A contribution to the supply-side debate from an academic

I have dealt before with the question of immigration and the impact on the supply side of the economy.

Here is a contribution from an academic, Sir Andre Geim, a Nobel prize winning physicist. He makes the point that the present UK immigration policy is likely to harm the economy. The points are well made and I won't repeat them here.

The supply side of the economy can be damaged in the long term by inappropriate short term policy. The problem is that the long term nature of supply side policy means it is difficult to see the benefits and this allows the Daily Mail/Express/Sun to play to the base instincts of popular culture.

The Independent reports Sir Andre's comments here

Governments role in development

It is easy to miss the major issues of developing economies from the comfort of the UK. One of them is the argument about the role government should play.

On one side of the argument are those who believe markets should drive development. There should be free trade, stable inflation and minimal government intervention.

On the other side of the argument are those who say that LDC's have not got the capital needed to provide the infrastructure that markets need (roads, power, education and health services for example). Therefore governments must take the lead by providing this.

But a third position takes this argument further. LDC's don't have the experienced entrepreneurs and necessary business skills to allow markets to allow development at the desired rate. Further they argue that the distribution of income that markets would cause will be far too unequal and this also requires intervention. In short the view is that the government must be responsible for the development process and most parts of the economy.

India is a country that has largely taken the third view. Indian industries are heavily subsidised, measures to even out the distribution of income are significant and prices are controlled. This has worked quite well for India, although their advantage as English speakers cannot be understated.

However now the policy is reaching its limits. The widespread involvement of government has stifled private enterprise, prevented the development of some industries and led to a corruption that diverts well intended funds from worthwhile projects.

So the time has come to reform and 'get the prices right' to allow India to unlock its potential. It's not going to be easy.

The Age reports on the next stage which includes the introduction of VAT (GST).

Inflation targets and QE - lessons from Japan

The Japanese economy has been struggling for a while, since before the Global Financial Crisis. The problem has been a period of prolonged recession and deflation and virtually all policy attempts have failed to correct the situation.

Exports are now falling, previously one of the few bright areas for Japan, and now a serious situation faces the country.

One problem is that the Japanese people just don't want to spend and domestic demand is weak. This is encouraged by the falling price level (deflation), why should you buy goods today when in a few months they will be cheaper? The mentality of the population needs to be changed to help boost Aggregate Demand.

What does not work is lowering interest rates, they have tried that and actually had years of negative real interest rates. There have also been fiscal stimulus packages that have seen tax cuts and more government spending,  things would have been even worse had they not done this but the problems continue. So what can they do?

One suggestion is that the Bank of Japan raise its inflation target from 1% to 2%. One reason why the Bank of England has a target of 2% is to prevent any chance of a slide into deflation. This seems sensible, but all a bit late now.

The next alternative is massive Quantitative Easing (QE). Print Yen and pump them into the economy. Here they will rely on households and firms having very high money balances as a result and so they will want to spend the cash to re-balance their portfolios. (The resulting fall in yields - already very low - has already failed to work).

Of course Japan also requires Europe to sort itself out so they can start buying Japanese exports again. But when you here people telling you that QE has gone too far and will be inflationary you must point of that this is exactly what is needed - higher demand and stable inflation - not deflation.

The BBC report Japan's woes here

Accelerator effects about to kick in?

The semi-technical sector of the Economics industry (the press and interest groups in the main) are very fond of quoting statistics on ratio's to predict a change in the economy.

For example in the 1990's the ratio of average earnings to house prices was often quoted as being at a historic high. This was used, usually by the Daily Mail/Express to predict an imminent collapse of house prices. The fact this didn't happen explains the dangers of such statistics. (In this case the change in the workings of the financial markets and low interest rates allowed a much higher ratio of house prices to earnings so the comparison was not valid.)

Now there is a great deal of interest in the age of consumer durables in the USA (refrigerators, cars etc). The average age of these items has risen during the recession as households put of replacing them as money was tight and confidence low. A similar change must have happened in Europe as the failure of Comet would support.

So many of these household items must be wearing out,  reason many, and that means they must be replaced soon. This will give a much needed boost to the economy.

This may be true. But there are several reasons to be wary. Firstly modern appliances and cars last a lot longer. There are cars sold with seven year warranties, something that would be inconceivable in the 1980's (It was said British Leyland cars were guaranteed for a year - that is guaranteed to break down in a year).

Secondly if there was a rise in demand for these products they most will be made overseas. While retailers may see better business the rise in employment may not be that great and we will have to wait for the recovery of those trading partners.

This cycle of obsolescence is part of the explanation of the business cycle provided by the multiplier-accelerator theory. While intended to be applied to capital goods the same cyclical pattern may be relevant today. I guess we shall see.

Some data is presented in this industry blog here

Toll roads, but it's not road pricing

The Government are reluctant to do anything that is seen as unpopular when it comes to roads. There is an old saying in politics; 'Never get involved with parking or dogs' as it divides the nation pretty equally.

When governments say that they want to reduce congestion everyone agrees,  but disagree violently on how to do it.

Some want more and wider roads. This upsets the environmental lobby as it encourages more cars to use the now clearer roads (and usually just causes worse problems somewhere else on the system).

Some want greater restrictions on driving, such as road pricing, which makes drivers pay for the roads they use according to the time of day and level of congestion. This was simply hinted at in 2007 and caused nearly two million to sign a petition opposing a policy that was yet to be proposed by any party.

A compromise that might be more acceptable is to charge tolls on new roads. Most people seem to back the idea of not raising taxes further and so this is the only way to build new roads.

But is this an integrated transport policy? A series of tolled and non-tolled roads might not work at all. Drivers may cram on to the non-tolled roads to avoid the charge causing even worse congestion in areas not designed for heavy traffic.

The M6 toll road (the Birmingham Northern Relief Road) is a case in point. Opened in 2004 the latest figures show it carrying just 39,000 vehicles a day, almost half the predicted 74,000 a day when it was planned. The rest continue to battle each other for space on the congested M6 to the south.

Toll roads may be a convenient way of avoiding the problems of fiscal policy faced by the UK at present, but it lacks the broader and deeper thinking required to meet the challenge of the 21st Century.

The BBC report the toll road policy here

When regulation is necessary

Governments have tried everything to reduce smoking. 

They have used the best method available to such a market failure - tax and forced the price up to many times the actual cost of production. The problem is that this addictive good has very inelastic demand and so the effect on existing smokers is small.

Two primary methods of moving the demand curve to the left have been tried:

Education has failed. Everyone knows that smoking is bad for them, but they have failed to understand the full extent of the damage they do to themselves yet young smokers continue to take up the habit.

Banning advertising has not worked either.

However all these measures have reduced smoking and it is much less of a problem than it was in the 1960's when almost everyone smoked.

So what can governments do when they are faced with the failure of policy to correct this market failure? Unusually the best answer is more regulation. Normally the best solution to market failure is some sort of tradeable permit, then tax, but not with smoking.

The latest attempt is the banning of distinctive packaging. This has been introduced by Australia where all cigarette packets are now olive green with nasty pictures on them. The idea is to deny brand loyalty and make them unattractive.

Of course the tobacco companies claim its not going to work and even claim it is unfair. But these were the same companies who claimed smoking didn't cause cancer when they had evidence that it did, so lets not take too much notice of them.

The Telegraph report the new scheme here