Even big business has bailed out on Osborne
The refrain is that the Chancellor must do something – anything – but few have any confidence that he will.
By David Blanchflower Published 21 November 2012
The good news has stopped coming already. (Sorry, Dave, it didn’t last a month.) Low growth, high unemployment and above-target inflation are here to stay and there are no green shoots – you are going to regret that you called it way too soon. Previously, I have criticised the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) and the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) at the Bank of England for their overly optimistic growth forecasts but at long last the MPC, in its latest inflation report, has become more realistic.
It has significantly downgraded its GDP growth forecast, especially for 2013, in part as a result of the squeeze on real incomes from rising inflation and because forward-looking business surveys have been markedly downbeat. On the day the MPC report was published, the Office for National Statistics announced the biggest rise in the Jobseeker’s Allowance claimant count (up more than 10,000) for a year, adding to the gloom.
Growing pains
To the right, you can see two ziggurat charts for the final quarters of 2013 and of 2014, which are taken from the MPC report. These show
the probabilities of a range of GDP growth predictions, compared with the committee’s last forecast in August.
The big deal here is that the MPC has used its judgement rather than a forecasting model to remove the prospect that the economy could get some really good outcomes. Both ziggurats shift to the left compared to August’s forecast, showing lower overall growth; in each case, the 90 per cent confidence interval no longer contains 4 per cent or 5 per cent growth. Whenever I discussed the August forecast with business folks and told them that the MPC thought there was some prospect of 5 per cent growth in 2013 and 2014 but little chance of negative growth, the response was an outbreak of laughter. Nobody believed it.
It remains hard to see where even this small amount of growth, especially in 2014, will come from, given the low levels of business and consumer confidence and a slowing world economy, plus the euro area in double-dip recession and a possible “fiscal cliff” in the US. So, these forecasts may still be overcooked.
That said, the MPC is forecasting there could be a triple-dip recession, with output turning negative in the fourth quarter of 2012. So much for the economy “healing”, as George Osborne has claimed. It was growing when Slasher took it over but he killed that stone dead.
The MPC also predicts that output won’t return to its pre-recession level in 2008 until mid-2014. This is the weakest recovery from recession ever and is already longer-lasting, in terms of lost output, than the Great Depression (which went on for four years). In contrast, US output returned to its starting level after 45 months and has grown 13 quarters in a row – against the UK’s paltry one. The MPC does not expect GDP to be revised up in any serious way, as the small group of deluded “recession deniers” still claims.
Another developing story is the impact of Osborne’s austerity as measured by what are called the fiscal multipliers, which calculate the hit the economy takes from fiscal changes. In a big blow to Osborne, research by the OBR suggests that these multipliers are much larger than it previously thought. In its forecast evaluation report of October 2012, the OBR concedes: “The multipliers would have needed to be more than twice as large to explain the growth shortfall we have seen. Estimates of multipliers vary widely, so it is clearly possible that the fiscal consolidation exerted more of a drag on growth than we assumed.” It sure has.
.jpg)
What applies on the downside to cuts applies in spades to stimulus, as multipliers tend to be higher. Multipliers for infrastructure build are likely well over two, so you can and should borrow your way out of a debt crisis when interest rates are so low and the economy is flat on its back. There is a lot of spare capacity in the economy, so now is the right time to inject a substantial fiscal stimulus, focused on expanding the infrastructure, along with large tax cuts directed at firms to get them hiring and investing again. Are the Tories really opposed to tax cuts?
Top dog
The big question – in the light of the MPC’s downgrading of its growth forecast and given the OBR is sure to downgrade its forecast, too – is what will be announced in the autumn statement on 5 December. My answer is: probably not much. We are likely to be told that the part-time Chancellor is giving up on his self-imposed fiscal rules, even though he made a £37bn smash-and-grab raid on the Bank of England to make his borrowing look lower.
The sense I get is that the business community has bailed out on Osborne. The refrain is that he must do something – anything – but
it has zero confidence that he will. If the MPC is right (and I suspect it broadly is), there is little chance of a significant economic turnaround before the 2015 election.
Finally, there is that little matter of who is to be the next governor of the Bank of England. Apparently the decision will also be announced on 5 December. It won’t be me, even though ForexLive kindly named yours truly the number one central banker in the world since the
financial crisis began. Paul Tucker didn’t appear on the list. Nor Mervyn King. My Christmas came early this year.
David Blanchflower is economics editor of the New Statesman and professor of economics at Dartmouth College, New Hampshire
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


40 comments
Blanchflower is so partisan it makes his articles pointless. It's like turning to Press TV for a balanced overview of Iranian/Israeli relations, or RT for a balanced and critical portrait of Vladimir Putin
Jimmyrushmore falls back on the last resort of the intellectually defeated - abuse. Can't he argue against any of Professor Blanchflower's arguments? Couldn't he even try?
So Jimmyrushmore rather neatly proves that his case, which is also the government's case, is bankrupt and unsupported.
I'm not arguing the case anymore than I'd argue with Melanie Philips on social policy - their overt political bias makes it pointless. Do you not understand this was the point I was making or do you struggle with reading?
I'm not arguing the case anymore than I'd argue with Melanie Philips on social policy - their overt political bias makes it pointless. Do you not understand this was the point I was making or do you struggle with reading?
"part-time Chancellor"
I think that someone has taken over election strategy now, some Austrian - or is is Austrailian - dude[?]
"...there is little chance of a significant economic turnaround before the 2015 election."
Every cloud has a silver lining - with any luck Tories will be finished, not even competent at being tight-fisted; a joke relegated to history.
"Finally, there is that little matter of who is to be the next governor of the Bank of England."
Please god let them not be a poet. All we ever hear is nautical metaphors: the headwind, the choppy waves. Let's have interest rates go up to, let's face reality.
I am not an economist and I am sure he is a clever man, but Blanchflower recently predicted that unemployement would rise and the first set of figures after that showed him to be wrong.
He seems to be a man on a mission, almost revelling in doom and gloom.
Any good news and he gives the impression of being someone who would be rather downcast-the grim reaper of economics.
D. Blanchflower...full of shit and wrong as usual.
Simon, you are suffering from a bad case of projection.
Oh David.
"It was growing when Slasher took it over but he killed that stone dead."
Youve done it yet again. Please dont re-write history. After excluding the carcinogenic impact of the borrowing to support the enormous structural deficit left by Labour, the economy was shrinking which is not what you have said. It explains why the economy was in such a mess at the end of the £600Bn borrowed by the last government which they used for simplistic fiscal stimulus to massage voters and win power.
Fiscal multipliers are key to why Keynesian politics is a disaster. Borrowing for general expenditure results in reallocation of resources away from productive to non productive activities. In the short term there is a voter friendly boost from government borrowing. But in the longer run it erodes the economy and causes a structural deficit -- in theory and in practice. State borrowing to fund general expenditure has a negative NPV in terms of net national wealth - - the rationale for doing it is not national interest but is political.
I dont accept your argument that a higher transient multiplier is a good reason for not cutting non-productive governement expenditure . True, cutting expendure is not popular especially with supporters in unions, but it realigns the relative cost of resources including labor and assets. The lower cost of resources liberated from state control, as we have seen, promotes the migration to productive activites. This is healing of the economy.
We have already agreed previously of the importance of state lead stategic investment -- it is the way to maximise long term multipliers. You distinguish between simplistic and strategic but your political colleagues see only voters and narrow self interest.
You previously said you did not support the idea but may be now reconsider the value of higher indirect taxes to improve the multipliers progressively as I have previously said:
- VAT income can be reallocated to reduce direct taxes for the lowest paid which will create jobs and can be used to reduce CT which will promote inward investment and reinvestment.
- VAT penalises imports relative to home produced goods and services (dont forget the reduction in direct taxes)
- those who consume most pay most.
- VAT is significantly more efficient than PAYE e.g. leveling the playing field between the regulated and black economies, collection efficiency and burden, using tax for strategic targeting
Higher VAT means stimulus circulates through the treasury and losts longer the impact is prolonged. It flattens the multiplier response curve which reduces the leakage of stimulus out of the economy.
Unfortunately for you, your narrative is party-political rather than historic.
"realigns the relative cost of resources"
Kills off the nasty poor so you can import foreign workers.
"non-productive governement expenditure . "
That nasty NHS, those nasty pensions and JSA...never mind they also have a high multiple!
"promotes the migration to productive activites. "
Lower wage jobs, which contribute less to anything except the Tory rich's bottom line.
"VAT income can be reallocated to reduce direct taxes for the lowest paid"
VAT hits the poorest the hardest, reducing the low level of direct tax for the lowest paid will do little for them. The changes to this so far have primarily benefited the middle class!
You're simply after raising the burden on the poor, the poverty premium again, by using a regressive tax as a stick. And yes, it flattens the curve and reduces the effect of the necessary stimulus spending which we need to revive the economy.