Economic Policies for an Incoming Labour Government – Part 5
Economic Policies for an Incoming Labour Government
By Bryan Gould and George Tait Edwards
Part 5 of 9 – The Two Great Traditions in Western Economic Thinking
In studying what actually happened to the Japanese economy and then testing various explanations
for consistency with the observed data, Professor Richard Werner of
Southampton University has placed himself firmly in the first of the two great traditions in
Western economic thought. That first tradition, dating from the time of
Adam Smith, derives economic conclusions from detailed observation and
inductive reasoning based upon the observed facts and data analysis. The
second tradition, most highly developed in the 20th century with the
development of mathematical economic models and more lately computers,
develops a body of deductive reasoning based upon stated theoretical
propositions.
The “bottom up” tradition of observing what is happening, building
economic understanding on the foundation of the observed circumstances
or measured data, and arguing from the observations or the data to the
economic theory is exemplified by Adam Smith’s, The Wealth of Nations.
An example of his technique is his reference to the productive power of
specialisation, which he illustrates by referring to the workers in a pin
factory, and demonstrating how, by breaking down the elements of
production into their constituent parts, a few specialised workers can
create thousands of pins a day when one man could hardly produce one pin
per day on his own. Smith’s book is a major illustration of the major
scientific principle – revived in the Renaissance – of learning by observation,
extracting the particular principle from the general, and basing theory upon
precise, real-world, observation.
The one common factor in the work of Adam Smith, and of John Maynard
Keynes, Osamu Shimomura, Kenneth Kurihara and Richard Werner is that
they all belong to the first tradition in economics, the derivation of valid
theory from detailed observation. Smith in the pin factory; Keynes in his
observation that labour markets, left to market forces, do not produce full
employment; Shimomura deriving the economic model for Japan from his
observation of the productive force of credit creation in the USA from
1938-44; the Japanese-American Kurihara – examining and discussing the
Japanese economic miracle in close-up while acting as the Fulbright
Professor to Tokyo University in 1965; the German-born and Japanese-fluent
Werner in Tokyo, working from the Bank of Japan financial data about
credit creation in Japan, and analysing it into its three key functions of
investment credit, financial credit and the presence (or lack of)
consumption credit, and then proving the predictive linkages using Granger
causative analysis – the work of all these economists is located in the great
inductive tradition of economics.
The second and more recent tradition in Western economics is the “topdown”
approach. This starts from explicitly stated but theoretical
assumptions and then proceeds logically from these to policy
recommendations, using deductive reasoning and highly developed
mathematics. A number of assumptions are made – that consumers and
investors act within perfect markets, with access to perfect information, in
a world in which perfect information has levelled out local differences. On
this basis, deductive logic arrives at economic models which appear to have
great logical validity but which – as Keynes asserted – may bear little
relation to reality. In view of the imperfect outcomes of this second
approach, as evidenced by the declining fortunes of many western
economies, there is much to be said for a return to the methods used by
Adam Smith and his great successors.
Three Practical Illustrations of the Use of Credit Creation
As we have seen, if credit creation is left to the tender mercies of self-interested
commercial banks, credit will be largely devoted to gambling on
property creating a housing and other asset bubbles so as to maximize
profits for private shareholders while the real economy languishes for want
of adequate liquidity and investment capital, and the economy as a whole is
handicapped by a shortfall in effective demand.
An incoming Labour government, however, fully understanding the use of
credit creation in the public interest, could resolve many outstanding
problems. We provide three examples of the way in which this would work
to achieve quite different kinds of objectives.
The Acceleration of British Economic Growth Through Higher Investment
This aspect of central bank credit creation is by far the most potent policy
within a government’s control. It would allow the government to create
earmarked investment credits, cost-free, for use by SMEs and other private
companies to ensure the fulfilment of the Government’s economic, social
and environmental policies.
The provision of these funds would be directed by the Bank of England,
reflecting advice from the Treasury – a technique described as “Window
Guidance” when used by the Bank of Japan in using similar mechanisms in
the 1960s and 1970s. There would need to be a bank which was, or ideally a
number of banks which were, prepared to use its local branches as taps for
local investment (as the Sparkassen in Germany are) and not just – as
currently occurs – as drains to collect local saving, taking it away for
whatever fashionable policy use the London HQ decides.
The initial creation of credit could be at the level of about 10% of GDP, that
is about £150 bn a year; multiplier effects might create an eventual new
level of commercial and industrial funding of about £300 billion. We would
expect these funds to be initially used to provide an improvement of about
£100 billion in business liquidity, about £100 billion in early new plant and
equipment investment and about £100 billion in funding higher levels of raw
materials, working capital and work in progress. If the usual level of tax
take of 42% applies to the new investment and to work in progress,
government revenue receipts could increase by about £84 billion – an
excellent return to government in addition to the overall benefit to the
economy as a whole. Furthermore, that new investment would produce a
permanent increase in output of about an extra £100 billion a year, equal to
a permanent increase in GDP of about 6.7%, and a permanent rise in
government revenue of about £42 billion a year. We think these changes
would occur within about two years.
Some economists have traditionally argued that, because an extra job in
manufacturing industry has historically created another job in the service
industries, the final effect could be twice the initial stimulus. It is indeed
likely that placing the economy on a higher growth path will enable the
under-performing assets and spare capacity in our industries to respond to
the higher levels of demand created by this stimulus.
The experience of other countries shows that investment credit economics
works by creating wealth in the productive sector of the economy. The
loans made are almost completely repaid (the failure rate is typically about
2.5%) out of the growth of the economy resulting from the additional
investment. The failure rate of these loans matters little in any case
because the loans cost nothing to create; their consequences matter,
however, because they produce their targeted effect in reducing poverty,
stabilising the banking system, and creating widespread prosperity through
many flourishing private industries in all the areas of the country.
The increase in output would obviously negate the risk that a substantial
increase in the money supply could be inflationary, as Keynes recognized
and as the Japanese experience in particular demonstrates. The
consequence of the increased money supply could well be a fall in the
international value of the pound, which could only be helpful in
ameliorating the competitiveness problem of British industry and in
ensuring readily available markets for increased British production.
Unemployment will fall to a low level. Social security payments will
automatically reduce as fuller employment becomes the norm and
Government income will cease to be disappointing, ending the need for
austerity in government expenditure and bringing to an end all of its ill
effects for our people.
© Bryan Gould and George Tait Edwards 2015