Why David Cameron is economically illiterate

David Cameron has managed to find folksy metaphors that have resonated. His one about the last Labour government "maxing out the nation's credit card" may be economically illiterate - implying that the state is like an individual consumer (a point demolished in this Guardian editorial) - but it certainly conveyed the claim that Labour had spent too much and that was why we're in a crisis.

"They didn't fix the roof when the sun was shining" resonated equally, even though it implies a classic Keynesian demand management strategy (that Labour should have raised taxes during the boom*) which Cameron would presumably reject ... but it did communicate a point that Labour was reckless.

However, his latest claim - from his speech on the economy last Thursday and repeated at Prime Minister's questions today - is that:

“They think that by borrowing more they would miraculously end up borrowing less ... Yes, it really is as incredible as that.”

But it's not incredible, in fact it's a common occurence for most people - and lends itself to a Cameron-style metaphor. Balls or Miliband could simply retort:

"It's like when you borrow money today to buy a house with a mortgage, so that tomorrow you spend less because you don't have any housing costs in later life"

The metaphor can actually be stretched even further:

"And why do we borrow more today? Just like the mortgage holder: to get an asset at the end of it. That's exactly like the infrastructure Labour is advocating on a million new council homes. As well as creating jobs, reducing unemployment, tackling homelessness and overcrowding, we'd also get extra income from council rents and save on the housing benefit bill. So yes, Mr Cameron we'll borrow more today so that we borrow less tomorrow."

In the FT today, Martin Wolf also assesses Cameron's economic credibility - and pulls no punches.


*instead Labour cut corporation tax from 33% to 28% during its period of office and only introduced the 50% tax rate from 1 April 2010, well after the boom had bust.

The Economist backs Cable, but it's no lurch to the left!

Cable looks to the heavens for inspiration

In a further sign that Cameron and Osborne are losing economic credibility even among their own side ahead of the 2013 Budget, The Economist's editorial has come out in favour of Vince Cable's proposals which he outlined in the New Statesman earlier this week.

Although more clearly articulated, Cable's proposals and modest critique of Osborne's strategy are actually more right wing than what the two Eds' Labour Party is calling for. Call it 'austerity-lite-lite'. Vince has since been feted by many, including now the journal "read by more of the world's political and business leaders than any other magazine".

The Economist backs the case for extra borrowing, made by Cable:

"All in all, the present evidence does indeed – with qualifications – point to some weakness of domestic demand and a low risk of expansionary policies spilling over into significant domestically generated inflation."

As the editorial points out, "between 2009-10 and 2011-12 public-sector net investment plunged from £48.5 billion to £28 billion" a large part of the reason for the appalling construction figures.

However, like Cable, The Economist also advocates that some "expansionary policies" i.e. public investment, should be funded by cuts to pensioner benefits and that perennial punchbag, welfare. The Economist also supports Cable's call to remove the ringfence around NHS funding.

This highlights how Cable is still very much on the Orange Book wing of the Liberal Democrats. Austerity is failing, the markets are unhappy, and what Cable and The Economist reflect is the capitalist class scrabbling around for an ideologically compatible solution to the enduring slump.

The fact that the right is divided, and Cameron and Osborne increasingly isolated, is reason for joy, but Labour and the trade union movement should not be taking sides in this internecine squabble.

Instead the struggle goes on to stop austerity in its tracks - not simply find another route for it to get to the same destination.

The left should take some encouragement however that its analysis is being proved right and that the right is having to adopt some of our proposals. In the case of The Economist both for more borrowing to invest, and - surprisingly - for a Land Value Tax:

"One reason why companies sit on development land is because they do not pay taxes until the offices and warehouses are built. It would be much better to tax the land value: that would make hoarding expensive and force owners to sell to someone who can use the site. Once in use, the site value and the tax would rise—creating a virtuous circle, as the revenues pay for better infrastructure, making land more valuable."