Debunking Economics - the podcast

Carla Denyer and Adrian Ramsay recently launched the Greens Manifesto in the run up to the UK election. Phil and Steve discuss it on this week’s podcast and conclude the one thing that seems to have slipped down the priority list, is all the green stuff. They talk about fixing broken Britain, like every party, and correcting wealth inequality. They also promise that their ideas are fully costed, and can be paid for – for example, by a carbon tax. But they know they will never run government, so why pretend? Why not use their moment in the sun to return the debate to the fundamental issue of climate change. The future of the planet looks pretty sick when even the Greens push it down the agenda.

The UK election debate changed tune when Nigel Farage agreed to stand for Reform, promising to cut migration and rid the UK of all the problems these nasty foreigners are responsible for. Elsewhere the recent European Union elections saw a sharp shift to the right, again driven by concerns over migration. If Donald Trump wins again in the US at the end of the year that too will be gained on a ticket spreading fear and loathing over migrants. It is clearly an issue that can’t be ignored. Yet you have to wonder how many fo the proposals from the likes of Farage are workable, or effective. People in poor countries will always want a better standard of living.  Phil and Steve discuss whether it’s an aspect fo the world we have to live with. More importantly, is it being used to spread division and diverting attention from the real problems, like the underinvestment in public infrastructure. That’s down to fiscal conservatism and governments worried about debt. 

Imagine if Keir Starmer, the UK Labour leader, had said, let’s not get too obsessed with government debt. If we go down that road we won‘t be able to provide the public services we need, our infrastructure will crumble further and we’ll simply see the country’s productivity erode further by the day. Unfortunately, he didn’t say that. Instead, he has pledged himself to the temple of fiscal responsibility, just like the Conservatives. That means, whichever party is in power the UK can expect something akin to the austerity that plagued the last 2010s. Phil asks Steve just ow much extra spending the government can get away with, though, when the Liz Truss experience suggests governments are answerable to the financial markets.

The UK is heading to the polls on July 4th and the Conservative Party is heading for annihilation. Yet, when it comes to espousing sensible ideas from textbooks, Rishi Sunak had the making of a good Prime Minister. For example, tackling productivity by building the necessary infrastructure, investing in education and building cities and regions where businesses could cross pollinate their expertise, facilitated by strong communication and transport links. He presented all of these ideas three years ago and since then productivity has fallen. Why? Steve says these are all great ideas, but there was no money there to support them. You can’t facilitate growth whilst pulling money out of the economy through government spending cuts. Hence, Tory party economics has failed on delivery. 

Steve is on hols this week, so Phil takes a look back at a couple of Debunking Economics podcasts from just before Donald Trump took office. In many ways he stuck to his promises. He tried to cut immigration, he introduced protectionism with hefty tariffs on China and he cut taxes. Now he’s promising more of the same, although Biden might have beaten him to it when it comes to heftier taxes on China’s EV exports. The first time around Steve suggested some of Trump’s thinking was right, although perhaps for the wrong reasons. Tax cuts to boost spending seems like a good idea, but he directed it at high income earners in the false belief that they would use this money to invest in jobs to grow the economy. Instead, tax receipts fell and the new jobs didn’t materialise.He is also hell bent on making America self-sufficient for energy. America’s domestic oil production has been steadily increasing since 2016. Can we expect this to accelerate, given he has repeatedly declared climate change is a hoax, and the likely funding support he is receiving from the fossil fuel industry?

Should we tax wealth more? The UK’s Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reevs wouldn’t be drawn o the question at an FT forum recently. She said the UK is already a high taxing country. But around the world the wealthy are getting wealthier. Is that a bad thing? Some would say that if they are making money creating growth for the economy, then why would you want to stop them. Jeff Bezos, for example, makes a small fraction of the wealth of the economic benefit he has created for broader society.  But does it make sense that income from wealth – primarily capital gains – is taxed less than I come from work? No, says Steve Keen. It should be the other way round. Listen in for a discussion about taxing wealth, that’s a little more nuanced than just saying tax the rich.

UK Labour leader Keir Starmer has said if he wins the next general election, within 5 years he will have re-nationalised Britain’s railways. Phil asks Steve whether it naturally follows that this will lead to an improvement in services and lower fares? Steve reckons you any need to look at government run services elsewhere in Europe to answer that question – but Britain’s trains weren’t so great even in the days of British Rail, when they were in government hands. This time there’s a chance one of the key areas of investment will remain in private hands, negating the advantage of public ownership.Railways are also an easy choice. Many franchise operators have fallen by the wayside, forcing the government to step in. Renationalisation was starting t happen by default. Ut what about water?  Nd, more significantly, what about the power industry. How can an industry that relies on making more money from customers operate in an environment where climate change is demanding we use less?Phil and Steve discuss how Labour’s plans only seem to scratch the surface.  Th direction of travel is right, but they don’t seem to be heading very far down the line.

The new industry is struggling to survive, with far reaching consequences on public accountability and democracy. Steve says part of the problem could have been fixed with a suitable micropayments system, so readers could consume articles without subscribing to papers in full. Phil’s not so sure, pointing to the fact that an increasingly large proportion of the population is not consuming news at all and what they do read or watch is on their feeds in social media. News media is having to resort to click bate on low-rent stories that will drive traffic and help drive advertising revenue. There’s little or no scope for investigative journalism unless it is funded by the public purse – but governments and reticent to fund such activities if they fear they will be caught out by it. So how do we fix the journalism deficit?