Austerity, household debt and Brexit: the case for a weaker pound

What are we to make of the current performance and future prospects for the British economy and for the JAM (Just About Managing) households which the Conservative government proclaims to be trying to help?

According to recent figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), households, on average, became net borrowers in 2017 for the first time since records began in 1987. The savings ratio fell to its lowest annual level since 1963.

Household spending growth also fell to 1.7%, the lowest since 2011.

There was some better news on the current account deficit for 2017, which fell to 4.1% of GDP, also the lowest figure since 2011. And in the fourth quarter of last year, it fell to 3.6%. The improvement is at least partly down to the weakness of the pound and a stronger world economy boosting net exports and net earnings on foreign investments.

But the improvement in the current account is also being flattered by weaker growth in imports due to their higher cost reducing real household income and consumption growth. In an open economy, part of household income is inevitably spent on imported goods and services. A fall in the current account deficit can come from a reduced demand leakage into imports as well as increased growth in exports.

With the weaker pound and higher inflation reducing real household income, and interest rates still at very low levels, households are taking the opportunity to add to their already substantial levels of debt, rather than reduce consumption even further.

With the household sector spending more than its income, it is adding to the growth of aggregate demand, as credit acts as a net injection of purchasing power into the economy.

But with household debt already high, interest rates set to rise gradually, and real wage growth still negative, these trends will prove unsustainable. Although inflation has perhaps peaked, and real wages should start to grow once again, there is some way to go before the JAMs start to see a sustained and substantial rise in living standards. Continue reading


Trump’s tariffs: is there a better way?

Donald Trump has said that “trade wars are good, and easy to win”. I posted on the issue of protectionism in the wake of his election victory here, and on ‘beggar-thy-neighbour’ policies here, and stand by my arguments.

Contrary to the claims of mainstream economics, free trade is not always mutually beneficial for the nations involved. In particular, the historical record suggests that particular ‘infant’ industries in developing countries can benefit from temporary and selective protection, until they are competitive enough to succeed on world markets.

There are plenty of examples of infant industry protection which have failed, so it is by no means a universal panacea. Success requires the management of a particular balance of power in a developing country between particular groups such as the state and social classes, which might include emerging industrial leaders or the middle class. It will also be context-specific: it depends on the historical evolution of the groups and society involved.

Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminium imports are not an example of protecting an infant industry. They may protect some jobs in those sectors, but most economists argue that by increasing the costs of these products as inputs for other industries, many more jobs will be lost in the latter, so that the net employment impact will be negative. Continue reading