The deficit doves strike back

Blanchflower, Skidelsky and Stiglitz to the rescue.

I've long argued that it's a mistake for the left, and the government in particular, to sign up to the "cuts agenda" pushed by the Tories, the right-wing press and the free-market think tanks since the financial crash in late 2008. Instead, Brown, Darling et al should have questioned the underlying (and economically illiterate) premise of the Tory argument: how does cutting spending in the middle of a recession help economic growth or prevent widespread unemployment?

As I pointed out in a speech at Ken Livingstone's Progressive London conference last month, going into an election campaign advocating only "nicer" and "smaller" cuts is both unwise (in terms of economic policy) and pointless (in terms of political strategy). The fact is, on spending v cuts, the much-reviled Ed Balls has been right all along.

It is therefore a delight to see some of the country's -- indeed, the world's -- top economists come out in favour of deficit spending, and against immediate and "swingeing" cuts, in two letters to the Financial Times today.

My colleague George, on the Staggers blog, has already posted on the two letters and pointed out that they make a mockery of George Osborne's claim that there is a "consensus of expert economic opinion" behind his plans to make cuts to public spending as soon as he walks through the door of No 11.

Letters signed by economists have a long pedigree in British politics -- the celebrated 1981 letter by 364 academic economists, protesting Geoffrey Howe's monetarist budget, is often cited. The 60-plus economists in the FT today were responding to the silly, incoherent letter signed by 20 other economists in the Sunday Times last weekend. From the Murdoch-owned paper:

Signatories of a letter, published today in the Sunday Times, include the former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, a former deputy governor of the Bank of England and head of the Financial Services Authority, and a former permanent secretary to the Treasury and cabinet secretary.

. . . It was organised by Tim Besley, a professor of economics at the LSE, who left the MPC last year. The names include Lord Turnbull, Sir Howard Davies, Lord Desai, Ken Rogoff, Thomas Sargent and Sir John Vickers.

As I said, George has already highlighted how foolish today's letters make Osborne look, but I'd point out that they make Tim Besley look like an even bigger fool. Here's his quote in the Sunday Times:

"I don't want this to be seen as us siding with anyone," he said. "But it does suggest that the Conservatives are where majority opinion lies."

How foolish he must have felt this morning, confronted by two letters of rebuttal signed by, among others, Nobel Laureates such as Joseph Stiglitz and Robert Solow, Ivy League heavyweights such as Richard Freeman of Harvard, and former members of the Monetary Policy Committee such as our own David Blanchflower, Sir Andrew Large, Rachel Lomax, Chris Allsop and Sushil Wadhwani. Not to mention grandees such as Lords Layard, Skidelsky and Peston. Sorry to seem so petty and immature, but the Sunday Times list looks rather pathetic, insubstantial, underqualified and second-rate in comparison.

Of course, for some people, this will all seem like gobbledegook and another example of dull, internecine warfare within the (much-discredited) economics profession. One is reminded, as our prescient leader in the magazine this week points out, of Churchill's line: "If you put two economists in a room, you get two opinions." Or even Harry Truman's declaration, in response to equivocations from his economic advisers ("on the one hand . . . but on the other . . ."): "Give me a one-armed economist!"

Nonetheless, the future of the economy, and the lives and prospects of millions of unemployed Britons, depend on fiscal policies enacted by the next government. The two FT letters expose Osborne and his Sunday Times supporters as being in the minority, rather than the majority, of "expert economic opinion". It is therefore difficult to disagree with a spokesman for the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, who said this morning that the latest letters showed that Osborne had "jumped on the wrong bandwagon".

Yet this debate will rumble on. The modern-day Hooverites will not give up so easily. Their agenda is to shrink the state, not grow the economy.

So who are YOU going to trust? Economists such as Stiglitz, who warned of the dangers of financial deregulation in the 1990s, and Blanchflower, who saw the recession coming and voted for rate cuts in 2007 and 2008, or Ken Rogoff, a lifelong proselytiser for the deregulatory reforms and financial liberalisation that helped cause the crash, and Tim Besley, who failed to spot the recession coming and voted for a hike (!) in interest rates as late as July 2008?

I know which side I'm on.

 

 

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Getty
Show Hide image

Theresa May’s Brexit speech is Angela Merkel’s victory – here’s why

The Germans coined the word “merkeln to describe their Chancellor’s approach to negotiations. 

It is a measure of Britain’s weak position that Theresa May accepts Angela Merkel’s ultimatum even before the Brexit negotiations have formally started

The British Prime Minister blinked first when she presented her plan for Brexit Tuesday morning. After months of repeating the tautological mantra that “Brexit means Brexit”, she finally specified her position when she essentially proposed that Britain should leave the internal market for goods, services and people, which had been so championed by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. 

By accepting that the “UK will be outside” and that there can be “no half-way house”, Theresa May has essentially caved in before the negotiations have begun.

At her meeting with May in July last year, the German Chancellor stated her ultimatum that there could be no “Rosinenpickerei” – the German equivalent of cherry picking. Merkel stated that Britain was not free to choose. That is still her position.

Back then, May was still battling for access to the internal market. It is a measure of how much her position has weakened that the Prime Minister has been forced to accept that Britain will have to leave the single market.

For those who have followed Merkel in her eleven years as German Kanzlerin there is sense of déjà vu about all this.  In negotiations over the Greek debt in 2011 and in 2015, as well as in her negotiations with German banks, in the wake of the global clash in 2008, Merkel played a waiting game; she let others reveal their hands first. The Germans even coined the word "merkeln", to describe the Chancellor’s favoured approach to negotiations.

Unlike other politicians, Frau Merkel is known for her careful analysis, behind-the-scene diplomacy and her determination to pursue German interests. All these are evident in the Brexit negotiations even before they have started.

Much has been made of US President-Elect Donald Trump’s offer to do a trade deal with Britain “very quickly” (as well as bad-mouthing Merkel). In the greater scheme of things, such a deal – should it come – will amount to very little. The UK’s exports to the EU were valued at £223.3bn in 2015 – roughly five times as much as our exports to the United States. 

But more importantly, Britain’s main export is services. It constitutes 79 per cent of the economy, according to the Office of National Statistics. Without access to the single market for services, and without free movement of skilled workers, the financial sector will have a strong incentive to move to the European mainland.

This is Germany’s gain. There is a general consensus that many banks are ready to move if Britain quits the single market, and Frankfurt is an obvious destination.

In an election year, this is welcome news for Merkel. That the British Prime Minister voluntarily gives up the access to the internal market is a boon for the German Chancellor and solves several of her problems. 

May’s acceptance that Britain will not be in the single market shows that no country is able to secure a better deal outside the EU. This will deter other countries from following the UK’s example. 

Moreover, securing a deal that will make Frankfurt the financial centre in Europe will give Merkel a political boost, and will take focus away from other issues such as immigration.

Despite the rise of the far-right Alternative für Deutschland party, the largely proportional electoral system in Germany will all but guarantee that the current coalition government continues after the elections to the Bundestag in September.

Before the referendum in June last year, Brexiteers published a poster with the mildly xenophobic message "Halt ze German advance". By essentially caving in to Merkel’s demands before these have been expressly stated, Mrs May will strengthen Germany at Britain’s expense. 

Perhaps, the German word schadenfreude comes to mind?

Matthew Qvortrup is author of the book Angela Merkel: Europe’s Most Influential Leader published by Duckworth, and professor of applied political science at Coventry University.