Vince Cable’s attempt to reclaim Keynes for the coalition is the subject of both a Guardian editorial and Larry Elliott’s economics column today. In his essay (which you can read in the current issue of the NS), Cable argues that the Master would have sided with the coalition, not Labour, on the critical question of deficit reduction.
Cable, as Elliott notes, is right to demolish the myth that Keynes believed governments should run deficits as a matter of course. Rather, he argued that governments should run surpluses in times of plenty in order to allow them to increase spending in times of want. As he succinctly put it: “The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury.”
Keynes would not have approved of the 2-3 per cent structural deficit with which Labour entered the crisis, a fact the left should not feel uncomfortable about. It was New Labour’s failure to make the honest case for higher taxation that meant spending first galloped ahead of revenue. There is a left-wing, as well as a right-wing, critique of excessive deficit spending. (None of which should be used to obscure the fact that the record deficit was caused largely by a collapse in tax receipts and higher welfare spending due to increased unemployment.)
But in other areas, most notably employment, Cable’s Keynesian defence of the coalition’s austerity drive looks shakier. Were he alive today, Keynes’s principal concern would be the effect on demand of high unemployment (2.5 million at the last count).
As Elliott writes:
[W]ould Keynes really be standing shoulder to shoulder with Cable and Osborne if he were alive today? More likely he would say that Britain has an unemployment problem rather than a deficit problem; that the impact of monetary policy is impaired by the problems of the banks; that the squeeze on consumer spending from tax increases and spending cuts will choke off private investment; and that the lesson of the US in the 1930s is that premature efforts at balancing the budget risk a double-dip recession.
Yet the merit of Cable’s essay, as the Guardian’s editorial notes, is that it elevates debate above the cynical falsehoods and clichés (“maxing out the nation’s credit card”) employed by David Cameron and George Osborne. The Business Secretary’s piece is the only serious intellectual contribution any cabinet minister has made to economic discussion.
Keynes’s biographer Robert Skidelsky and David Blanchflower will respond to Cable’s essay (itself a response to Skidelsky’s original critique of the coalition’s fiscal retrenchment) in the next issue of the NS.