An Ideological Straitjacket
With inflation falling, a full percentage point cut in interest rates at the end of the month now looks like a done deal. But while a relaxation of monetary policy is both welcome and overdue, it does not remotely measure up to what is now required if we are to ward off what could be the most serious recession in most people’s lifetimes.
That isn’t to say that home owners should not see some small reduction in their mortgage interest payments. Businesses – at least those still willing to borrow – should get marginally better deals from those lenders still willing and able to lend. And lower rates should mean that overseas speculators are less likely to push up the value of our dollar by chasing the interest rate premium we have insisted on offering them over recent years.
Even so, the impact of the Reserve Bank governor’s expected decision will be pretty marginal. Any slight easing in the cost and availability of credit at home will be offset by the higher cost and greater difficulty our banks will encounter in borrowing overseas. And even if credit is a little cheaper and easier, that may not be of much use if fears of a recession mean that people are no longer willing to borrow and spend. Relying on monetary policy in these circumstances is a bit like pushing on a piece of string.
When Treasury advised the government a week or two ago that the economic situation had worsened over the three weeks of the Christmas break, they revealed themselves as the only observers who failed to see – from some months back – that a further and rapid deterioration was inevitable. The suspicion must be that they are still fighting the last war, still fondly hoping that the measures that were too late to deal with last year’s home-grown recession – already well entrenched long before the global meltdown – will now serve to deal with the world crisis. Following along in the wake of events, relying on tax cuts planned last year and a belated cut in interest rates, will simply not cut the mustard now that the world economy is in free fall.
It is of course true that we have not so far had to grapple with the financial crisis that has engulfed much of the world’s banking system. Our (largely Australian) banks have so far avoided those problems, though they may find the going gets tougher over coming months. But what we haven’t seemed to have grasped is that the shattering loss of confidence in the world’s banks is now spilling over in to the real world economy – the one where people actually live and work and spend and try to make a living.
As recession gathers pace overseas, we have yet to feel the full impact of export markets that are going backwards, of commodity prices that are falling, of import prices that are rising, of credit from overseas sources (on which – as proportionately the world’s second most indebted nation – we are dangerously dependent) becoming more difficult and expensive to arrange.
Nor have we understood the impact on our domestic economy of falling house prices, rising unemployment, tighter government spending levels and more bankruptcies, closures and bad debts. As people feel less wealthy – as the perceived value of their assets falls, and doubts grow over their future income levels and job security – they become less likely to spend and invest, compounding the recessionary impact of the meltdown overseas.
This is not to say that there is an easy consensus about what does need to be done. But what is clear is that most overseas governments, with varying degrees of reluctance, have accepted that simply cutting the cost of credit when people may not wish or be able to borrow is not the answer. What is now needed, as Keynes recognised 75 years ago, is a fiscal stimulus that will raise the actual level of spending in the economy. That means government investment in infrastructure and services that will benefit the economy, and possibly putting money into the pockets of people – like the poor and the retired – who will spend it, even if this means temporarily rising government deficits.
While others have accepted that difficult times require special measures, we seem locked into an ideological straitjacket which is obsessed with monetary policy and seems more frightened of a burgeoning government deficit than of national bankruptcy. Yet there is no reason why we should be less courageous than others in making our response to recession. The one bright spot in our economic situation, after all, is that the government’s finances are, by comparison with other countries, reasonably healthy. We must hope that our new government will have the courage to recognise this, to understand what they must now do, and to do it before it is too late.
Bryan Gould
21 January 2009
This article was published in the Sunday Star-Times on 25 January.
Politics Not Economics
As Keynes’ biographer, Professor Robert Skidelsky, says in the British Sunday papers, “it is not surprising that the old Keynesian tool kit is being ransacked” in response to the global economic crisis. After decades of being assured that “there is no alternative”, and that Keynesian economics is a dead duck, we now find that Keynesian remedies are all the rage. Without government intervention to bail out failed banks, measures of counter-cyclical demand management, and the resurgence of fiscal policy, the world would be facing an even grimmer future than it currently is.
But we need not wait long for the failed nostrums of recent orthodoxy to re-surface. Already, the George Bush’s of this world are trying to re-write history. The crisis, they say, was not caused by the failure to regulate the “free” market. There is nothing wrong, they maintain, with the basic model of unregulated capitalism. All that is needed, once the current crisis is overcome, is a little tweaking here and there before business as usual is resumed.
These apologists for our current travails make it clear that the measures that their failures have made necessary are absolute anathema to them. According to them, the best thing that can now happen is that decisions on major economic issues should be returned as soon as possible to those who are accustomed to taking them – that is, to those who made these catastrophic mistakes in the first place.
What all this shows is that the response demanded by the crisis is as much a political one as it is economic. The economics are pretty straightforward, as Keynes himself would have argued. In his view, economics was not an arcane science but largely a matter of common sense. It does not require a genius to understand that short-term markets are inherently unstable and, without proper regulation, will topple over into disaster. Nor do we need to look far for the obvious (even if – to some – unpalatable) remedies for the financial meltdown and the imminent global recession.
What we do need to understand is that what creates a crisis of the kind that now engulfs us is not economics but politics. The triumph of the global “free” market which has dominated the world over the last three decades has been a political triumph. It has reflected the dominance of those who believe that governments (for which read the views and interests of ordinary people) should be kept away from the levers of power, and that the tiny minority who control and benefit most from the economic process are the only people competent to direct it.
This band of greedy oligarchs have used their economic power to persuade themselves and most others that we will all be better off if they are in no way restrained – and if they cannot persuade, they have used that same economic power to override any opposition. The so-called “economic” arguments in favour of “free” markets are no more than a fig leaf for this self-serving doctrine of self-aggrandisement.
It is that political stance that must now be challenged if we are to learn the real lessons of the current crisis and defend ourselves against a repetition of the disaster that has now overtaken us. What we must understand is that what has happened is not the consequence of some technical failure in economic management. It has happened because we allowed democratic forms of government to be sidelined and subverted by the economic power of a minority.
The uncomfortable truth is that democracy and “free” markets are incompatible. The whole point of democratic government is that it uses the legitimacy of the democratic mandate to diffuse power throughout society rather than allow it to accumulate – as any player of Monopoly understands – in just a few hands. It deliberately uses the political power of the majority to offset what would otherwise be the overwhelming economic power of the dominant market players.
If governments accept, as they have done, that the “free” market cannot be challenged, they abandon in effect their whole raison d’etre. Democracy is then merely a sham. The dice must then be allowed to lie where they fall, and no amount of cosmetic tinkering at the margins will conceal the fact that power has passed to that handful of people who control the global economy.
The challenges facing the world are now so great – the threat to our environment, the huge imbalances between rich and poor, the energy crisis – that they dwarf even the economic power of the high priests of the global economy. If the current crisis is to be overcome successfully, it must set us on a new course, not just to restore prosperity for the already well-off, but to confront these global challenges before it is too late – and that is a task not just for the economists but for the politicians – and all of us – as well.
Bryan Gould
24 November 2008
This article was published in the online Guardian on 26 November.
Rescuing the New Zealand Economy
Bryan Gould’s new book “Rescuing the New Zealand Economy: What Went Wrong and What We Can Do to Fix It” will be published in New Zealand by Craig Potton Publishing. It will be in the bookshops on 22 September. Below is a short article about the subject-matter of the book.
As the Reserve Bank struggles to deal with both recession and inflation, it is time to review the course of the New Zealand economy over the past 25 years and to seek reasons for the cumulative failures which have led us to such disappointing long-term outcomes.
For too long, our policy-makers have argued that our poor performance – particularly in terms of productivity – is the result of everything other than their policies. Our comparative decline is now so endemic and so damaging to our living standards and even our continued viability, however, that we must draw the obvious conclusion that our policy-makers must take some of the blame.
The truth is that the simple certainties of monetarism, which seemed such a sure-fire recipe for success in the mid-1980s, have long since given way to a more balanced view of the true role of macro-economic policy. We now know that there is a huge downside to locking economic policy into a straitjacket from which only a single unelected official armed with one single target and one single instrument knows the escape route.
If we want a better economic performance, and in particular an improved productivity outcome, we must find a way of controlling inflation without burdening our producers with the highest interest rates in any advanced economy and with the perennial threat and reality of an overvalued exchange rate. The constant inhibition to competitiveness that results from an overvalued dollar means that New Zealand industry is never profitable enough to re-invest in new capability and innovation.
There is no shortage of options for dealing with inflation that are both more effective as counter-inflationary measures and less damaging to the productive economy. It is only the ideology of the “free market” fanatics that prevents us from taking these sensible steps.
Bryan Gould
12 September 2008
Global Warming and Market Failure
The Stern Report draws some alarming conclusions from the growing scientific consensus that global warming is a fact and is caused by greenhouse gas emissions arising as a result of industrial and other man-made processes. The Report demands an immediate and effective response from governments around the world.
It also prompts a prior question. Why has the free market – so often hymned as infallible by right-wing economists – allowed this situation to arise? And why have governments not intervened before now to protect us against this extreme example of market failure?
As I point out in The Democracy Sham, the world economy is now controlled by a small number of highly ideological and self-interested power players who are prefectly prepared to put that self-interest ahead of the health of the planet itself. They are able to treat any cost that does not arise directly – in terms of the bottom line – as “externalised” – that is, to be borne by someone else or, in many cases, by no one at all. Environmental costs fall clearly into this category. Their existence is either denied altogether, as in the case of global warming, or lip service is paid to dealing with them. Governments, other agencies and individuals who dare to take a different view are told that if they do not like it, the economic activity at issue will simply be moved somewhere else.
A prime example of the impotence of governments, when faced with this kind of blackmail in tlhe global economy, arose recently in New Zealand. The New Zealand government has signed the Kyoto Protocol and proposed a carbon tax as a means of helping to meet its Kyoto commitments. They were promptly told by Comalco, the multinational aluminium smelters, who are major users of electricity, that a carbon tax would mean that they would move their plant elsewhere. The government abandoned the carbon tax and is left for the time being without any credible means of bringing about a significant reduction in emissions.
Global warming, in other words, is just the latest and highest-profile example of the heavy price we pay for conceding control of the world economy to a “free market” in which a handful of operators can hold the rest of the world to ransom. It is time, in the interests of us all and of the planet, to re-establish political and democratic control over the economic process.
Bryan Gould
2 November 2006