Business

Britain, ‘Austerity,’ and the Lessons of Economic History

Kyle Latham is a contributor to The Center for Vision & Values and a May 2012 graduate of Grove City College who will be pursuing a graduate degree in economics. He is a winner of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation’s 2010 Sound Money Contest with his paper on “Concerns for the Utilitarian and Ethical Characteristics of Money.”

Economists and pundits alike are going wild over the United Kingdom’s recent “double dip” recession. The 2008-09 recession prompted the election of a conservative coalition led by Prime Minister David Cameron. Cameron decided the best path for economic recovery was “austerity,” a program of reduced government spending and smaller government debt. The new coalition—with the aid of Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne—sought to drastically slash the government budget. With the addition of increased taxes, the plan was dubbed “Tax and Axe.”

Two years later, the United Kingdom is back in recession. Keynesian economists are enjoying a savory “I told you so” moment, as many pointed out the dangers of austerity during troubled times. The logic runs as follows: when businesses, households, and governments all try to pay back their debts at the same time, they spend less. As they spend less, national income falls, leading to even less spending. This sets off a cycle of decreased spending and economic collapse.

The Keynesian solution is government spending. It goes like this: Governments can increase spending during recessions to keep national income up, preventing the spending collapse. In short, more stimulus is the answer.

In turn, many progressives in the United States are arguing that any similar austerity here (such as Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget plan) would have equally bad results: another recession.

Unfortunately, this reasoning is based on a faulty premise. Here is the reality: There is no austerity in the United Kingdom.

Quite the contrary, government spending in Britain has increased in the last two years, and will continue for the foreseeable future. In real terms (based on estimated inflation and GDP growth), spending was set to decrease this fiscal year. Unfortunately, this prediction was made on the assumption of positive yet small GDP growth. As we now know, this assumption was bad and GDP shrank, heralding a recession.

Public debt in the United Kingdom continues to rise. The 2012 budget clearly outlines increases in public debt all the way until 2016 (when the predictions stop). To top it all off, these numbers exclude the 2008-09 emergency financial interventions. The financial sector in the United Kingdom took a hit in the previous recession and was promptly bailed out in 2009. Since then, the government has borrowed an additional 124 billion pounds to keep banks afloat.

Furthermore, some British think tanks estimate that only around 6 percent of Cameron’s cuts have been implemented, with the remaining 94 percent still waiting to actually be cut by 2016-17. Is this “austerity” (itself a loaded term) in any sense of the word? Suppose you were driving towards a cliff. Is it enough to ease off the gas pedal, or do you need to hit the brakes?

Economists such as Paul Krugman are already branding Europe’s approach a failure. In many ways, it is. But what is really at stake is the real reason things are failing. We cannot allow history to think that the United Kingdom tried austerity. It is simply not true. If we interpret this wrong, we will get the wrong historical lessons.

In fact, something similar happened during the onset of the Great Depression. Herbert Hoover was in office when panic struck and the history books claim he tried free-market principles, which failed. In the first year of the depression, 1931, federal expenditures rose from $4.2 billion to $5.5 billion. The federal government incurred a $2.2-billion deficit the same year. In 1932, Hoover raised taxes.

Sound familiar? Despite the fact that President Hoover increased government spending and debt, his approach was labeled “free market.” The exact opposite is true. When running against Franklin Roosevelt, Hoover actually argued that Roosevelt would make things worse by lowering taxes and decreasing spending. Roosevelt responded by accusing Hoover’s administration of being a profligate spender.

The same classification error is happening again today. The United Kingdom has raised taxes, increased government spending, and taken on more debt. This is the exact opposite of the clear meaning of austerity. What sort of Orwellian doublespeak is being used when “free market” means more government?

Of course, the situation in the United Kingdom is not identical to the United States. Exact comparisons and examples do not translate. One thing we do know, however, is that the British have not attempted to rein in out-of-control government spending. Like many governments, Britain scheduled cuts years into the future and continue to pile on debt. Before we even consider the failure of austerity in England, we must first be convinced austerity has really happened.

 

Kyle Latham is a contributor to The Center for Vision & Values and a May 2012 graduate of Grove City College who will be pursuing a graduate degree in economics.

Comments (5)

  • dnewton
    May. 19, 2012 at 8:48pm

    There is so little cash in banks, a run on the banks should be impossible if you define a run as cashing out your balance. They can electronically transfer your balance somewhere but that leaves you in the same place you were unless you change to a more stable currency.

    Report this comment

    dnewton  
  • Netsurfer2
    May. 19, 2012 at 6:19pm

    It will be interesting when more people walk away from their homes and new cars! It will happen and its only a matter of time when people will be marching in the streets for a higher wage because of the dollar not having any value! Inflation will show us how important it really is to have an education! I won’t doubt that we will see people jumping out of sky scrapers! Not to mention all the scammers that will be robbing people blind!

    Another thought, that many unions will be broken by large corporations in order to get the wage down far enough so that we can sell our products to other countries! Mark my words! Even though prices for food and commodities will rise, your wages will not change much!

    Be prepared folks, because it is coming and there is no way out of this, but through hard work!

    Pray that you make it out alive, because if this doesn’t make you a believer, then nothing will. Winter you will feel the pinch more than ever before!

    Report this comment

    Netsurfer2  
  • The Third Archon
    May. 18, 2012 at 11:48pm

    “Sound familiar? Despite the fact that President Hoover increased the government spending and debt”
    compared to FDT, barely…

    “his approach was labeled “do-nothing,” or laissez-faire–not quite the same thing.

    Report this comment

    The Third Archon  
  • Clmsadjman
    May. 17, 2012 at 5:33pm

    Unfortunately the only way to get it through their heads is the system has to collapse under its own weight. It will be tough and people will suffer, however the only way for them to get real is there is no money in the checkbook. You think people will suffer less with ever increasing taxes and there money worth less and less? Look at Greece a run on the banks today took almost a billion out of banks vaults today. Britan will hit the finish line before us, but we aren’t far behind.

    Report this comment

    Clmsadjman  

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In