party has found, resolving the tensions between social justice and a steady-state economy is not always easy, but no organisation or research institute that has understood the need to respect planetary limits should now be producing arguments for growth.

Green House is running a personalised campaign to shift the media position on this question: please join us. We are targeting the BBC, on the basis that we pay for them, and because their email addresses are easy: firstname.familyname@bbc.co.uk. Each time you hear the hysterical statement of the universally acknowledged need to return rapidly to growth, please email the person who has made this statement, giving them some links to clear statements of the destructiveness of this position. You can refer to work by Green House, the EAC report, or more broadly the website of CASSE - the Centre for the Advancement of a Steady State Economy.
.

Tweet

It's the System, Stupid!

So the Eurozone is on the brink of slipping back into Recession. The latest growth figures indicate the growing inequality that the single currency is causing between Europe's countries. The quaterly rates of growth range from -1.3% in Hungary to +1.3% in Finland.Meanwhile, annual rates of growth in 2012 compared with the same quarter in 2011 are truly shocking. Greece is showing a contraction of 6.2%, while the Portuguese economy contracted by 2.2%. The Netherlands shrank by 1.3%, while the UK is registering at zero. In the case of Greece, Spain and the countries that are showing disturbing rates of contraction, the austerity measures are the key cause of this. The failure to understand this appears to be wilful stupidity.

The first graphic indicates the relationship between government withdrawal of investment and the failure of growth. We can clearly see the economy take a nose-dive in 2008, then return to stability and slow growth as a result of Labour's stimulus policies, before nose-diving again once the Tories were elected. Do these politicians really not understand, or refuse to understand, the nature of economies as complex system, and the importance of multiplier effects? This refusal is a type of ideological blindness which is devastating all sectors of the UK economy and destroying jobs and livelihoods.

Why is it so easy for politicians to convince voters of this mistaken view of how an economy works? I think the answer lies partly in people's unwillingess to think systemically, and in this it is related to the problem we face as Greens of persuading people to think about ecological systems. As far as the economy is concerned, I have produced two graphics, which I hope help to explain how Osborne and his ilk have the economy completely wrong. We need to encourage people to stretch their minds to seeing the economy as a system, not as a linear series of transactions.

The first graphic represents the Osborne view of economics: a view that was, until recently, accepted as hegemonic by most media outlets. The first assumption of this model is that wealth is only created in the private sector. Tax then removes this wealth and feeds it to the greedy public sector, which destroys it. What remains stimulates consumption-based economic activity. If the money paid via tax to the public sector could be shrunk, as in the right-hand panel, then the private sector would expand and the economy would be more successful.

The second graphic represents the economy as a dynamic system, with public, private and third sectors all interacting. Wealth is generated in private, public and third sectors. Taxation is paid on all economic interactions, and that taxation becomes investment in further activity in all three of the sectors. Conclusion: the way to revive the economy is to increase the circulation of wealth and stimulate greater activity.

This is not a complicated argument, and it requires only a short application of mental effort to realise that the first model is simplistic and wrong. It is some combination of mental laziness and ideological perversion that prevents the majority of European citizens from grasping this - and demanding economic policies that respond to it.

Tweet

Is it the Economy, or is Osborne Stupid?

Now George Osborne has me really worried. We are all used to him misrepresenting how the economy works to score political points: there is no alternative to austerity, no wealth is created in the public sector, and so on. But this morning on the Andrew Marr show he seemed to just plain misunderstand something.

If you watch the beginning of the interview you will hear him make a familiar point about how we are benefiting from low rates of yield on our national debt because of market confidence in the savagery of the austerity policies being imposed. He then seeks to imply that this has a direct link to household finances via the interest rates they pay mortgages, and to growth via the interest businesses pay on loans. But in reality these are connected only indirectly if at all. The Bank of England has set the interest rate at 0.5%, which explains the comparatively low interest rates faced by households and businesses. If there is a connection between this and the yields financiers demand for gilts then I would be glad for a commentator to explain it.

This is precisely why the eurozone countries are in the hole they are in. They can control neither the rate they are charged for their debt, nor the rate at which money is priced, since they have abandond their central Banks and are now subject to the interest rate set by the European Central Bank. In fact, that rate has remained resolutely low as rates charged on Spanish or Greek debt has swung wildly, again illustrating Osborne's error.

The main advantage we have over the countries of the Eurozone is that we can print our own money and set our own interest rates. That gives us considerably more room for manoeuvre and scope for fiscal stimulus like that undertaken in the US, but which the European economies do not have the power to implement. Osborne should gain credit for helping to keep us out of the euro but, if he agrees with the independence of the Bank of England then the he cannot claim credit for low domestic interest rates.

Osborne's is, at best, a high-risk strategy. What if the markets turn? The rate they charge us for debt is entirely within their control and is the result of a calculation about how they can extract the most value from their various holdings of peonage and bonded labour across the world. If the countries of southern Europe cease to yield such healthy returns then they will turn their greedy eyes in our direction. We could find ourselves in the of a sterling crisis sooner than we think.
.

Tweet

Squandering the Wealth of Life

In the immediate aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, Bank of England staff attempted to estimate the financial costs to the UK economy. In 2009 Andrew G. Haldane, Executive Director for Financial Stability at the Bank estimated that the permanent loss to the UK economy from the banking crisis was anywhere between £1.8trn. and £7.4trn.

The softer, less measurable, more human consequences are only just now becoming clear. A paper in the Lancet in July 2011 began to measure the impact of the 2009 crisis on health, and specifically on suicide rates. Economic crises unsettle people in various ways, but the most obvious, pressing and observable is the loss of employment, which quite literally kills. The authors of the paper considered the pre-2004 EU members and the more recent members separately.

The graphic from the paper reproduced here compares unemployment rates amongst adults with rates of suicide across the EU. Unemployment began rising rapidly in 2009, with a 35% increase over 2007 levels. Shockingly, however, the increase in suicide preceded this, suggesting that it results from fear of unemployment and general rise in anxiety as a result of the instability caused by financial shock. As the authors conclude:

‘the steady downward trend in suicide rates, seen in both groups of countries before 2007, reversed at once. The 2008 increase was less than 1% in the new Member States, but in the old ones it increased by almost 7%. In both, suicides increased further in 2009. Among the countries studied, only Austria had fewer suicides (down 5%) in 2009 than in 2007. In each of the other countries the increase was at least 5%.’

The fact that it is fear and uncertainty that causes suicide, as well as the reality of unemployment and poverty, indicates the irresponsibility of the Coalition strategy of creating an aura of austeria in order to make it easier to impose their draconian cuts. This undermining of social confidence can itself cause increased rates of suicide, which are only a marker of more general social dis-ease.

Greece gives us an indication of the future for the people of Europe if these desperate austerity measures are continued, a policy that Cameron recently argued for at Davos. Official statistics for that country indicate a 40% rise in those taking their own lives between January and May of 2011. Studies of rapid social change repeatedly indicate that the increase in uncertainty and the fraying of the social fabric are not only politically dangerous but also very destructive to human life and health.
. Tweet

Chote Chokes

Robert Chote, who heads up the Office for Budget Responsibility, is the sort of economist on whom our futures rely. His career profile is unusual, in that he appears to have no practical working experience either in government, academia or industry, the closest being two years he spent as an 'adviser' at the IMF. He is a former journalist who then moved on to head up the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a leading thinktank analysing economic policy. For a man in such a powerful position the biographical detail available on him via the internet is rather thin,* but it seems safe to assume that he has spent his whole professional life on the theoretical rather than the practical side.

The Office for Budget Responsibility he heads was invented by the Tories following the election as a way of artificially distancing themselves from economic policy-making. Don't blame us if we make a wrong move, they enabled themselves to say, we are following the path scientifically determined by our independent economic advisors. The Office's reputation, and hence its power, relies on its ability to predict the course of the UK economy. This morning Chote admits, on behalf of his Office, that his predictions have been wrong. Growth forecasts will be revised downwards: the OBR was wrong about the impact of the government's policies on the UK economy.

In an interview in this morning's Independent Chote belittles the importance of the OBR's forecasts, commenting that 'You shouldn't bet the farm on any macro-economic forecasts being correct. We set out to make key judgments and to see how sensitive our judgements are, for example to how strong the recovery is or the pattern of growth.'

But this is just too glib: in reality, the OBR's forecasts have been used to back up Osborne's policies. Because the Office for Budget Responsibility predicted that the austerity programme would result in higher growth rates the Chancellor accepted this course of action on our behalf. Now it is apparent that in fact these policies are devastating our economy and stalling growth, are we to see a change of direction? Is Robert Chote about to lose his job? Will the OBR be abolished so that politicians have to demonstrate convictions and the courage to act on them, rather than indicating a phoney adherence to a bogus science?

This morning's interview makes clear how dangerous it is to leave our economic future in the hands of men like Chote who talk a good talk and cover the government's back. What we rather need in these times of crisis is politicians with the courage to take responsibility and to take action.

*The short biography at the end of the Independent article appears to be taken from his Wikipedia entry, which is shorter than mine.
. Tweet

Age of Austeria

A recent FT article gloating about the 'resilience' of corporate earnings in what we are misguidedly calling 'the age of austerity' is the final straw. In all plethora of abbreviations we have been using in discussing the financial crisis the two letters we should have been focusing on were PR. The greatest success of the financiers has not been their takeover of our political and educational elite, but their ability to convince the working people of this country that the destruction of their public services and loss in incomes is inevitable.

The FT article discusses the latest corporate reporting season with glee: corporate profits are up and shareholders are celebrating. In both the UK and the US the profits of companies are demonstrating an 'extraodinary resilience': 'Companies on both sides of the Atlantic escaped the financial crisis in fine fettle.' The article is called, in a title I cannot help admiring in spite of myself, 'Bulls graze on resilient corporate earnings'.

I have been searching for some time for data that explores the share of productive value in this country which goes to employees and companies. The difficulty of finding such data is evidence in itself of the politically biased nature of research funding and the consequence of the privatisation of the Office for National Statistics, undertaken by Gordon Brown in 2005. Private-sector data gatherers collect the data that the profitable want to know about.

The best data I have been able to find come from a report by the TUC called Unfair to Middling. They show that much more of the value created in our economy is going to owners than to earners. Since the 1970s the share of wages and salaries has dropped from a high point of 65% in 1975 to just above 50% now. By contrast the share of profits has risen to almost half. The burden of taxation falling on individuals went up from around £50bn. in 1990 to £110bn. in 2000 and £150bn by 2009. At the same time the tax on corporate profits, which increased massively during this period, increased more slowly. That is because the taxes on business profits have been cut: during the past decade they have fallen from 32% to 23%.

The conflict of the 1970s is not warmly remembered, but it was that generation's refusal to accept inequality that won a relatively comfortable and prosperous life for working people. On this day of international worker solidarity we should remember that it was solidarity and struggle that brought us some measure of equality, and unless we continue to fight for them, these gains will be lost.

Perhaps it is just about time that we all told Mr Cameron to 'Calm down, dear'. We have had more than we can stomach of his politically motivated whipping up of an atmosphere of austeria which is used to conceal a massive reallocation of wealth within our society. Tweet