Debunking Economics - the podcast

The early days of Bitcoin its proponents argued that this could be the global currency to replace fiat money. Governments the world over were issuing too much currency, leading to inflation, whilst imposing arbitrary regulations that would be impossible once authorities lost control of money.Steve says for that to work Bitcoin would need to be capable of the instantaneous transactions we are used to with the billions of banking transactions that happen every day. What’s more, the limited supply of Bitcoin means increases in productivity are likely to result in deflation p- a bigger enemy to the economy than rising prices.Instead Bitcoin has become just another asset class. The initial argyument that it served as a useful hedge against a downturn, in the same way gold does. Except now Bitcoin has started to mirror movements of other assets, like shares. And speculators are buying into it, often in highly leveraged positions. Risky?Still the argument remains that Bitcoin could be a workable currency. One that consumes a lot of energy in the process. When energy becomes really scarce, says Steve, Bitcoin will be the first thing to be turned off.

How far are we willing to go in accepting the corporate takeover of just about everything. In Britain public utilities were sold off, so companies could profit from selling resources whilst minimising maintenance of facilities. Phil asks the question how Britain’s water infrastructure is in such a state of repair in an industry that makes £13 billion per year. Then there’s the moves to strangle publicly funded media and privatise the funding of health. But it gets worse. Britain’s freeports are local areas run jointly by local authorities of local business. Democracy has become just another seat at the table. And there’s a proposal from, one consortium for a new town in Britain that is run by a corporation where residents sign a contract for services. No local democracy. Such towns already exist in many parts of the world. Is that the conclusion - we privatise everything and we are all at the whim of big business. Elon Musk is already working on how to create your artificial best friend.

Several listeners have written in to get Steve’s views on the path being taken by Mark Carney to rescue the Canadian economy. Initially it looked like the country was rebounding strongly from the pandemic, but in the last couple of years the growth has slowed and then declined. That was before President Trump hit them hard with tariffs and then said he’d like them to become part of the US. In some ways he is trying the same approach as the UK – to balance the operational side of government spending but inventing in infrastructure beyond that balanced operational budget. That would be fine if a large chunk of that investment wasn’t going to defence. There’s also very little attention to the most fundamental issue for Canada unaffordable housing. Proudly the most unaffordable in the world. Hard to get people to spend when a huge chunk of their income is disappearing into mortgage payments.There’s another fundamental problem with Carney’s approach. As Steve points out, it almost every policy it relies on outside influence, rather than domestic resolutions.

Is it fair enough to totally write off Ricardo’s theory of competitive advantage? Certainly, President Trump isn’t an advocate, using tariffs to protect America’s domestic industries from those countries that produce stuff cheaper. A broad economy, producing a range of products and services, is preferably to a narrow one, reliant on one or two key exports, which is what Ricardo advocated. But in support of Ricardo, some of the narrowest economies, like Australia, have some of the highest levels of GDP per capita. It seems to work for resource-based economies, so far. But could they be even richer? Phil and Steve discuss Ricardo and economic complexity in the age of Trump’s tariff agenda. 

The UK Labour party has struggled to forge a recovery for the beleaguered economy. Rachel Reeves is intent on reducing the government deficit. Her first attempt involved increasing the National Insurance contributions made by businesses – in effect, raising a payrolls tax. In short, a reason for companies unsure about recruiting in a slow growth economy to err on the side of caution. Now, there’s talk of tax rises. Steve and phil talk about the impact on growth of added more to the consumer’s tax burden, and the impact it’ll have on money in circulation. Then there’s the confusing idea of increasing savings as though that’ll drive investment which will add to economic growth. That might be the case if the money was invested in new businesses, rather than inflating share prices and other financial instruments, which all deflect money from the real economy.

Before he was the UK Prime Minister at war with the Nazis, Winston Churchill ws the UK’s Chancellor. He played it very straight, with a preoccupation with balancing the budget. He also took the Uk back onto the Gold Exchange, despite warnings from Keynes that the move would be deflationary. In 1928 he reinforced his neoclassical credentials, saying very little additional employment and no permanent employment can be created by state borrowing and state expenditure. That is, of course, the exact opposite of the idea of a job guarantee, but is Churchill partially right? Can a job guarantee ever create jobs that will enhance productivity?This week Phil and Steve look into job creation and Churchill’s fear of using government spending to protect the labour market. It was a time when even Joh Maynard Keynes didn’t get everything right. For example, he argued that the multiplier effect would add new money and new employment from government cash injections. But how can you multiple the injection if no new money is created? And it ignores the real benefits jobs can create, behind the money gained from those directly employed, whether by the government or the private sector. 

In UK politicians of all persuasions agree that foreign investment I s important to add to the growth of the UK economy. Steve says you have to have foreigners buying into the UK to counter the currency losses from a sizeable balance of trade deficit. But a lot of that investment will see profits being repatriated back overseas. And then there’d the overseas investment in UK bonds and shares. Andy Burnham, the Manchester Mayor who seems to be positioning himself to replace Keir Starmer, has said we need to limit the ownership of UK nbonds to foreign investors, and not be ‘in hock’ to bond markets. Has he got his thinking right?

recent spoke at a meeting of Jeremy Corbyn’s new venture – Your Party. Steve gave a presentation on how governments can spend more without worrying about the deficit, provided it was done sensibly. The argument that the private sector buying up government bonds will crowd out investment in other initiatives is bunkum. The private sector can still borrow for investment, perhaps benefiting from the enhanced infrastructure and trading environment government spending has created. But Phil argues there’s a big education job to be done – the politicians, the electorate and, more significantly, the bond vigilantes, who will see high government spending as a reason to push up bond yields, which will flow through to borrowing costs for everyone. Meanwhile, what chance as Corbyn’s new party got? Is the left divided itself between Corbyn, Galloway, the Greens, Labour and thew LibDems? Is this division creating a pathway for Reform to offer an agenda of low tax, fewer government services and heavily controlled immigration. In other words, Project 2025 transferred to British soil.