That you might not like what Thatcherism was is one thing – perhaps you’d have preferred a continued gradual decline both relatively and in real terms. That you applaud it equally, matter of opinion. But it really does help if you understand what Thatcherism was. An incomplete but radical attempt at rebooting the British economy. Which is where this from Larry Elliott fails:
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]His cabinet is stuffed with Thatcherite true believers who will hardly be inclined to undertake a vital reboot of the economy[/perfectpullquote]We’ve had two attempts at reboots post WWII. Attlee and the central planning miasma, Thatcher and the Hayekian free market. Neither were complete, both were tendencies more than completed revolutions. So, the UK economy currently needs a reboot does it? So, who is it that should be doing this? Which particular path should we be taking?
Socialism, that central planning type, hasn’t worked anywhere, ever. We’ve most certainly no post WWII success. Continental social democracy – the German, French, Italian etc versions – haven’t worked. We can point to the Nordics as being places that thoroughly work even if we might not share Hygge, Lagom or whichever one is being used to sell sofas these days. But if we do note those places then we’ve also got to grasp that they’re very much more Hayekian free market than we or the US are. There are also other places out there – Hong Kong, Singapore etc – that have sailed past us Europeans in economic terms and they’re Hayek again, without that dragging anchor of a complete and caring welfare state.
Economic success, empirically, comes from that Hayek and free market stuff. So, we want to reboot the UK economy we’ll have to follow that path, won’t we? Who better to do that than Thatcherites?
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Little has changed since 1963. Then, as now, Britain was strong in science and rich in new ideas. Then, as now, it was less good than other countries at exploiting them. Wilson’s optimism drained away after he arrived in office, as Johnson’s may well also, and for the same reason: a sterling crisis.[/perfectpullquote]That is, sadly, a woeful error. Because you can’t have a sterling crisis if you’re not trying to maintain a fixed exchange rate for sterling. If you’ve a floating currency then the same things which would cause a crisis just cause a change in the exchange rate. And thus is the crisis averted by allowing prices, in a market, to change.
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]The truth is somewhat different. Project Fear was a failure not just because all the lurid predictions were well over the top, although they were. It was also a failure because it followed years of voters being hoodwinked by governments of both left and right that the economy was stronger than it actually was. Among the many myths peddled were that making things no longer mattered,[/perfectpullquote]Adding value matters, as adding value has always mattered. What you add value to doesn’t matter in the slightest. What that really is is a conservative hankering after the days of large manufacturing plants. Where real men dropped things on feet. These are activities which don’t add value these days. When there’re 160 million Bangladeshis, 1.3 billion Chinee, soon to be 3 billion Africans, desperate to bash tin for us then rich world tin bashing just isn’t a value added activity.
Further, with the exception of Germany and Switzerland, the UK manufacturing share of the economy is about the same as that in other rich countries. 10 to 12% of GDP, that’s about what a rich nation has these days. To argue otherwise is simply to be lost in some cloud of memories of whippets and flat caps.
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]A more honest appraisal would go as follows. For decades Britain has consumed more than it has produced, with the result that the UK has the biggest deficit on its current account of any member of the G7. In the past, deficits this big have led to sterling crises. A breakdown of the current account shortfall shows that since the early 1980s a colossal deficit in manufactured trade has been partly offset by a surplus generated by services and by the investment income from trade in financial assets. Put simply, the UK has hollowed out its industrial base and developed the City into a global centre of finance.[/perfectpullquote]We no longer have fixed exchange rates so we can’t have a sterling crisis. It also misses how we’ve financed all of this, selling houses to foreigners – or a surplus on the capital account. But the real point is that we’ve changed what we add value to. That we add value is important, what to is not. Except, obviously, it’s better if we add value to that unique human attribute, brains, than to that we share with the animals, brawn.
Selling services to the world is a more advanced – better – economy than selling flanges to it.
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]The causes of Brexit lie not in leftwing economic policies but in Thatcher’s scorched-earth wipeout of manufacturing in the 1980s[/perfectpullquote]Tsk, I mean tsk. Manufacturing output was higher – considerably so – when Maggie left office than when she arrived into it.
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Being tough on the causes of Brexit means changing the culture of business so that it boosts investment. It means rethinking the role of the state so that Britain leads rather than follows in the fourth industrial revolution. It means spending more on infrastructure, especially in the north. It means a mass housebuilding programme. Put simply, it means doing stuff not normally associated with politicians who think the free market is always right.[/perfectpullquote]Well, actually, the largest British economic problem is slow productivity growth – where we have any at all. And the solution to that, as every fule kno, is free trade. The competition from Johnny Foreigner being what forces firms to increase productivity. That is, the solution is more Hayek and free market. Thatcherites being just the people to give it to us too…..
The language we use matters - it provides clarity to our own thoughts and enables…
It is now generally acknowledged that the structure of the NHS needs to be overhauled…
In the film Apollo 13, a loss of oxygen causes the crew to start inadvertently…
There's an idea out there which seems intuitive but then so many ideas do seem…
When we think about the darkly opaque goals of modern central bankers as they relate…
As the papers recently filled with the distressing images of desperate souls looking to escape…
View Comments
As with so much in economics, technical terms like 'manufacturing' don't mean what the average person thinks it means. We have large and thriving 'manufacturing' sectors - aerospace (largest producer of satellites after the US, with very few others in the game - one of the largest jet engine manufacturers), pharma. But, as Tim points out, they don't employ tens of thousands of horny-handed sons of toil any longer. Which is great, because no-one except for a few tankie obesessives really longs to be a horny-handed son of toil.
My first thought as I started reading was "This guy is a blithering idiot - how on Earth did he ever create Oracle Corporation?"
;¬)
‘For decades Britain has consumed more than it has produced...’
Me too.
Tim makes several excellent points in this article. I would just like to add two additional points.
Early on, Tim writes: "There are also other places out there – Hong Kong, Singapore etc – that have sailed past us Europeans in economic terms and they’re Hayek again, without that dragging anchor of a complete and caring welfare state."
There are free-market benefits demonstrated by those two great city states. However, I have always thought that it is their status as city states was, is and will continue to have a dominant effect on both their GDP per capita and GDP growth rate. Comparison with other major world cities (eg London, Paris) would show a markedly different story than does comparison with the whole nation states that are not city states (eg the UK and other European nations).
Later on, Tim writes: "Well, actually, the largest British economic problem is slow productivity growth – where we have any at all. And the solution to that, as every fule kno, is free trade."
Free trade certainly encourages any economy overall to make production decisions that are better for its consumption, trade and growth. However, one of those production decisions that I feel the UK is not making, with sufficient enthusiasm and effect, is to improve STEM (and probably other) education at all levels. As an example of this, I include the following.
I attended a state grammar school and, back in 1968, with about 8% of my age cohort (that's 1/3 at grammar school and 1/4 of that grammar school fraction), took GCE 'O' Level Mathematics one year early (at age 15). This was followed by taking GCE 'O' Level Additional Mathematics at age 16. This meant, in line with the Additional Maths syllabus, that we (amongst other extra bits of maths) all studied differential and integral calculus at that age (ie at 16 years). Now with the 'modern' style, with the somewhat less stretching GCSEs and detuned 'A' Levels, calculus does not even form part of 'A' Level Mathematics (but presumably is covered in 'A' Level Further Mathematics). All this means that the UK is actively choosing not to develop (for any part of the appropriate age cohort) skills in mathematics that were once taught to (around) 8% of that age cohort.
Without pursuing a high level of education (for at least an appropriate proportion of students and in all subjects) all the way through their childhood, youth and early adulthood, the full personal potential of each student cannot be realised. And out economy (in the modern hi-tech world) not only will suffer but has already been suffering for decades.
Best regards
‘Then, as now, Britain was strong in science and rich in new ideas. Then, as now, it was less good than other countries at exploiting them.‘
As I was alive at the time, an insight.
First. Since the State owned most sectors where science and new ideas existed, they were starved of investment as the various State-owned disaster centres and public services competed with each other for money... the ones with the biggest most agressive unions getting most. And not forgetting that if new ideas cost jobs, union boss says forget it.
Second. Taxation. Tax was so high even for middle income earners, people with the scientific talent and new ideas left to places like USA & Canada. During these times Britain closed down its rocketry and aviation programmes - what was left distilled into that money-pit, Concorde - lots of bright people went to work for Boeing and NASA.
The 'brain drain' was real in the sixties and seventies. There are a lot of nationalized Americans who made significant contributions and who today are retired and living happily in the US. They left the UK for economic reasons.
Try manufacturing stuff without all that "pointless " financial sector providing capital, insurance, FX, hedging, pensions, shupping and all the rest.