A fresh take on deficits

We often hear that deficits are getting out of control and that we have to cut spending drastically, regardless of how much need there might be for that spending. But is it really necessary? Stephanie Blankenburg thinks not:

What to do about Britain's national debt and its annual government deficits in the here and now remained less clear. Had deficit spending not been once and for all discredited at the end of the 1970s? Was John Maynard Keynes really about budgetary spending in times of crisis or did he not rather regard fiscal expansion as a secondary tool to be employed, where absolutely necessary, alongside long-term monetary policies (low long-term interest rates) to keep business cycle fluctuations under control?

All true and valid. But for a hands-on perspective on current national debt and government deficits, it is well worth keeping in mind two basic points. First, the current deficit hysteria – to use Samuel Brittan's term – has no historical grounding. Britain's national debt currently runs at about 40% of GDP. Depending on who you believe and what parts of bank debt are counted as national debt, it is predicted to either stay close to 40% or increase to anywhere between 60% and 100% over the next few years. Between 1918 and 1961, UK national debt averaged well above 100%, remaining closer and, at times above, 200% for the best part of this period. What was achieved? Fascism was defeated and the foundations of a modern welfare state were laid. Since the mid-1970s, UK national debt has oscillated between 30% and 40%, at the beginning of the 1990s falling to below 30% for a few years. What was then achieved? Finance-led corporate capitalism rose to power, leaving behind an all but destroyed manufacturing sector in the UK, rising income inequality and, eventually, a financial sector in tatters. And last, not least, wars are being lost.

From the Guardian. Trouble is, it may be hard to sell the public on this idea, given the pathological fear of deficits that's been drummed into us for the last few decades.

Gordon Brown's approach to the economic crisis

He's taking a decidedly Keynesian direction:

Prime Minister Gordon Brown swept aside three decades of economic orthodoxy with tax increases on the rich and plans that will double Britain’s national debt.

Brown’s proposals yesterday to mitigate fallout from the global economic slump would cost 25.6 billion pounds ($38.7 billion) in the U.K.’s biggest round of stimulus since 1988.

The plan, which will result in the largest budget deficit among the Group of Seven industrialized nations, represents a retreat from policies that have shaped the British economy since Conservative Margaret Thatcher’s 12-year tenure that began in 1979. Brown’s predecessor Tony Blair called himself a proponent of “New Labour” and advocated policies Thatcher had promoted, including spending restraint, low debt and tax cuts for the rich.

“It is back to the 70s,” said Bill Jones, a political scientist at the University of Manchester. “It’s a return to the two-party divide and a temporary end to consensus politics. It’s like Labour has suddenly burst out of its straitjacket.”

Labour’s traditional union supporters backed the proposal by Brown, 57, to impose a new 45 percent tax on those earning more than 150,000 pounds a year, while opposition Conservatives accused him of irresponsibility for running up debt that will exceed 1 trillion pounds by 2014.

From here. The extra tax on the rich is long overdue; I can't comment, though, on his debt proposal. It might be a good idea, but it might also be a very bad idea, and whether it's good or bad depends partly on what international investors think. As noted previously, I suspect part of the reason why the US has gotten away with running up huge debts is that said investors are reluctant to bet against the US dollar; the fate of the pound, though, is a lot less critical on an international level, so they might well just pull the plug on the UK. On the other hand, anti-Keynesian sentiment may have declined somewhat since Bob Rae tried this approach in the early 1990s, and it might significantly mitigate the worst effects of the crisis on Britain's population. The situation definitely bears watching; the world economy is in very bad shape indeed, and if Brown can mitigate this to a noticeable degree, a lot of people will want to follow his lead.