Churchill commented, “It is a joke in Britain to say that the War Office is always preparing for the last war. But this is probably true of other departments and of other countries, and it was certainly true of the French Army.”
It is certainly true of the government, the Treasury and the Bank of England in their war against inflation today.
The Last War
In terms of inflation, the Great War was the 1970s. Two oil price hikes ignited high inflation, which was perpetuated by a wage spiral – during the 1970s, despite what was then seen as an economic crisis, real wages rose. Although very few people are aware today of the data, most people became better off during the 1970s, unlike the last 13 years.
The 1970s war on inflation was fought by raising interest rates, which reduced people’s disposable income and eventually inflation fell back. Whether this was the best possible policy is certainly open to debate, but it did work, and it did not result in mass impoverishment. Policy makers developed then – and have not moved beyond now – a mental model of the problem of inflation and its solution.
The mental model sketched out below is still guiding today’s decisions: policy-makers still see the problem as a wage spiral which can only be tamed by reducing consumers’ ability to spend, through higher interest rates. The thick lines are the ones policy-makers see as important.
So we have the Bank of England raising interest rates in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis because, as the Financial Times explained, “The latest annual regular wage growth of 7.2% was far above the level that the BoE thinks consistent with meeting its 2% inflation target.” This is despite the same article pointing out that while wages had risen by 7.2% inflation was running at 8.7% – ie real (inflation-adjusted) wages had fallen by 1.5%.
Inflation is, of course, calculated as an average of prices. Prices which have been rising faster than inflation push the average up; those which rise more slowly are helping to keep it down. Wages have not been driving inflation.
This war
This war is completely different from the war of the 1970s. There is no wage price spiral. Wages have not kept pace with – let alone been the drivers of – inflation since 2007.
Previous UK governments aimed to give the UK population a real pay rise each year – most years, most people would get slightly better-off than the year before. This government calls that “inflation-busting pay rises” and has successfully prevented it since taking office.
Our inflation is – quite obviously – not driven by wage growth. It has been driven by supply shocks. Some of them externally-driven, like the energy price impact of the Ukraine war. And some of it by UK decisions which have impacted supply, notably Brexit.
So the government and the Bank of England are together waging war on British wage earners, using a model which no longer reflects the real world, in their battle against inflation. They are also waging war on UK businesses.
In the real world, supply problems – eg energy prices – have increased UK costs and prices, which have in some cases been passed-on to consumers who have not been able to protect themselves through pay rises. Some businesses have passed on these costs, fuelling inflation. Businesses which have not been able to pass on their costs have seen profit fall and an increasing number have been forced into bankruptcy.
The result of the Bank of England’s interest rate rise will be to increase the costs on businesses further. A business which had an interest cover (the multiple of profit to interest charge) of four times – generally regarded as comfortable – in January 2022 would now be struggling to cover its interest charge. It would be on the verge of being unprofitable.
The real-world impact of the Bank’s policy will be to plunge more consumers into financial distress and more businesses into loss. This may well cause a recession – indeed some of the Chancellor’s advisers are calling for one – and it will almost certainly do more long-term damage than the inflation itself.
What should they do?
All this was quite foreseeable. We wrote last year that the UK was set to mishandle inflation, because we would mis-diagnose the problem:
“Policy-making on inflation is poor: we treat it as a single, simple issue; we mistake inflation for a measure of ability to buy; we assume that low inflation is a sign of a strong economy; we panic about it when we see it; and we use the wrong tools to contain it.”
Our conclusion was that instead of using interest rates as the policy ‘solution,’ the Governor of the Bank of England should have the courage to write to the Chancellor and the Prime Minister explaining that this is not the kind of inflation the Bank can tackle with interest rate rises and suggesting government policies which could help. These would include:
- Protecting the most vulnerable by imposing price caps on energy and windfall taxes on energy companies, by reforming the energy regulator Ofgem so that it properly protects consumers’ interests, and by temporarily reducing taxes on energy;
- Progressive taxation to fund a rise in benefits without fuelling inflation – raising the rates of tax on dividends and capital gains so that unearned income is taxed at the same rate as earnings would be a start;
- Investment in capacity building in green energy generation, energy storage and energy efficiency measures to help reduce the supply constraints. Although in the very short term, this could fuel inflation, in the long-run, building capacity is what prevents supply shocks and will prevent inflation taking hold. And, of course, we face a climate emergency, which makes these things even more urgent.
It is not that there is nothing constructive that we could be doing to ease the cost-of-living crisis; it is simply that our government and central bank are not planning to do it.
If you would like to see a move to rational policy-making in the UK, take a look at the 99% Organisation and join us.
6 comments so far
Well the bank of England and the bank of neo classical economists that sit and watch our economy are as usual horribly wrong, of course an interest rate rise fuels recession and price inflation. When you consider that in no way do the ranks/banks of neo classical post Reagan Thatcherite economists actually understand the economy (because they don’t and can’t) when you understand that money yes that’s the money that goes into and flows out of our system isnt even included in their calculations, how can you possibly expect them to understand what’s going on?
Most economists Friedman, Krugman, Greenspan(the architect of this batch of fools) etc, believe the economy is naturally in balance and will always try to correct itself, whereas in the real world we live in, this is complete twaddle. A capitalist economy is constantly in boom or bust as we see every few dozen years, since deregulation, because at no time do we see controls to curb the excesses of banks and capital.
Neo classical mainstream economists have no method that works to explain or forecast what actually happens, they constantly adjust and juggle theories and ideas to explain what happens in the real world with no real clues as to what or why.
So to profess they control a system merely by putting up or down interest rates just doesn’t bear thinking about.
It is simple and if you look at the real world as an example it works as follows:
A government surplus is our (the peoples) deficit. As a government withdraws money from the economy by “paying back” the deficit they shrink the economy which slows it down and reduces the amount within that economy.
Interest rate rises have the same effect, as the consumers have to reduce spending within the economy to cover hikes in interest rate rises.
So conversely as government spends into the economy and increases the amount of money within an economy, so the economy speeds up and the economy grows. An interest rate rise does a similar thing.
However, interest rates have a smaller effect to government spend/ no Spend. But within the architecture of this current governments thinking on Austerity the interest rate rise is much more damaging to the consumer.
So the government deficit isn’t really a deficit. Why? Where is this deficit? We bank in the UK in pounds sterling our “debt” is in pounds sterling….
That should be enough to tell you, there can’t be a debt…it can be a gozillion pounds sterling and can be “paid off” in one second by erasing it on the computer. Thats it.
Same as taxation…..where is this taxation?
Doesn’t exist in the treasury. Doesn’t exist in the bank of England.
As soon as you tax anyone the “money” is destroyed, gone, not there. Thats it.
So as specified in the Bank of England Quarterly bulletin no1 2014 and supported by EVERY other central bank in the world….
Banks create money in a modern economy when they make loans, that includes the BoE. They destroy money via taxation.
Money must be inserted by the central bank into the economy to cover those rates that are in force and government spending should increase inline with interest rate rises to prevent the economy shrinking.
So what will this interest rate hike do? Cause inflationary pressure on wages to pay higher rates, which causes higher prices in consumer goods. Or shrink the economy which will have the same effect.
Government deficit “our” surplus.
Government surplus “our” deficit.
(Interest rate rise =government surplus)
BTW an economy is not now,nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be a household or a business. By definition no household or business has it’s own bank. They cannot create money. (Unless your a counterfeiting household or business and that gets you gaol time).
So the bank of England is a sovereign currency issuer and is not tied to a gold standard, but an issuer of a fiat currency of which it can issue any amount it wishes, it can buy what it is directed to buy by the government of the day when the government wishes to buy it.
Under normal circumstances the government can by its own political will decide what it spends and why.
There is one constraint, that the government should not attempt to buy what s not available.
Example: the government cannot buy 101 trees if only 100 are available( that would be inflationary.)
Wiemar government is not applicable here we are not attempting to pay war reparations I hold or a foreign currency, Zimbabwe we are not attempting to remove huge a mounts of assets from the country or changing one knowledgeable system to another unknown system. Venezuela is not applicable we are not sanctioned by the USA for political reasons.
OK
Quote: It is not that there is nothing constructive that we could be doing to ease the cost-of-living crisis; it is simply that our government and central bank are not planning to do it.
More precisely the “government” and the bank are actively planning NOT to do it. Whether this is ideology, cronyism or something else or a mixture of all three.
In my opinion the mishandling is deliberate.
Rik Hall is completely correct. This is exactly what so-called Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) argues.
I trained as an economist and used to practice as one. But I can say that neo-classical economists – the ones that man the BoE, the Treasury, most academic positions, and have all the influence on businessmen and the press – are an intellectually lazy disgrace.
For a readable but rigorous account of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) try The Deficit Myth by Stephanie Kelton.
I can also recommend: https://99-percent.org/the-book/ if you haven’t read it!
Luke Burford: Quite right. Thank you.
“The 1970s war on inflation was fought by raising interest rates, which reduced people’s disposable income and eventually inflation fell back.” –
I think people should be clear that the only way raising rates “reduces people’s disposable income” is by causing unemployment. And this doesn’t reduce all people’s disposable income, only those who lose their jobs. There is no magical effect on money supply in operation, such that a contraction in the total supply of money makes every pound worth more and so lowering price of goods. That is Monetarism, which is now discredited, I think even Milton Friedman moved on from it in about 1982.
Secondly, a significant difference between now and the 1970s is the size of the national debt. It is now in the region of 100% of GNP, so that when interest rates go up, this means the govt is injecting a lot more money into the economy to a lot more people to service that debt. This means that the interest rate rises are putting a squeeze on one sector of the economy (borrowers, mortgagees and businesses, and those who lose their jobs) while at the same time offering a stimulus to another sector of the economy (savers and financial institutions). Schrodinger’s monetary policy. This will prevent the economy overall from actually falling into a recession, but this aggregate “benefit” conceals the harm caused to many people, the 99%.
We should move on from Milton Friedman’s mantra that “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon”. Inflation is a function of supply and demand. An intelligent approach to inflation must look at both sides of the problem, not only reducing demand by taking way people’s income, but also ensuring supply is sufficient to meet the demand. It is no good saying supply problems are too difficult, we’ll just hit the most vulnerable into the ground.