Economic Policy for Lemmings

Economics is a complex study because economies are systems reliant on many variables which interact with each other in ways that are difficult to interpret. As an economist what you tend to do is to have a basic belief about how the interactions work and a particular focus on variables you think matter most. A Keynesian, for example, would focus strongly on effective demand and its interaction with government spending. A neoclassical would focus on tax cuts for the wealthy as a stimulus to economic activity. A green economist would make energy a key variable in their consideration, as well as money.

But surely we must be consistent in our basic understanding of how economies work. So if we think that spending cuts can lead to recession in one country this must be the case for another country that also has a similar level of economic development and is also a capitalist economy? I ask this question because of the bizarrely inconsistent reporting of the emergency debate in the US about whether to rush voluntarily over the 'fiscal cliff'. In 2011 Congress passed the Fiscal Control Act, limiting politicians' freedom to make economic policy, and particularly prohibiting any policy that would increase the country's enormous debt.

It is an indication of the atrophied state of US democracy and the poor quality of its politicians that they can only make policy by tying their own hands at some future date. If the do not agree today then both sides will lose: there will be a rollback of Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy matched by cuts in spending on programmes for the vulnerable, including Medicare.

The political fight between politicians who have had to accumulate vast sums of campaign funding just to reach office is an unseemly and unrepresentative one, but the reporting of the potential consequences of 'falling off the cliff' is more troubling. The BBC reports baldly that the spending cuts could 'trigger a US slowdown' that might also lead to an intensification of the recession in the global economy. If this is so easy to see from the perspective of the other side of the Atlantic, why is it so hard to see that similar policies to cut public spending are also destructive to our own economy? As US politicians are criticised for stumbling towards the edge of the cliff, why are the same journalists not criticising the lemming-like instincts of Osborne and chums who gleefully decided to push us all over that cliff in their first budget proposals?

As I said earlier, it is hard to explain how economies work, and much harder to predict future economic outcomes. That is precisely why it matters to have a basic theory of how the main variables interact. If you think that public spending cuts lead to recession then you should say that clearly, and as clearly at home as when critiquing somebody else's economy. What we have seen so far in terms of public-spending cuts has been just the overture: the huge cuts to disability payments, housing benefits and transfers to local authorities represent significant withdrawal of effective demand. The consequences for the national economy will be a year of even deeper recession in 2013.
. Tweet

Flying Down to Rio

World leaders are gearing up for their trips to the global environmental conference in Rio later this month. With so much bad news around who could resist a little climate grand-standing? The suited heros will stride the world stage comparing the size of their green stimulus packages. Civil servants will spend hours preparing documents demonstrating reductions in CO2 emissions, despite the fact that a report soon to be launched by Green House thinktank includes clear evidence that, if you include aviation and freight emissions that are left out of the Kyoto totals, and especially if you include the emissions embodied in our imports, then we are polluting more and not less.

And what of the carbon impact of the conference itself? The admittedly rather primitive calculator provided by the website Flying Off to a Warmer Climate suggests that a business flight to Rio generates around 3,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide with a warming equivalent of around 10,000 tonnes. (The warming impact from aviation is higher because the emissions are produced high in the atmosphere.) This is more than two years' worth of an individual's total carbon emissions. And that is just Ed Davey. What about his civil service retinue? I can imagine a situation where, if these high-level negotiations were serious, this production of CO2 could be justified, but the kind of hot air that will be produced in Rio just does not deserve this level of planetary warming

It is a times like this that I wonder whether there is a God, but the constant stream of cosmic jokes and coincidences restores my faith. Not only does God exist, but she has a great sense of humour and wonderful timing. In 1933, some four years after capitalism's last world-wide catastrophe, and during a similar burst of cultural escapism, RKO made the film Flying Down to Rio. The film, which starred Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire, included a range of crazy scenes with tiller girls high-kicking on the wings of planes that seemed so novel and glamrous in the thirties. This has provided the inspiration for the wonderful cartoon by Imogen Shaw that you are invited to share far and wide.
. Tweet

Good Cop or Bad Cop?

So what are we to make of the failure of the meeting that was billed as our last chance to save ourselves as a species? The conference was a demonstration of the gap between media spin and political substance in the modern world. Nothing demonstrated this better than the impotence of the man who many of the world's disempowered have viewed as somebody who could wield power to make a difference. From rhetorical bravura to rhetorical bravado, in one short speech Obama demonstrated that, like every other US President, he is utterly controlled by the economic actors who dominate his domestic politics.

The clue to what was going on was given by the separation, in the wake of Obama's arrival, of emissions reductions from the transfer of cash to larger but less diplomatically savvy countries that were once part of the patronisingly titled 'third world'. 'We haven't managed to agree on emissions', went the spin, 'but the other main issue has been resolved'. The creation of US dollars from thin air is not, and never was the purpose of Copenhagen. As followers of this blog will know, creating money in this way is actually driving economic growth and environmental destruction. Worse still, this deal does not offer the bulk of the money until after 2020, by which time it will be much too late to make the cuts necessary to ensure a habitable environment for humankind on planet earth.

The most galling aspect of the conference was to have to accept lectures from the US about leadership in climate change. As the table makes clear, Obama would do well to adopt a position of humility rather than the arrogance he showed at Copenhagen. The numbers make clear who the main culprits are in terms of CO2 per capita, the only just way of measuring emissions. These figures should be the real focus of our attention, and until every number in the second column of that table stands at 1 or less then we are in very deep trouble.
Note: Data are for total greenhouse gas emissions, reported as equivalent to the impact of CO2. Gases included are: CO2, CH4, N2O, PFCs, HFCs, SF6.
Source: World Resources Institute, Washington DC: http://cait.wri.org.

This gives a sense of the scale of reductions in carbon emissions we are talking about. Not giving more money to Brazil or South Africa, not cutting by 9% or 17% or 23%, but completely changing our lifestyle so that we end the 200 years of oil-fuelled over-consumption and return to a balanced relationship with the earth that is the source of all our wealth.

Obama's purpose in travelling to Copenhagen was to sidestep the main issue of actually reducing emissions and shift the debate to an area he could control, i.e. the production of worthless pieces of paper by the US mint, and an issue where he could take the moral high ground, i.e. the regime of inspection. He has also provided himself with a media opportunity that will give him some leverage in taking a bill of sorts through the Senate.

The EU and Japan, who have been acting with a moderate degree of commitment on this issue, have been left sidelined by a degenerate superpower and a group of wannabee nations who ought to know better. Leadership is still possible, although a negotiated settlement may not be. The way ahead is clear: an agreement between the developed nations who are prepared to make cuts and the poorer countries of the world. The contraction and convergence model can be made to work first in a club of nations, with transfers of technology to be exchanged for our excess emissions during our period of transition to a low-carbon economy. Tweet