Expansionary austerity was always an implausible contradiction
in terms that fitted right-wing political sensibilities better than the facts. Now
though a run of events have made its increasingly (oxy)moronic nature indisputably
clear.
Here, cutting spending to retain the UK’s AAA rating – and by
so doing holding down borrowing costs – largely defined ConDem economic policy with the rating to provide a benchmark for assessing George Osborne’s success as
chancellor (remember that?). Well, the UK
is AAA no longer AND borrowing costs remain at record lows i.e. Osborne couldn’t
do something he shouldn’t have been doing in the first place.
Then there’s been the Reinhart and Rogoff debacle were an apparently
empirical justification for cutting government debt turned out to be based on a
sloppy methodology, bad arithmetic and wishful thinking.
Except, this only followed on from the debunking of the
notion that government spending in response to a downturn had only a limited
multiplier effect i.e. why bother spending more and anyway cutting spending wouldn’t
be that painful. Paul De Grauwe's work carried this critique a step further by
setting out the “strong negative correlation” between “austerity measures
introduced in 2011 and the growth of GDP over 2011-12” i.e. funnily enough the
countries that've cut spending the most have suffered the sharpest reductions
in GDP etc., And no them doing so didn’t put a cap on their borrowing costs, that
was the ECB stating it was “ready to do whatever it takes”.
Really, picking thru the above, rather than apologise
Professor Ferguson should be applauded for setting out the one remaining argument spending cut supporters appear to have as to why Britain should not adopt an actively
counter-cyclical fiscal policy.
Increase government borrowing by say £25bn to finance a 3
year social housing programme? Ha .......
No comments:
Post a Comment