Growth must be the focus as the world economy slows

Andrew Sentance has a list of questions for Mervyn King. Here are my answers.

Andrew Sentance on his website has posed ten questions that he wants answered by Mervyn King. So I decided to answer them myself.

1. The Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) resisted arguments for a rise in interest rates in the second half of 2010 and earlier this year. And yet it has moved very quickly to mobilise more quantitative easing (QE) based on short-term worries about economic growth, despite the fact that inflation is now over 5 per cent. Is this not evidence that the MPC is targeting growth, not inflation?

I guess you never did realise that monetary policy can only impact inflation 18 months to two years ahead. As it is being driven by temporary factors and they are about to drop out, inflation is going to be below target at the forecast horizon. This would be even more obvious if the CPI included falling house prices. In any case, behavioural economics shows that people care much more about unemployment than they do about inflation.

2. The Bank's analysis of the original round of QE showed that it raised inflation. How can a new round of QE be justified when inflation is at 5.2 per cent, the highest rate we have seen since the early 1990s?

The Bank's analysis showed that it raised inflation, which was a good thing, because we were headed to deflation. A new round of QE is justified, because the economic data in the UK and especially in the eurozone is slowing. Perhaps you didn't notice.

3. MPC forecasts have seriously underestimated inflation since the onset of the financial crisis. How can the committee be so confident that inflation is set to fall below target when its previous forecasts have been so inaccurate?

You mean the forecasts that you signed up to? The MPC also was too optimistic about growth. All forecasts are based upon the data that there is to hand. If another shock comes along in either direction than all bets are off. How could the MPC be expected to forecast, say, a hurricane that disrupts oil production and then pushes up both oil prices and inflation?

4. The MPC has taken a decision to reactivate QE without the support of a quarterly forecast. How can the committee then assert so confidently that inflation will fall below the 2 per cent target without a further injection of QE, when it has not carried out a forecast exercise to support this judgement?

The shock to output is so large that they had to move. Contrary to what you claimed in a number of your speeches, growth was revised downwards, not up, which meant it was obvious that inflation was going to be well below the target. The Greek referendum means that risks are even greater to the downside. Every time, you have called it wrong, so you have no credibility, sorry.

5. Some economists have argued that QE will depress sterling and add to inflation directly through that route. Given that the weakness of sterling and rising import prices have added to UK inflation in the past 2/3 years, is this not a very legitimate concern?

You know very well that depreciation of the currency helps to increase stimulus in the economy, not least because it raises the cost of imported goods and thus encourages import substitution. This has been rather slow to happen to this point, because of the mistaken austerity programme that cuts too deep and too fast. What you're not acknowledging is that the alternative was for the economy to go over the cliff, which would create very high levels of unemployment. Economists have to consider the outcome for people across society.

6. The MPC minutes suggest that the committee believes that QE will be as effective in the current environment as in 2009. Yet a key channel of influence for QE is the downward impact on long-term interest rates, which are now much lower than in 2009. Does this not suggest MPC will now be less effective?

The MPC has performed its own Operation Twist with its new form of QE, which emphasises the long end of the curve. In contrast to the stock of data, a third of the purchases will be of 25 years duration and over compared with 11 per cent of the stock. The economy needs stimulus.

7. The first round of QE in 2009 probably boosted business and consumer confidence because the Bank of England appeared to be "pulling out all the stops" to stabilise the economy. Is there any evidence that the confidence effect of this current round of QE will be so positive, particularly when there are major worries about high inflation at present?

Maybe not, but that simply is an argument for doing a lot more QE, rather than less. Hence some economists' expectations that QE will move to at least £500bn. Doing nothing, as you seem to be proposing, would push the economy over the cliff.

8. If QE is effective, it brings forward future growth into the present. But that means growth may be weaker in the future -- and the governor acknowledged this problem in his Liverpool speech. Why does the Bank/MPC think that we will be better placed to cope with weaker growth in the future than now?

There is no evidence from anywhere that more growth now means less growth later -- look at China. In the case of Japan, less growth now means less growth later. The economy is subject to severe headwinds and if action hadn't been taken, inflation would be below the target and perhaps even negative

9. A big concern for the public and business is pensions. By depressing long-term investment returns, QE makes the pension funding problem more difficult. Has the MPC taken this into account in its decision on QE and how does it respond to these criticisms?

As Mervyn King said, raising rates now to help savers is nonsensical, as it would drive up unemployment and lower growth.

10. The broader public will find it hard to understand why the MPC has not taken any steps to counter high inflation and yet seems very ready to inject more stimulus, which might add to inflation over the longer term. Surely the actions of the MPC are undermining confidence in price stability and the inflation target?

I am afraid it is you that has confused the public, by claiming that interest rates should have been raised in the depths of a recession. Just think what would have happened to the economy if you had had your way -- mortgage payments would have risen, consumer spending and house prices would have fallen and unemployment would have risen and growth fallen. It is quite clear now that what you were arguing for was totally mistaken.

You failed to call the recession and wrongly suggested that the risk to the economy was inflation. The danger remains of deflation, not inflation. Note the statement made by the MPC when it moved to doing more QE.

The pace of global expansion has slackened, especially in the United Kingdom's main export markets. Vulnerabilities associated with the indebtedness of some euro-area sovereigns and banks have resulted in severe strains in bank funding markets and financial markets more generally. These tensions in the world economy threaten the UK recovery.

Note the scary word "threaten". Growth must be the focus right now, as the world economy slows.

David Blanchflower is economics editor of the New Statesman and professor of economics at Dartmouth College, New Hampshire

Show Hide image

Hannan Fodder: This week, Daniel Hannan gets his excuses in early

I didn't do it. 

Since Daniel Hannan, a formerly obscure MEP, has emerged as the anointed intellectual of the Brexit elite, The Staggers is charting his ascendancy...

When I started this column, there were some nay-sayers talking Britain down by doubting that I was seriously going to write about Daniel Hannan every week. Surely no one could be that obsessed with the activities of one obscure MEP? And surely no politician could say enough ludicrous things to be worthy of such an obsession?

They were wrong, on both counts. Daniel and I are as one on this: Leave and Remain, working hand in glove to deliver on our shared national mission. There’s a lesson there for my fellow Remoaners, I’m sure.

Anyway. It’s week three, and just as I was worrying what I might write this week, Dan has ridden to the rescue by writing not one but two columns making the same argument – using, indeed, many of the exact same phrases (“not a club, but a protection racket”). Like all the most effective political campaigns, Dan has a message of the week.

First up, on Monday, there was this headline, in the conservative American journal, the Washington Examiner:

“Why Brexit should work out for everyone”

And yesterday, there was his column on Conservative Home:

“We will get a good deal – because rational self-interest will overcome the Eurocrats’ fury”

The message of the two columns is straightforward: cooler heads will prevail. Britain wants an amicable separation. The EU needs Britain’s military strength and budget contributions, and both sides want to keep the single market intact.

The Con Home piece makes the further argument that it’s only the Eurocrats who want to be hardline about this. National governments – who have to answer to actual electorates – will be more willing to negotiate.

And so, for all the bluster now, Theresa May and Donald Tusk will be skipping through a meadow, arm in arm, before the year is out.

Before we go any further, I have a confession: I found myself nodding along with some of this. Yes, of course it’s in nobody’s interests to create unnecessary enmity between Britain and the continent. Of course no one will want to crash the economy. Of course.

I’ve been told by friends on the centre-right that Hannan has a compelling, faintly hypnotic quality when he speaks and, in retrospect, this brief moment of finding myself half-agreeing with him scares the living shit out of me. So from this point on, I’d like everyone to keep an eye on me in case I start going weird, and to give me a sharp whack round the back of the head if you ever catch me starting a tweet with the word, “Friends-”.

Anyway. Shortly after reading things, reality began to dawn for me in a way it apparently hasn’t for Daniel Hannan, and I began cataloguing the ways in which his argument is stupid.

Problem number one: Remarkably for a man who’s been in the European Parliament for nearly two decades, he’s misunderstood the EU. He notes that “deeper integration can be more like a religious dogma than a political creed”, but entirely misses the reason for this. For many Europeans, especially those from countries which didn’t have as much fun in the Second World War as Britain did, the EU, for all its myriad flaws, is something to which they feel an emotional attachment: not their country, but not something entirely separate from it either.

Consequently, it’s neither a club, nor a “protection racket”: it’s more akin to a family. A rational and sensible Brexit will be difficult for the exact same reasons that so few divorcing couples rationally agree not to bother wasting money on lawyers: because the very act of leaving feels like a betrayal.

Or, to put it more concisely, courtesy of Buzzfeed’s Marie Le Conte:

Problem number two: even if everyone was to negotiate purely in terms of rational interest, our interests are not the same. The over-riding goal of German policy for decades has been to hold the EU together, even if that creates other problems. (Exhibit A: Greece.) So there’s at least a chance that the German leadership will genuinely see deterring more departures as more important than mutual prosperity or a good relationship with Britain.

And France, whose presidential candidates are lining up to give Britain a kicking, is mysteriously not mentioned anywhere in either of Daniel’s columns, presumably because doing so would undermine his argument.

So – the list of priorities Hannan describes may look rational from a British perspective. Unfortunately, though, the people on the other side of the negotiating table won’t have a British perspective.

Problem number three is this line from the Con Home piece:

“Might it truly be more interested in deterring states from leaving than in promoting the welfare of its peoples? If so, there surely can be no further doubt that we were right to opt out.”

If there any rhetorical technique more skin-crawlingly horrible, than, “Your response to my behaviour justifies my behaviour”?

I could go on, about how there’s no reason to think that Daniel’s relatively gentle vision of Brexit is shared by Nigel Farage, UKIP, or a significant number of those who voted Leave. Or about the polls which show that, far from the EU’s response to the referendum pushing more European nations towards the door, support for the union has actually spiked since the referendum – that Britain has become not a beacon of hope but a cautionary tale.

But I’m running out of words, and there’ll be other chances to explore such things. So instead I’m going to end on this:

Hannan’s argument – that only an irrational Europe would not deliver a good Brexit – is remarkably, parodically self-serving. It allows him to believe that, if Brexit goes horribly wrong, well, it must all be the fault of those inflexible Eurocrats, mustn’t it? It can’t possibly be because Brexit was a bad idea in the first place, or because liberal Leavers used nasty, populist ones to achieve their goals.

Read today, there are elements of Hannan’s columns that are compelling, even persuasive. From the perspective of 2020, I fear, they might simply read like one long explanation of why nothing that has happened since will have been his fault.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @JonnElledge.