Latest post on Left Futures

The economic contradictions of Mr Miliband

Two faces of MilibandThere is much to welcome in Ed Miliband’s address last Saturday to the Labour Party’s national policy forum. For example, his argument that Britain suffers from a low-pay economy. While the number of those in employment has grown, real pay has fallen dramatically over the lifetime of the present government.

At PRIME, we calculated the fall in real pay from May 2010 to May 2014 as 6.1%, using the CPI inflation and total pay stats from the Office for National Statistics. In his weekend column in The Independent on Sunday, David Blanchflower estimates the fall in real pay as 8% over the identical period, using the somewhat higher (but now less “official”) RPI inflation numbers.

Whether you choose 6% or 8%, that is a huge decline in real pay over such a short period. So Ed Miliband’s espousal of an increase in the minimum wage, and promotion of a living wage, are very welcome – and if implemented will help to “balance the budget” (by increasing tax revenues) and enhance the UK economy as a whole, as well as helping millions of (auto-insert “hard-working”) individuals and households.

His speech included many other points with which we agree, and which if implemented would change our country for the better.

But on the crucial issue of economic policy, Ed Miliband also made commitments that will prove disastrous if ever applied in a recession without reference to the actual state of the economy – and which are potentially in direct contradiction with his promises on pay and greater security for workers.

He reinforced the deeply flawed “there is no money” meme – which outgoing Treasury minister Liam Byrne helped to legitimize when in May 2010 he left a note (and political godsend) to his Coalition successor saying: “there’s no money left”. (Byrne had clearly not heard of Quantitative Easing).

The Miliband commitments

Here is the excerpt from Mr Miliband’s speech, drafted in the staccato soundbite prose reserved for such occasions:

…[T]he answer [to the UK’s economic problems] cannot be our traditional answer either.

Of spending to fix the problem.

You and I know we won’t have the money.

For all of the cuts, all of the pain under this government, Britain still has a deficit to deal with and a debt to pay down.

That’s why our programme starts with a binding commitment to balancing the books in the next government.

We will get the national debt falling as soon as possible in the next parliament.

And we will deliver a surplus on the current budget.”

You and I know” – implies that we all have a sound understanding of how much money there is available to government. But many of us were surprised when the government, working with the Bank of England, seemed to conjure £1 trillion (equal to the whole of the UK’s annual income) “out of thin air” – to bail out the banks in 2009. It taught you and me that the Bank of England and Treasury might have some tricks up their sleeve which we do not know or understand – and which onlyever seem to be deployed in the interests of the City of London!

We won’t have the money” – implies that a Labour government will not expand good quality employment by supporting public and private investment, and by that means increase the tax base – both direct and indirect.

We won’t have the money” – makes this potential loss of government income inevitable – when it is not.

The annual budget deficit

Yes, the UK still has a government budget deficit. But by itself this is no danger to the UK, as has been proved for 5 years – against all the warnings of doom from orthodox economists. The reason is simple: the government is not like a household. It has its own (nationalised) central bank, the Bank of England, which can purchase its bonds (used to fund investment for example) at very low rates of interest.

Since the UK – unlike Eurozone member states – can borrow in its own currency at low rates of interest, and in effect (though not under EU law directly) from its own central bank, there is no threat posed by a budget deficit at a time of high unemployment. Indeed a government deficit is necessary at a time of economic contraction, high levels of youth unemployment, and falling pay.

A government deficit means the government is pumping money into the economy. A government surplus implies that the Treasury is sucking money out of the economy. For the government to extract more out of the economy as incomes are falling would be deeply resented by the British people.

We need to remember that the recession was caused by the 2007-9 financial crisis, which had its origins in excessive, and reckless, credit creation by the private banking system. The expansion of credit expanded the money supply – and in turn inflated the price of assets.

When credit “crunched” in August, 2007, this led to a contraction of the money supply, and with it a contraction in investment, a fall in profits, a rise in unemployment and an acceleration of falls in income.

The private sector was too indebted, and too damaged by the crisis, to come to the rescue. Only the public sector – in the shape of central banks backed by taxpayers – could act in those circumstances.

How deficits may help the economy

So, while the private sector is still trying to fix the damage, to clean up balance sheets and to deleverage bloated debts, a government deficit is a sound buffer against the real threat of outright economic failure.

Indeed, we know from evidence provided by the UK Coalition government that since 2012, government spending, and a deliberate but unacknowledged slowing down of the austerity programme, has led to a relative improvement in the UK economy. And the UK has in turn been helped by another central banker, Mr Draghi of the European Central Bank, who promised to do “all that it takes” to defend the Euro. This has led to a painfully slow and uneven recovery in the Eurozone, which has also helped the British economy to edge towards recovery.

In the end, it is positive economic activity, with more Britons employed in quality jobs, doing productive work, earning reasonable pay and paying reasonable taxes, which “deals with the deficit”. If governments try to slash deficits by big cuts in public spending at the wrong time – as was the case with the Coalition’s cuts in 2010-12, and even more emphatically, the Eurozone’s tough austerity programmes – they end up making the situation far worse, with contracting private sector activity, sustained mass unemployment and greater inequality.

Wrong framing

Ed Miliband is anxious to mimic the Coalition’s, and in particular George Osborne’s, framing of public finance management as the need to behave like a prudent household and “to balance the budget” or even run a small surplus.

While we are not politicians, we think it unwise for a political party to adopt their political opponent’s framing. Especially since the Chancellor’s framing of the crisis was adopted precisely in order to draw attention away from the private debt crisis (and wider private sector failings), and focus public attention instead on cutting back the state and public sector services – where much of Labour’s support lies.

It is also economically unwise, and will, we confidently predict, at minimum require the kind of U-turn that Chancellor Osborne was forced to adopt when in 2012 he began the process of easing austerity.

It would be particularly unwise for Labour to make a “binding commitment” to balance the books, no matter what the state of the economy. What if the British economy is hit by another “credit crunch”, or by a further deterioration of the Eurozone during the lifetime of the next Parliament? Given the growing volatility of financial markets, the heavy burden of private debt dogging both the British and US economies, and growing geopolitical risks, the threat of another major recession is not unthinkable.

To make a “binding commitment” to “balance the budget” regardless of such threats, and even in the event of a major recession, is truly misguided.

Merkel’s Germany – ‘softer’ than UK Labour?

In fact, in the unqualified form expressed in his speech, Mr Miliband’s “binding commitment” goes even further than the budgetary straitjacket which Germany – with its ordoliberal economic philosophy – has chosen to impose on itself.  The “Schuldenbremse” (debt brake and balanced budget) provisions introduced in 2009 into the German Basic Law (constitution) permit a slight softening in case of recessions, allowing modest deficit borrowing of up to 0.35% of GDP in a year, to be balanced by surpluses in the up-years of the cycle.

The stock of national public debt

The statement that we “have a debt to pay down”, allied to the commitment to “get the national debt falling as soon as possible in the next parliament” also offer up foolish and unnecessary hostages to economic and political fortune.

First, even the European Union’s budget rules do not require nominal debt to be reduced – they seek to require that gross public debt as a percentage of GDP should not exceed 60%. That means that if in any year GDP grows faster than an increase in nominal debt, the position under the EU rules improves, as opposed to worsening – even with debt rising!

Alas, Mr Miliband did not even say that Labour would get the public debt as a proportion of the economy to fall in the next parliament. This implies that he and his advisers do not understand that public debt as a percentage of GDP can fall of its own accord, as the economic cake expands, and not as a result of any direct action by policy-makers.

Second, once again the chance is not taken in the Labour Leaders’s speech to make clear the difference between borrowing to cover current budget expenditure, and borrowing to enable positive investment to take place, which enhances the country’s longer-term economic future. Instead, we are lured back into the stupid political territory that assumes all government borrowing to be “bad”, irrespective of the situation or the purpose.

The most damaging part of the Coalition’s programme of spending cuts was the sheer scale of cuts to public investment – most of which would have benefited private sector firms and their employees!

Contradictions and classical economic ideology

Keynes did not argue that governments should run budget deficits in “good” years in which there is full employment and strong economic activity. His title General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money makes his priority clear: it is full employment that we should be seeking – for economic, budgetary but also for social reasons. Employment (if fairly remunerated) generates the income – tax revenues – needed to “balance the budget”. Unemployment and low-paid, insecure employment shrink the very revenues needed to “balance the budget”.

If taken literally and seriously, the Labour Party, in its Leader’s speech last weekend, has once again forgotten and ignored the work of Keynes and his successors, and adopted the neoclassical economic paradigm. In this neoclassical world, economies are self-righting and find their own equilibrium. Deficits are always wrong, even in times of high unemployment. Creditors’ interests take precedence over all other actors in the economy. Public debt has to be “paid down”, even at the cost of contracting the economy – as governments so “successfully” did under the neoliberal Gold Standard of the 1920s and 30s.

Market-clearing wage rates

The logic, of course, is that wages must be self-regulating which means that real pay must fall to “market-clearing rates” in times of recession and high unemployment. But this runs absolutely counter to the progressive parts of Mr Miliband’s speech, in which he gives a commitment to higher pay and greater legal protection for those on lower wages today.

If all goes well with the economy, the contradictions may for a time remain unresolved. But if the economy runs into stormy weather, something has to give.

Mr Miliband and his colleagues would do well to remember the fate of the 1929 to 1931 Labour Government. Its binding commitment to “balanced budgets”, and its genuflection before classical economics, caused its outright collapse and the disintegration of the Labour movement.

As J.K. Galbraith once said of the Great Crash and Depression:

There is merit in keeping alive the memory of those days”.*

*Hat tip to Philip Augur in the Financial Times, “Britain versus the Banks“, 18th July, for reminding us of this quotation.

This article first appeared at PRIME


  1. Sandra Crawford says:

    A much needed and well argued piece for which we should all be grateful.

    I am wondering if Ed Miliband really understands the money supply. But he does realise deficit spending is necessary. He criticised the government for lack of growth which requires spending to increase tax receipts, but has stopped saying this. I wonder if he has been touched by the “dead hand” of the right in the party.
    When he came to Cambridge and stood on a soap box in the market square, I asked him what he thought of Martin Wolf’s helicopter money and Lord Adair Turners overt monetary finance. (Given the private debt levels).
    I was convinced by MWs AND LATs arguments that the banks had racked up so much debt that (in the ideas of Michael Hudson), they had created a new feudal rent which is so excessive, that the economy cannot pay it back – MH says “debts that can’t be paid won’t be.” Debt deflation itself is wrecking the economy because most money is ear marked for debt service.
    So it seemed clear to me, that the BoE should create money to help people clear debt – it is ficticious debt – so quantitatively ease it away.
    Ed Miliband said that we could borrow from the BoE because it is cheap to do so, but did not consider creating money exogenously a good idea. With debt that is un-payable in the private sector borrowing is not enough. The debt needs writing off or quantitatively eased away by the creation of debt free money spent directly into job creation and benefits, followed by regulation and higher taxes for the banks and corporations.
    John Maynard Keynes did not always advocate borrowing, he also said we should “create money and hide it in bottles in coal mines”.
    I came to the conclusion that EM was someone who either cannot see through the rentseeking behaviour of banks when they inflate house prices with too much debt, or is so much brought up in the Harvard School of neoliberal thinking that he believes as many others do that “there is no alternative” to bank created credit, even when it has got out of control and is extracting half of peoples incomes.
    Deficit spending helps, but why not just create the money and spend it, and then tax the top one percent a lot more?
    To leave the debt in place and cut public spending would cause deflation, suffering and unemployment, and a rise in Wonga loans that will not be paid. Bank lending is mostly still going into debt creation (help to buy), and geeting worse.
    As Michael Hudson has said, debt write offs must be a priority for the left, but where is the left?
    (Present company excluded, on this blog, of course).

  2. Robert says:

    So what do we do about it, Vote Tory in the hope labour does at least try to have a different view on life, Vote labour and then see the last vestiges of the labour party die.

    I cannot for the life of me see Ball’s and Miliband running this country I really cannot, and I’m not voting in Progress or Blair’s lot.

    So yes your right some of the offers may see worth while the rest are Tories , labour are not labour and that’s the problem Miliband not a leader he is a follower the problem is he following the Tories.

  3. david hide says:

    All too complicated for me to understand. However as someone who talks politics in the workplace everyday there seems very little ‘ to welcome’ in Ed’s speech or his intro to ‘One Nation’
    There is currently just one policy that resonates with the electorate ( the freeze) and what I have heard about the weekend nothing has changed.
    I am a traditional left of centre Labour voter and would not for a million years have voted for David M but my experience of Ed’s leadership here in Horsham is that Labour Party members have never been so disinterested in what the Labour leadership is doing or the shadow cabinet delivering. I find it impossible to think that when members are so totally disengaged, the British public might hold such a different perspective come the general election.
    The NPF was a massive missed opportunity, is there yet time to come up with a radical manifesto?

    1. PoundInYourPocket says:

      There are still some a couple of good things in there.
      1 million homes built by 2020 and a 10% starter tax band. Nothing radical but better than the Tories.

      1. Robert says:

        One Million homes built by whom for whom, we all know when the ,market grows house builders will build, I notice Ed does not say if these are social housing , middle class affordable homes or he hopes that House builders will build his Million homes so he can claim to have done it himself.

        He has to tell us whom these houses are for.

        The 10% starter tax is welcome but then you will lose I suspect the tax credits so you actually gain sod all.

    2. Sandra Crawford says:

      David – look at the Positive Money website – it explains for people the basics of how money is created – you cannot understand todays problems with out it. And you will not see why cuts to government money is wrong without it.

      Here is a link – but look at the whole of their website.

  4. Carol Hayton says:

    Ed Miliband has not promised 1 million homes by 2020. The commitment is to build 200,000 homes a year by 2020. Quite different and certainly not enough, no matter who they are built for, when the current requirement to meet demand is at least 250,000 a year from now.

    1. PoundInYourPocket says:

      I’ve heard and read both versions; initially it was to increase the rate of home building to 200,000 a year by 2020, more latterly it was a total of 1 million new houses built by 2020. But even as a party member frankly I’ve no idea what Labour policy is on this or any other issue. It seems to depend on the latest public speech or press release rather than on any formal process. And I agree that as Shelter say, the need is for 250,000 homes a year.

© 2024 Left Futures | Powered by WordPress | theme originated from PrimePress by Ravi Varma