PDA

View Full Version : Deathbed of Keynesian Economics Will Be in U.K.



Lazy Lob
03-08-2010, 04:24 AM
Commentary by Matthew Lynn


Feb. 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.K. has produced notable economists over the years, but John Maynard Keynes, the guru of government intervention, was one of truly global significance.

So it may be fitting that the U.K. will also become the deathbed of Keynesian economics.

Britain has been following the mainstream prescriptions of his followers more than any developed nation. It has cut interest rates, pumped up government spending, printed money like crazy, and nationalized almost half the banking industry.

Short of digging Karl Marx out of his London grave, and putting him in charge, it is hard to see how the state could get more involved in the economy.

The results will be dire. The economy is flat on its back, unemployment is rising, the pound is sinking, and the bond markets are bracketing the country with Greece and Portugal in the category marked “bankruptcy imminent.” At some point soon, even the most loyal disciples of Keynes will have to admit defeat, and accept that a radical change of direction is needed.

The public debate about the state of the British economy was enlivened last week by a brawl between economists.

On Feb. 14, a group that included the former Bank of England policy makers Tim Besley, Howard Davies, Charles Goodhart and John Vickers published a letter to the Sunday Times calling on the government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown to control the ballooning deficit. If it didn’t, the stability of the economic recovery would be threatened, and there would be a run on the pound, they warned.

Keynesian Backlash

That brought a stinging response from the Keynesians, who are urging the U.K. to spend its way out of recession. Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Robert Solow were among the signatories to letters written by a group of 67 economists insisting that deficit spending was the only way to salvage the economy. The letters, published in the Financial Times, argued that a “a sharp shock” now “would be positively dangerous.”

So who is right, and who is wrong? It’s a debate that matters to the rest of the world. After all, if demand management doesn’t work here, it won’t work anywhere.

The U.K. has some experience of mass letter writing from Keynes’s devotees. In 1981, a group of 364 economists wrote an open letter ripping into the policies of then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. They turned out to be totally wrong, of course. With hindsight, no one can now dispute that her policies led to a long and durable economic revival.

Budget Blowout

And just as the Keynesians were wrong three decades ago, they are wrong now.

The U.K. has been in Keynes overdrive for the past 18 months. The budget deficit is already more than 12 percent of gross domestic product, on a par with Greece. And while the Greeks are cutting spending, the British deficit is widening. Figures for January showed another fiscal blowout. At the same time, interest rates have been slashed to 0.5 percent. And the pound has slumped in value, which is supposed to boost demand for British goods, and help close the trade gap.

Just about everything possible has been done to encourage consumption. The results have been miserable.

Retail sales excluding gasoline in January fell 1.2 percent from the previous month, twice as much as economists forecast. The number of people receiving unemployment benefits jumped to 1.64 million in January, the highest level since April 1997. The yield on U.K. government debt is now higher than on Spanish or Italian bonds, a sure sign that investors are losing faith in the country’s ability to pay its debts. The inflation rate has also accelerated to 3.5 percent.

Triple Whammy

In reality, Britain has the worst of all possible worlds: a stagnant economy, a crippling budget deficit and rising prices.

The Keynesian consensus is that things would have been far worse without the stimulus provided by government. And if the economy isn’t pumped up with inflated demand, it will collapse back into recession. If it’s not working, that just proves the stimulus should be even larger.

It is the argument quacks always push: If the medicine isn’t working, increase the dosage.

And yet, reality has to intrude into this debate at some point. The deficit can’t get much bigger, interest rates can’t be cut much lower, and sterling can’t lose much more value.

Stimulating the economy isn’t working.

In fact, it’s only making it worse. Consumers and businesses don’t want rising taxes. A falling currency pushes up the cost of everything the U.K. imports, stoking inflation. Savers get decimated, and yet the banks remain reluctant to lend because they rightly believe the economy is in the doldrums.

Recipe for Recovery

What’s needed is a total change of direction. Get the deficit under control. Raise interest rates to restore confidence in the pound, and reward saving. Cut taxes to stimulate enterprise and investment.

And yet the real lesson of the U.K. in 2010 will be of wider significance. A country can’t spend its way out of a recession. And it can’t fix what was at root a problem of too much debt by just borrowing more and more.

In the country of its birth, Keynesian economics is being tested. If the economy isn’t growing at a healthy clip again by the end of 2010, its failure will be obvious to everyone.

(Matthew Lynn is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Click on “Send Comment” in the sidebar display to send a letter to the editor.

To contact the writer of this column: Matthew Lynn in London at matthewlynn@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: February 22, 2010 19:00 EST
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=a5t.xQdllnbo

martinexsquaddie
03-08-2010, 05:48 AM
hang on maggie pusdhed unemployment to new record levels and destroyed manafacturing placing all our eggs in the city that worked well?

Billy No Mates
03-08-2010, 05:54 AM
hang on maggie pusdhed unemployment to new record levels and destroyed manafacturing placing all our eggs in the city that worked well?

We had to do away with manufacturing as it gave smelly poor people the idea that what they did was some how important .

martinexsquaddie
03-08-2010, 06:07 AM
pure free market policy is just as much wibble giving the banks enough rope so they hung themselves and most of us did not work out brilliantly either

JBH22
03-08-2010, 07:01 AM
four years back the man was the role model in all my economics classes :)what about Milton Friedman his prescriptions are also things of the past Iceland learned it the hard way

Mr Gently Benevolent
03-08-2010, 01:47 PM
hang on maggie pusdhed unemployment to new record levels and destroyed manafacturing placing all our eggs in the city that worked well?And Keynes polar opposite was Friedrich von Hayek' whose The Constitution of Liberty was used by Thatcher as some kind economics guide book I hear some of the Tories quoting Hayek so looks like a re-run of the 80's

gustav
03-08-2010, 02:03 PM
The thread tittle is wrong, it should say deathbed of thatcherism.

tea drinker
03-08-2010, 02:12 PM
hang on maggie pusdhed unemployment to new record levels and destroyed manafacturing placing all our eggs in the city that worked well?

And of course you are being told now that if the city goes the rest will follow - a.k.a too big too fail.
How do you fight these people?

AmandlaEwetu
03-08-2010, 02:43 PM
And of course you are being told now that if the city goes the rest will follow - a.k.a too big too fail.
How do you fight these people?

"Madame Guillotine"

Blackcatnursery
03-08-2010, 04:39 PM
All economic models are fundamentally flawed in some way shape or form. Its a bit like some fool not so long ago saying there would be no return to boom and bust. Now look where that got us.

Anyway I have always loved these and I apolgise in advance to any person from any country who is offended by their economic model

Economic Models explained with cows

SOCIALISM: You have 2 cows, and you give one to your neighbour.

COMMUNISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and gives you some milk.

FASCISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and sells you some milk.

NAZISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and shoots you.

BUREAUCRATISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, then throws the milk away.

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income.

SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has dropped dead.

ENRON VENTURE CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by you brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public buys your bull.

THE ANDERSEN MODEL: You have two cows. You shred them.

A FRENCH CORPORATION: You have two cows. You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create a clever cow cartoon image called 'cowkimon' and market it worldwide.

A GERMAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows, but you don't know where they are. You decide to have lunch.

A RUSSIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 2 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

A SWISS CORPORATION: You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you. You charge the owners for storing them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity, and arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You worship them.

IRAQI CORPORATION: Everyone thinks you have lots of cows. You tell them that you have none. No-one believes you, so they bomb the **** out of you and invade your country. You still have no cows, but at least now you are part of a Democracy.

AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. Business seems pretty good. You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.

IRISH CORPORATION: You have two cows. One is Catholic, the other Protestant. The Catholic cow shoots the other in all four knee caps. The Protestant cow blows the other to pieces with Semtex.

WELSH CORPORATION: You have two cows. The one on the left looks very attractive.

A BRITISH CORPORATION: You have two cows. Both are mad.

Lusitania
03-08-2010, 06:03 PM
Thatcher was a Monetarist-Keynesian, she was not a free-marketer (we actually saw the growth of government intervention in some sectors of the economy!). She liked Hayek, but, in scope, she did not use his theories in any real force (or Von Mises' for that matter). Thatcher was more in-tune with Milton Friedman and Monetarism than she was with the Austrian School. Ultimately, what Thatcher created was a continued Corporatist system under the guise of free-markets.

Flagg
03-08-2010, 07:33 PM
Back in the day, The City SUPPORTED the economy.....and then over about 25 years The City eventually BECAME the economy.

A country can eat and earn a living manufacturing stuff....it can't eat or earn a living for long based on "financial engineering".

void
03-08-2010, 08:19 PM
What the UK did/is doing is not really Keynesian. The point of Keynesian economics is for the government to run surpluses during the boom times (to cool down bubbles), and deficits during the down times (in order to boost the economy). Thisis a good idea imho. BUT what the UK and some other nations (US among them) did was to run deficits during the good times (or occasionally VERY small surpluses), and even larger deficits during the bad times. This ISNT a good idea and the results arent going to be pretty.

brainplay
03-08-2010, 10:21 PM
A GERMAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

Who are you kidding?

A GERMAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You OVER-engineer them so they live for 100 years, but cost an arm and a leg to maintain with parts that can only be bought in Germany, eat once a month but only "high grade" hay, and milk themselves. Additionally they will come with a plethora of diagnostic sensors that will break frequently but aren't really needed to run and which you will ignore.

seraosha
03-08-2010, 11:08 PM
SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons


That's so dada I hurt my balloons.

HellToupee
03-08-2010, 11:35 PM
The governments fault with keynesian economics is the same as their citizens, they do not save for a rainy day.

Lazy Lob
03-09-2010, 02:15 AM
All economic models are fundamentally flawed in some way shape or form. Its a bit like some fool not so long ago saying there would be no return to boom and bust. Now look where that got us.

Anyway I have always loved these and I apolgise in advance to any person from any country who is offended by their economic model

Economic Models explained with cows

SOCIALISM: You have 2 cows, and you give one to your neighbour.

COMMUNISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and gives you some milk.

FASCISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and sells you some milk.

NAZISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and shoots you.

BUREAUCRATISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, then throws the milk away.

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income.

SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has dropped dead.

ENRON VENTURE CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by you brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public buys your bull.

THE ANDERSEN MODEL: You have two cows. You shred them.

A FRENCH CORPORATION: You have two cows. You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create a clever cow cartoon image called 'cowkimon' and market it worldwide.

A GERMAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows, but you don't know where they are. You decide to have lunch.

A RUSSIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 2 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

A SWISS CORPORATION: You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you. You charge the owners for storing them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity, and arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You worship them.

IRAQI CORPORATION: Everyone thinks you have lots of cows. You tell them that you have none. No-one believes you, so they bomb the **** out of you and invade your country. You still have no cows, but at least now you are part of a Democracy.

AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. Business seems pretty good. You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.

IRISH CORPORATION: You have two cows. One is Catholic, the other Protestant. The Catholic cow shoots the other in all four knee caps. The Protestant cow blows the other to pieces with Semtex.

WELSH CORPORATION: You have two cows. The one on the left looks very attractive.

A BRITISH CORPORATION: You have two cows. Both are mad.

Hahahahhahahahahaha excellent.

Lazy Lob
03-09-2010, 02:16 AM
Back in the day, The City SUPPORTED the economy.....and then over about 25 years The City eventually BECAME the economy.

A country can eat and earn a living manufacturing stuff....it can't eat or earn a living for long based on "financial engineering".

Couldn't have said it better!

Jurinko
03-09-2010, 03:10 AM
Economic Models explained with cows
...
...


A SLOVAK CORPORATION: You have two cows. One is your mother-in-law and the second one is your wife.

:lol:

But seriously, even the keynesian model is defeated temporarily, there will be another generation coming soon, believing again in the state organization as the universal concept. Since ancient Greece [where some scholar warned against democracy, where voters will vote for governments bribing them with public money and leading to stagnation/bankruptcy] people will try to live from other´s money and let the governments think for them. But beware, if you let another think for you, then you have to obey and shut up.