The Losers from Free Trade (and Donald Trump)

Thomas Frank writes in the Guardian that when Donald Trump “isn’t spewing insults, the Republican frontrunner is hammering home a powerful message about free trade and its victims”.

It’s a challenging point about a central aspect of what Frank calls “Econ 101”, but we understand as EC114, Introductory Macroeconomics: comparative advantage. The idea that all countries specialise in the things they are comparatively better at (rather than absolutely better at), and as a result we all do better. So Mexico produces air conditioning units, while America produces the designs for awesome Apple computers (made in China).

However, what does that mean for those who used to produce air conditioning units in America? Or those here in the UK who used to build ships?

As we pointed out in the lecture, free trade doesn’t mean all benefit. However, free trade does envisage that those displaced from industries that a country is not specialising in are able to move into those industries that a country is specialising in. So why hasn’t that happened in so many parts of the UK, and the US? Undoubtedly the article written by Frank could be applied here in the UK to the rhetoric of Nigel Farage and Ukip.

It’s tempting to say that we’ll find an answer at some point in the rest of the course, yet the reality is that depressed parts of the UK have been depressed for decades now, and things never seem to change – which suggests that the problem hasn’t really been solved as yet… or has it?

Frank concludes with a tirade against free trade but more: “Ill-considered trade deals and generous bank bailouts and guaranteed profits for insurance companies but no recovery for average people, ever – these policies have taken their toll.” To what extent have bank bailouts left us with a banking system unwilling to extend credit to firms willing to move into depressed areas of the country and create jobs?

Even if that’s true, however, most depressed areas of the UK have been depressed for longer than just the time since the Financial Crisis…

Further Reflections on the Autumn Statement

Here’s an blog post at a blog I regularly read: “So what has happened to the long-term plan, George?” It’s another set of reflections on last week’s Autumn Statement, adding in the current fiasco surrounding the Labour Party.
The Chancellor put off cutting the deficit based on a better than expected forecast of government revenues at last week’s Autumn Statement.
That decision probably won’t have great consequences – although it does raise questions of consistency, since as the blog article points out, the Prime Minister and Chancellor have long made the point that Labour didn’t “fix the roof while the sun was shining” back before the financial crisis.
The point it makes though is that weak oppositions, as Labour is currently providing to the Conservatives, allow potentially lazy, or complacent decisions to be made, which could have economic consequences.
I’d highly recommend the Political Betting blog that this article was motivated by; it’s a very interesting take on politics from the perspective of people who regularly place bets on political outcomes. The placing of bets is an economic decision, and many argue it’s an effective way of forcing rigorous thinking: if one’s money is at stake, one will be more conscious of potential biases that would result in betting losses.

Today: Vince Cable!

Vince Cable – pic from Telegraph

On campus this afternoon we have Vince Cable, former Lib Dem MP for Twickenham, and former Former Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.

He’ll be talking at 4pm in G11 in Henley Business School, talking about his recent book, “After the Storm”.

Vince Cable before getting into politics lectured in economics, and got a PhD from the University of Glasgow, so he’s quite a heavyweight when it comes to economic matters.

Even if (in fact, particularly if) you disagree with his politics, I challenge you to come along and listen to what he has to say, and try to reason with yourself why he is wrong in a manner that doesn’t rely on resorting to political differences. Next term we’ll start thinking much more seriously about macroeconomic policy and we’ll quickly see the differences between the major political parties in very different terms. It’s good to be analytical as much as possible when thinking about policies and economic ideas.

What is this “Fiscal Charter”?

The main news this morning is overtly political: Labour have apparently performed a U-turn and now oppose the Fiscal Charter than the Chancellor, George Osborne, has proposed. While the U-turn is obviously a political story, and Labour is a political party with plenty of problems at the moment, the Fiscal Charter is something that very much invokes economics, and economic analysis.

What is this Fiscal Charter? Here’s what George Osborne said in his Summer Budget Speech back on July 8 2015:

Today I publish the new Fiscal Charter that commits our country to that path of budget responsibility.

While we move from deficit to surplus, this Charter commits us to keeping debt falling as a share of GDP [Gross Domestic Product] each and every year– and to achieving that budget surplus by 2019-20.

Thereafter, governments will be required to maintain that surplus in normal times – in other words, when there isn’t a recession or a marked slowdown.

Only when the OBR [Office for Budget Responsibility] judge that we have real GDP growth of less than 1% a year, as measured on a rolling four-quarter basis, will that surplus no longer be required.

So in “normal” economic times, governments must run a budget surplus – something that will be enshrined in law should it be passed through parliament this Autumn.

The budget surplus is the difference between government receipts and government spending: T-G, in econ-maths-speak. It is different from government debt, which can crudely be thought of as the cumulation of previous budget deficits – when (T-G)<0.

It seems eminently sensible that when the economy is growing, governments should not be running deficits: in the good times, governments do not need to stimulate economic activity via tax cuts and extra spending projects, and indeed they collect more in various taxes: income tax, corporation tax, VAT, and so on.

However, this next graph suggests that UK governments for centuries have not been very good at this:

gov-surplus-1700

Going back to 1700, looking at 315 years of data, in only 83 of those has the UK government run a surplus; less than a third of the time. A casual glance also shows that the positive/negative split bears no resemblance to which party, left or right, has been in power; for almost all of the 1960s and 1970s, when both major parties had spells in power, the government almost exclusively ran deficits.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that Osborne’s charter is a bad thing: if it forces governments to run surpluses, this must be a good thing for the national debt? There’s loads to say about this, and we’ll say a lot more come the Spring in EC114, but for now it’s worth pointing out that the national debt (the cumulated overspends of UK governments) is not only reduced by running a surplus; despite the UK running deficits for much of the post-WW2 period, the following graph shows that UK national debt fell from 238% of GDP in 1948 to 42% by 1980:

ukgs_line

 

So a budget surplus is not essential for reducing the national debt burden. Indeed, many argue it may even hinder this; after all, the UK economy has performed well over the last 315 years despite predominantly having a government operating a deficit. In part, this is because governments invest in public infrastructure projects that can facilitate growth: transport and telecommunications networks, for example.

And this is where Labour appears to be in a muddle about the Fiscal Charter. The Fiscal Charter as Osborne outlined makes no room even for investing in public projects, focussing only on the budget as a whole. Often we split the budget into that for current consumption and that for investment: the part for current consumption (things we spend now: benefits mainly) is referred to often as the structural balance. Labour wants to still be able to spend on infrastructure projects in the good times, whereas Osborne’s Fiscal Charter rules even that out.

More in the Spring 🙂