Strikes Ahead

The TUC (Trade Unions Council) are backing joint strikes if planned Tory Coalition cuts go ahead, it has been announced today.

I generally don't back old Labour, lefty stuff like this: I find unions too militant, and usually too ignorant of economics.  Those of you studying econ101 this coming year will find out exactly why unions often cause more harm than good.

However, they don't necessarily always cause more harm than good, for many reasons.  The first, of course, is when employers are simply wielding disproportionate and unfair power as a single employer of many people.  Collective action on the part of workers can hope to match the employer for bargaining power and strike a better agreement for workers.  Classical economists might complain that this distorts the market value for labour, but does it really?  Is the market value really what employers set for wages, particularly when they wield some kind of market power?  You'll learn about the monopolisation of markets in econ101.

Furthermore, should the cuts go ahead?  There's little doubt that the deficit is very large currently, but is that an excuse to wield the axe left, right and centre, as the Coalition is planning?  Some very interesting analysis can be found by Chris Dillow at a blog called Stumbling and Mumbling that I'm a big fan of: The fact is that no government has the kind of knowledge that the Coalition is talking about using to make these cuts fair because nobody can have that kind of knowledge except God (if he exists*).

So given this, I'm actually sympathetic to the Unions and I hope that collective actions on the part of the masses can force this Coalition to rethink.  Governments can be incredibly arrogant creatures at the best of time; lets see just how arrogant this one will be...

(* - I believe he does. See here if you're interested.)

100 Days of the Coalition

Today marks 100 days since the Tories and the Lib-Dems agreed to join forces in a coalition government in the aftermath of the inconclusive election back in May.

Naturally, the Coalition is trying to put a positive spin on what it has achieved in 100 days.  Most of this is journalists trying to fill space - August is a nororiously dry time for news stories.

Econ101b teaches about monetary and fiscal policy having time lags for implementation, and we learn that the UK government actually has little power over monetary policy these days, having granted the Bank of England independence in 1997.  Given these long time lags, it is probably quite unrealistic to expect that the Coalition can have had any impact thus far on economic outcomes - at least at the macroeconomic level.

It's trying hard though - and another argument we come across in econ101b can give them some credence for trying to argue they've had an impact thus far: Expectations.

Expectations are powerful things.  Investors decide whether to invest or not based on their expectations.  Expect a downturn, and they won't invest - at least not in physical projects.  Why build a new office block if you expect a prolonged downturn?  Can you know you'll fill it?

A central emphasis when the Coalition began was that bond markets were soon likely to turn on the UK - our debt is too high, and our deficit is too high - as high as Greece!  Such talk is based on expectations: Expectations that the expectations of investors are that the UK will default like Greece.

Much has passed under the water since.  Not least, interest rates on long-term government debt have been falling - i.e. it's been getting cheaper for the UK government to borrow.  Kind of runs against what the Coalition had asserted.  The voices of austerity such as the Coalition have been mocked by various sources, not least Nobel Prizewinner Paul Krugman.  Another Nobel Prizewinner, Joseph Stiglitz, has attacked this panic in the face of financial markets: Who is governing, Robert Skidelsky has asked, is it the government, or is it the financial markets?

Of course it's far too soon to judge the coalition; even if I say bond market rates have fallen, there's no reason why they won't rise in the future.  Other unexpected events may mean that despite the austerity, the UK escapes a recession, and unemployment doesn't rise above 3m - something that looks odds on currently.  And even if we have a recession, it still will be too early to judge the coalition - it may be that the cuts are necessary to secure a longer term prosperity for the UK.  I have my doubts, but this may well be the case...

The New Year

It's mid August, but fairly soon the academic year will be starting.

A huge amount has been happening in the macroeconomy over the spring and summer of this year, and so I'll start to make posts on here for keen econ101ab students at Birmingham, and students elsewhere who might be interested.

As a taster, the big debate over the summer has been over austerity vs spending. The Tories have started drastically cutting government spending, waxing on repeatedly, with ad nauseum, about Labour's supposed recklessness. Here's an example I saw today.

Were Labour reckless? Or are the Tories the reckless ones, potentially plunging the UK back into recession? It's the kind of question that gets right to the heart of what economics is. Keep tuned for more...