There seems to be consensus among most politicians on both sides of the Atlantic that there needs to be a reduction in government deficits and debt as a proportion of GDP. But there is considerable debate as to how such reductions should be achieved.
Conservatives, Republicans and centre right parties in Europe, such as Greece’s Νεα Διμοκρατια (New Democracy) party, believe that there should be tough policies to reduce government expenditure and that the deficit should be reduced relatively quickly in order to retain the confidence of markets.
Politicians on the centre left, including Labour, many Democrats in the USA and centre-left parties in Europe, such as François Hollande’s Socialists, argue that the austerity policies pursued by centre-right governments have led to a decline in growth, which makes it harder to reduce the current deficit.
Then there is debate about what is happening to the structural deficit – the deficit that would remain at a zero output gap. Politicians on the centre right argue that their austerity policies are leading to a rapid reduction in the structural deficit. This, combined with the supply-side policies they claim they are implementing, will allow growth to be resumed more quickly and will increase the long-term growth rate (i.e. the growth in potential output).
Politicians on the centre left argue that deep cuts, by reducing short-term growth (even making it negative in some cases, such as the UK), are discouraging investment and construction. This in turn will lower the growth in potential output and make it harder to reduce the structural deficit.
The following podcast and articles consider these arguments – arguments that are often badly put by politicians, who often use ‘questionable’ economics to justify their party line.
Podcast
A grand economic experiment (also at) More or Less: BBC Radio 4 (first part), Tim Harford (4/5/12) (Programme details)
Articles
The fine art of squeezing: Britain vs America BBC News, Stephanie Flanders (4/5/12)
The Slippery Structural Deficit Wall Street Journal (blog), Matthew Dalton (11/5/12)
The right kinds of austerity policy Financial Times (1/5/12)
We can fix up the old status quo to get out of this mess The Olympian, David Brooks (11/5/12)
Europe’s austerity drive is a misdiagnosis of its problems Gulf News, Joseph Stiglitz (13/5/12)
How Nick Clegg got it wrong on debt Guardian, Polly Curtis (9/5/12)
Ten Reasons Wall Street Should Be (Very) Worried About The U.S. Debt Forbes, Bruce Upbin (4/5/12)
Questions
- Distinguish between the structural and cyclical budget deficit.
- Explain the distinction between stocks and flows. Which of the following are stocks and which are flows: (a) public-sector deficit; (b) public-sector debt; (c) public-sector net cash requirement; (d) debt reduction; (e) a bank’s balance sheet?
- Under what circumstances will a reduction in the public-sector deficit lead to: (a) a reduction in the public-sector debt (total); (b) a reduction in the public-sector debt as a proportion of GDP?
- How would you decide what is the desirable level of the public-sector deficit: (a) in the short run; (b) in the long run?
- Explain and comment on the following statement from the Stephanie Flanders article: “What is clear is that America has been able to ‘cut its debt (sic) further and faster’ than Britain – but this has not been the result of any closet commitment to austerity. Quite the opposite.”
John Von Neumann was a mathematician and one of his many accolades was applying mathematics and his observations of traditional games to create a new discipline – Game Theory. This involves a mathematical approach to decision making whereby different strategies can be assessed. It a tool that not only can be used in Economics, but also can be applied to a broad range of areas and fields of study.
Just as I arrived at work, I was listening to Radio 4 and heard the introduction to the programme In our Time. This one in particular caught my attention because of the name mentioned – Von Neumann, and after arriving in my office I then listened to the discussions surrounding game theory.
The main link is to the discussion from BBC Radio 4, led by Melvyn Bragg, with guests: Ian Stewart, a Professor of Mathematics from the University of Warwick; Andrew Colman, a Professor of Psychology at the University of Leicester and Richard Bradley, a Professor of Philosophy from the LSE. I’ll keep it brief and simply say enjoy!
Podcast
Game Theory (also at) BBC Radio 4, In our Time, Melvyn Bragg (10/5/12) (Programme details)
Articles
Game Theory cannot predict broadcasting future Financial Times, Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson (4/5/12)
Game Theory, in the real world Phys Org (2/5/12)
Questions
- What is game theory? How is mathematics relevant here?
- The discussion talks about co-operative and non co-operative games. What is the difference between them?
- In the game – walking down the street – draw out the matrix and show whether a Nash equilibrium exists.
- Draw out the matrix for the game ‘Rock, Paper, Scissors’. How can game theory be applied to this game? What is the best strategy to win this game? Can there be a winner?
- Draw out the matrix for the problem of littering when it is non co-operative. Is there a Nash equilibrium?
- What is the Prisoner’s Dilemma? Give some examples of it. Explain why it is an example of a dominant strategy game.
- How is game theory relevant to broadcasting? Think about the role of auctions and also the information given in the Financial Times article.
- Explain how game theory is relevant to the Cold War.
On 2 May 2012, Sir Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, gave the BBC Today Prgramme’s public lecture. In it, he reflected on the causes and aftermath of the banking crisis of 2007/8.
He said that the main cause of the banking crisis was the risky behaviour of the banks themselves – behaviour that they had been allowed to get away with becuase regulation was too light. The cause was not one of inappropriate fiscal and monetary policy.
According to Dr King, there had been no classical macroeconomic boom and bust. True there had been a bust, but there was no preceding boom. Economic growth had not been unsustainable in the sense of being persistently above the potential rate. In other words, the output gap had been close to zero. As Mervyn King puts it
Let me start by pointing out what did not go wrong. In the five years before the onset of the crisis, across the industrialised world growth was steady and both unemployment and inflation were low and stable. Whether in this country, the United States or Europe, there was no unsustainable boom like that seen in the 1980s; this was a bust without a boom.
In terms of monetary policy, inflation had been on track and interest rates were not too low. And as for fiscal policy, government borrowing had been within the Golden Rule, whereby, over the cycle, the goverment borrowed only to invest and kept a current budget balance. Indeed, the period of the late 1990s and early to mid 2000s had become known as the Great Moderation.
So what went wrong? Again in the words of Dr King:
In a nutshell, our banking and financial system overextended itself. That left it fragile and vulnerable to a sudden loss of confidence.
The most obvious symptom was that banks were lending too much. Strikingly, most of that increase in lending wasn’t to families or businesses, but to other parts of the financial system. To finance this, banks were borrowing large amounts themselves. And this was their Achilles’ heel. By the end of 2006, some banks had borrowed as much as £50 for every pound provided by their own shareholders. So even a small piece of bad news about the value of its assets would wipe out much of a bank’s capital, and leave depositors scurrying for the door. What made the situation worse was that the fortunes of banks had become closely tied together through transactions in complex and obscure financial instruments. So it was difficult to know which banks were safe and which weren’t. The result was an increasingly fragile banking system.
But doesn’t his imply that regulation of the banking system had failed? And if so why? And have things now been fixed – so that banks will no longer run the risk of failure? Dr King addresses this issue and others in his speech and also in his interview the next day for the Today Programme, also linked to below.
Podcasts
The Today Programme Lecture BBC Radio 4, Sir Mervyn King (2/5/12) (Transcript of speech)
Also on YouTube at Governor’s Today Programme lecture, 2 May 2012
Sir Mervyn King: The full interview BBC Today Programme, Sir Mervyn King talks to Evan Davis (3/5/12)
Sir Mervyn King analysis ‘verging on delusional’ BBC Today Programme, Dylan Grice and Ngaire Woods (3/5/12)
Articles
Sir Mervyn King rejects criticism for crisis BBC News (3/5/12)
The boom and bust of Mervyn King BBC News, Robert Peston (3/5/12)
Sir Mervyn King admits BoE failed over financial crisis The Telegraph, Philip Aldrick (3/5/12)
Sir Mervyn King admits: we did too little to warn of economic crisis Guardian, Larry Elliott (2/5/12)
King Says BOE Will Risk Unpopularity to Prevent Crises Bloomberg, Jennifer Ryan and Scott Hamilton (3/5/12)
Data
Economic Outlook Annex Tables OECD (See Annex Tables 1, 10, 14, 18, 27, 28, 32, 33, 61 and 62)
Statistical Interactive Database Bank of England (See for example, A Money and Lending: counterparts to changes in M4, alternative presentation > Seasonally adjusted > Public sector contribution > PSNCR)
Questions
- Why was the period of the late 1990s and early to mid 2000s described as the Great Moderation?
- Chart the size of the output gap, the rate of inflation and public-sector deficits as a percentage of GDP in the UK and other major economies from 1995 to 2007. Is this evidence of the Great Moderation?
- To what extent would evidence of house prices, consumer debt, bank lending and the balance of trade deficit suggest that there was indeed a boom from the mid 1990s to 2007?
- What, according to Dr King were the main causes of the credit crunch?
- What, with hindsight, should the Bank of England have done differently?
- What UK body was responsible for regulating banks in the run up to the credit crunch? Why might its regulation be described as ‘light touch’?
- In what sense was there a moral hazard in central banks being willing to bail out banks?
- What banking reforms have taken place or will take place in the near future? Will they address the problems identified by Dr King and prevent another banking crisis ever occurring again?
Australia was one of the few economies that seemed to be somewhat insulated from the 2008/09 recession and credit crunch. However, with the UK now back in recession and global economic conditions worsening in much of Europe, Australia has now joined the list of countries that are experiencing economic conditions that are ‘weaker than forecast’.
Today’s world involves economies that are increasingly interdependent, hence the spread of the world economic slowdown. As such, with weak global demand, Australia has started to feel the effects, with demand for its goods and raw materials falling. This has led Australia’s central bank – the Reserve Bank of Australia – to cut its key interest rate (the ‘cash rate’) by more than expected. The rate had been at 4.25% and it was widely believed that a 0.25 percentage point cut would occur. However, the central bank cut the cash rate rate to 3.75% to counter the weakening conditions. The Reserve Bank said:
“This decision is based on information received over the past few months that suggests that economic conditions have been somewhat weaker than expected, while inflation has moderated …Growth in the world economy slowed in the second half of 2011, and is likely to continue at a below-trend pace this year.”
Banks’ interest rates have been falling in Australia for the past few months and this latest cut will do much to help financially squeezed households. Data show that Australian house sales have fallen, as have house prices, and retail sales have fared little better.
Lower interest rates are often a tool used to steer inflation and the Australian central bank may not have been as willing to cut rates had the inflation rate not come down in recent months. Keeping consumer prices under control remains a top priority for the central bank and so it will be interesting to see the impact that these rate cuts will have on the Australian economy.
Articles
Australia cenbank surprises with aggressive half point rate cut Reuters, Wayne Cole (1/5/12)
Australia cuts rates by than forecast to 3.75% BBC News (1/5/12)
Banks unlikely to pass on full rate cut The Australian, Wall Street Journal, Peter Trute (1/5/12)
Australia cuts rate to support economy Financial Times, Neil Hume (1/5/12)
Australia slashes interest rates by 0.5pc to boost economy The Telegraph (1/5/12)
Australia cuts interest rates as economy slows Guardian, Phillip Inman (1/5/12)
Banks must pass on rate cut: businesses Sydney Morning Herald, Ehssan Veiszadeh (1/5/12)
Bond prices rally after rate cut Sydney Morning Herald (1/5/12)
Surplus remains appropriate: Swan Sydney Morning Herald, Colin Brinsden (1/5/12)
Webcasts
Reserve Bank of Australia Cuts Rates by 50 Basis Points to 3.75% CNBC video, Lauren Rosborough (1/5/12)
Further `Modest’ RBA Easing Possible, ANZ Says Bloomberg, Tony Morriss (1/5/12)
Australia’s central bank shifts focus to growth BBC News, Duncan Kennedy (1/5/12)
Questions
- Which factors will a central bank consider when setting interest rates?
- Explain the components of aggregate demand that will be affected by a lower rate of interest.
- Using diagrams to illustrate the process, explain both the interest-rate and the exchange-rate transmission mechanisms of the fall in interest rates.
- How are interest rates used to target inflation?
- How will lower rates of interest help the Australian economy recover from weakening global economic conditions?
- Why are Australia’s banks unlikely to pass on the full rate cut to consumers?
- Why did bond prices rise and the Australian dollar depreciate after the rate cut? Why does this suggest that a 0.5% cut was greater than anticpated by markets?
According to the Sunday Times Rich List, the combined wealth of Britain’s 1000 richest people grew by nearly 4.7% last year to £414 billion (after growing by 18% in 2010).
This is in stark contrast to average households, who saw their real incomes decline by 1.9% in 2011. As the Guardian article below says:
The Rich Listers are not merely the 1%, but the 0.01%, and this fanfared celebration of their assets feels like a celebration of things that nobody feels like celebrating: bankers’ bonuses, complex corporate tax-avoidance structures, the stifling grip of aristocratic family wealth.
So why are the rich getting richer and what are the implications for society and the economy? Watch and read the following webcasts and articles and then see if you can answer the questions below.
Webcasts
Rich List shows how super-wealthy have dodged recession (or) Channel 4 News (29/4/12)
Sunday Times Rich List: Wealthy getting richer BBC News, Ben Thompson (29/4/12)
Articles
Britain’s richest see fortunes rise to record high Reuters, Tim Castle (29/4/12)
Sunday Times Rich List shows rich recover wealth twice as fast Myfinances.co.uk, Ben Salisbury (29/4/12)
Sunday Times Rich List suggests UK’s wealthiest defy recession BBC News (28/4/12)
Sunday Times Rich List 2012: Wealth of richest grows to record levels The Telegraph, Patrick Sawer (28/4/12)
The Not-So-Rich-Any-More List Guardian, Oliver Burkeman and Patrick Kingsley (27/4/12)
Sunday Times Rich List ITV News (29/4/12)
Data
Distribution of Personal Wealth HMRC
The effects of taxes and benefits on household income ONS (19/5/11)
Household Quarterly Release 2011 Q4 – Real household actual income and expenditure per head ONS
Questions
- Distinguish between stocks and flows. Which of the following are stocks and which are flows: income, wealth, savings, saving, expenditure, possessions?
- If the combined wealth of the 1000 wealthiest people increased in 2011, does this imply that their incomes rose? Explain.
- Why have the super rich got richer, while average incomes in the country have fallen?
- What are the costs and benefits to society (other than the super rich) of the super rich becoming richer?
- Distinguish between the income and substitution effects of an increase in income of the wealthy. Which is likely to be larger and why?
There seems to be consensus among most politicians on both sides of the Atlantic that there needs to be a reduction in government deficits and debt as a proportion of GDP. But there is considerable debate as to how such reductions should be achieved.
