You are here:   Adam Smith > Five Myths and a Menace
 
Five Myths and a Menace
January/February 2011

Nor shall we ever do so, partly because of the inescapable delays and variable time-lags inherent in the system in the real world, and partly because of the irreducible unpredictability of human behaviour. There are also, of course, considerable time-lags in securing the beneficial results of fiscal consolidation. But in the conduct of economic policy, as in public policy more generally, impatience is the worst counsellor.

Second, the policies needed to eliminate the structural deficit are inevitably painful and thus unpopular. If a new government, for whatever reason, shrinks from introducing them at the outset, when its authority is greatest, the likelihood of its doing so on an adequate scale subsequently is greatly diminished. 

Third, the financial markets, from whom the government is obliged to borrow, are well aware of this, and will exact a higher price. (Experience also shows, incidentally, the tendency as time passes for spending ministers to go native, and put the departmental interest above the general good. That is one reason why regular cabinet reshuffles are necessary.)

And fourth, one of the problems of democracy is the tendency of public expenditure to rise faster than is consistent with maximising economic performance and living standards over the longer term. The more that budgetary discipline is eroded, the more this is likely to happen. It is not without interest, too, that of all the major economies it was the UK that recovered fastest from the slump of the 1930s, and that it did so on a policy of cheap money and balanced budgets. In short, Keynesian stabilisation policy does a great deal more harm than good, and so does not make sense.

Myth No.5

So to the last of my five myths, one which is causing considerable angst at the present time — as indeed it did when I was Chancellor in the 1980s — and was one of the preoccupations of November's meeting of the G20 finance ministers in Korea.

This is the view that the very substantial current account imbalances that exist in the world are both unnatural and a threat to global economic health. 

In the 1980s, the problem, agonised over at the IMF and wherever finance ministers and heads of government met, was the Japanese current-account surplus. Today, it is the even larger Chinese surplus — which, incidentally, although massive, appears already to be on a declining trend as a share of GDP. The first thing to be said is that, in a world in which there is, happily, freedom of capital movements, it would be extraordinary and wholly unnatural if there were not current account imbalances.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
slightly optimistic
September 6th, 2011
4:09 PM
Re 'Myth No3': "policies to promote the replacement of carbon-based energy by substantially more expensive renewable energy, notably wind power, will bring great benefit to the British economy and in particular create millions of so-called "green jobs"." In today's New York Times, David Brooks reports on experience in the US - 'Where the Jobs Aren’t'. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/opinion/brooks-where-the-jobs-arent.ht... Brooks concludes: "We should pursue green innovation. We just shouldn’t imagine these efforts will create the jobs we need."

mf
February 14th, 2011
9:02 PM
This discourse ignores some inconvenient facts. Chief of them is the fact that market economy, as a mechanism, can not function under conditions of sustained exploitation of labor. Sustained exploitation of labor shrinks demand, unless this demand is maintained by issuance of fraudulent credit, as it has been over the last three decades. This, in a nutshell, is the present dilemma in so called advanced economies. The second dilemma, that affects all, is that western civilization cannot be extended to all, in its present form, because it is too resource intensive. Hence, carbon based fuels are cheap only as long as 80% of the population of the planet can be kept in poverty. This, in a nutshell, is why this very long discourse (though it could have been longer) is also quite entirely useless. It misses the point altogether.

R.Bacon
January 24th, 2011
9:01 PM
At last, a one-handed economist.

slightly optimistic
January 18th, 2011
4:01 PM
'Accountancy Age' published its list of prime movers in finance for 2011, which includes former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord Lawson. Surely well deserved - not only is he mischievously asking in a House of Lords inquiry who/what prevented auditors from alerting us to the financial crisis, but he's moving on to help with some of the issues for the French presidency of the G20.

George Fischer
January 15th, 2011
2:01 PM
Lord Lawson masterly discourse brings to mind Alfred Marshall's dictum in 1901: " In my view every economic fact whether or not it is of such a nature as to be expressed in numbers, stands in relation as cause and effect to many other facts, and since it NEVER happens that all of them can be expressed in numbers, the application of exact mathematical methods to those which can is nearly always a waste of time, while in the large majority of cases it is positively misleading; and the world would have been further on its way forward if the work had never been done at all."

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.