kaletsky76_Leon NealGetty Images_truss kwarteng

Economics

هل ستُعيد ليز تراس تأهيل كينز؟

Sep 6, 2022 Anatole Kaletsky

لندن ـ تم مؤخرًا تعيين رئيس وزراء جديد للمملكة المتحدة، ولكن هل ستعمل ليز تراس على تحسين التوقعات الكئيبة للاقتصاد البريطاني والحياة السياسية؟ الجواب التقليدي هو لا. وكما قال شكسبير: "عندما تأتي الأحزان، لا تأتي الجواسيس بمفردها بل في كتائب". وهذا ينطبق بكل تأكيد على بريطانيا اليوم.

تُعاني المملكة المتحدة من أعلى معدلات تضخم بين مجموعة الدول السبع، وأشد انخفاض في الأجور الحقيقية، وأكبر عجز في الميزانية والتجارة. ومما زاد الطين بلة أن كتيبة الأحزان البريطانية تؤثر على سياساتها. كان يُعد أسلاف تروس الثلاثة أسوأ رؤساء وزراء في تاريخ بريطانيا الحديث. هكذا يقول الرأي العام البريطاني: وفقًا لآخر استطلاع للرأي، حطم كل من ديفيد كاميرون وتيريزا ماي وبوريس جونسون الأرقام القياسية في فترة ما بعد الحرب عن "أدائهم السيئ كرؤساء وزراء"، حيث تم تصنيف كل زعيم متعاقب من حزب المحافظين أسوأ من سابقه.

يبدو أن تراس تواجه مصيرًا مماثلاً. إذا حكمنا من خلال حملتها القيادية، فإنها ستساهم في إثارة المزيد من الصراعات مع أوروبا، وتفاقم المواجهات مع الصين، وتشديد النزعة القومية الاسكتلندية، وتحدي الولايات المتحدة بشأن العلاقات الإنجليزية الأيرلندية. والأكثر إثارة للجدل أنها تسعى لخفض الضرائب، وإنفاق مبالغ طائلة على إعانات دعم الطاقة، وزيادة الإنفاق الدفاعي بنسبة 1٪ من الناتج المحلي الإجمالي، وإضافة 100 مليار جنيه إسترليني أخرى (116 مليار دولار، أو 5٪ من الناتج المحلي الإجمالي) إلى عجز الميزانية مع تحميل بنك إنجلترا المسؤولية عن أي تضخم ناتج عن ذلك.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 4 Comments on this article

Nevin Oliphant Sep 11, 2022

The policies of John Maynard Keynes brought the U.S., Great Britain and the rest of the world out of the depression and provided the most sustainable growth for decades that the world has known. The cornerstone of his policy was extremely progressive taxation yes, which kept wealthy individuals and corporations in check providing real growth, working people actually saw their lives improve. I am amazed that you can even pretend that Reagan and Thatcher used Keynesian economics. They initiated the opposite of Keynesian economics, and decades since then has seen the wealthy resume control and destruction of the economy, funneling everything to themselves as they grow increasingly more powerful. And the real economy, that of the working people, haven't seen an improvement in living conditions since the neoliberal gurus initiated their race to the bottom in the 80s. It is not possible to discuss Keynesian economics without mentioning strongly progressive taxation. Tax cuts indeed.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Dawood Mamoon Sep 7, 2022

Some one who personally know an empowered western woman in many colleagues during my PhD from International Institute of Social Studies, I would say that there is a pattern that suggests that actions and achievements of these women converge to get better results for their organization. Then honorable Prime Minister of Britain Madam Liz Truss has been the foreign minister for the country. My guess is that it is a safe bet that she would prove to be the next Margaret Thatcher for Britian. I see the PM getting best of everything by developing better relationship with EU after Brexit and further gaining the trust of British people by incentivizing businesses with tax cuts. The way she has chosen her winning team that include all her close aides suggest she may already have done her homework to start with the winning foot from day one as the PM. I think Britain would avoid a recession by not only businesses producing more but the country's exports to EU rising. Unlike the critics of Boris Jhonson he has already done a bit of the home work for PM Liz Truss to get along with Europe by taking a proactive approach towards Ukraine Russian conflict and developing a personal relationship with President Zelensky. The situation is unlike Iraq war and British support to US and rather it draws parallels to World War 2 and the people, and the Media is more excited than the Bristish government and criticizing former PM for not doing enough for Ukraine. Britain is leading the EU and that creates a lot of good will that has been muted due to economic challenges Europe is facing including Britian.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Punabantu Sep 6, 2022

The arguments of Keynesian economics and the printing of money and inflation can be viewed from a budget. On budget day when a budget is presented it represents a certain portion of the GDP. The first inherent concept is that a budget is “time-dependent” to a 365 day journey. These notions of “time states” are derived from Schrödinger Equation as propounded by Austrian-Irish physicist Professor Erwin Rudolf Schrödinger (1887-1961).
It is here that a presented places a value caveat which for example is estimated £173 billion budget being 37.1 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over 365 day, against which he indirectly is stating that the value of all the goods and services produced over a period of 365 days will be worth £466.3 billion.
Therefore if government was to tax British citizens monthly at 3.09 percent against the GDP, being £14.40 billion a month, then within twelve months government would have got its budget. (It is not rocket PhD science its 37.1 percent divided by 12 being 12 months).
The maximum “time-dependent” tax rate at 8.3 percent per month over twelve months indicates that the government would have collected all the GDP in the 365 day region.
At this point the budget would represent 100 percent of the GDP leaving no value for the British Sterling Pound as the budget cycle ends.
Thus the threshold 8.3 percent per month tax sets the divide numerically between what can be described as the “formal” or “time-dependent and “informal” or “time-independent” sector of an economy. This marks the first boundary of three.
The tax reality is different and if one compound all the taxes from income tax, VAT paid on goods and services, duty particularly on electricity etc. for example it reaches a 35 percent tax rate extraction per month from the economy.
At that rate, government is able to numerically collect the budget, spend it, and then re-collect it, and re-spend it again in a cyclical pattern every 30 days and not 365 days.
The 365 days budget is a “time-dependent” measured budget while the 30 day budget is “time-independent” measured “budget”, meaning 12 budgets are manufactured in a time-dependent calendar year or 144.32 “economic months” or 2.5 calendar days being equal to one economic month which represents one calendar month which is a time-independent measurement.
Instead of physical printing money under Keynesian economics, which is time-dependent, government today is still printing money, not physically, but by recycling the budget under excessive liberal economic policies which operate in a time-independent region.
It was English economist John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) who advocated for what today can be described as “Quantitative Easing” to deal with the 2008 financial crisis, as physical money is printed and released into an economy.
His ideological opponent Scottish economist, philosopher and pioneer of political economics Adam Smith (1723-1790) discouraged such physical printing to deal with economic crises.
Adam Smith through his apostle, Austrian-British economist and philosopher Friedrich August von Hayek (1899-1992) defended classic economic liberalism that for four decades became the mantra of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) policies. Unknowingly the “Adam Smith-Hayek” camp, like the “Keynesian” camp, still “printed” money as governments recycled budgets under austerity measures that encourage higher tax collection. As taxes increased, the re-cycling rate also increases.
One thing the Hayek camp did not factor in is that there is a limit to taxation and its effects between “time-dependent” and “time-independent” temporal structures.
Tax above the threshold of 8.3 percent per month meant government can spend the value of its citizen’s income, so that when they got paid physically, their income would buys next to nothing as the value had already been spent by the government.
People and companies in the Sterling economy thus feel helpless as what was meant to be done in 365 calendar days had to now be done in 30 days, which impacts on company management decisions that get over run by shifting time horizon unless very aggressive management strategies are employed to keep up with the time-independent situation, while your time-dependent monthly salary is meant to be every 2.5 days (an economic month) if it is to make sense.
Thus the relationship between people and companies against the economy becomes emotionally charged as a believed time-dependent notion cannot be perceived to be working as economic phenomena operate on a time-independent system.
It is here that the “tax value dynamics” in a “time-independent” structure when examined appears to get compounded. For example, Government extracts the budget every 30 days, which can be termed an economic year, as opposed to a calendar year, as it consumes 37.1 percent of the GDP leaving 62.9 percent of the GDP value for the Sterling pound. As it moves to the next 30 days although 37.1 percent is consumed, in real terms it is against the remaining GDP value of 62.9 percent and not 100 percent, meaning the second 37.1 percent in value terms against 62.9 percent is really 58.9 percent.
The next third cycle yields 37.1 percent of the GDP left facing 25.8 percent which in value terms is 143 percent. By the end of the fourth cycle it’s now minus 41.3 percent in real terms.
Thus at each progressive economic year, the value amount of the GDP in real value terms left in the economy decreases until it enters a negative condition.
This is known as Zeno’s Paradox, expressed by Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea (c.490-430 BC), and hence the purchasing power of the Sterling pound always falls as taxes in value terms get compounded as a result of increasing economic years. This marks the third boundary. At these three boundaries conditions reverse.
Thus the nature of economic policies working or not working are linked to the time function. Above the threshold tax of 8.3 percent the informal sector manifests. It is a “minus” or negative region as expressed in Zeno’s Paradox. Economic profitability is not the main manifestation as noted in tax below the threshold tax of 8.3 percent per month. Instead in this negative economic region called the informal sector, it is not driven by profit but a barter trade system. A street vendor attempts to sell goods and vegetables etc to get liquidity to buy basic household items like food for the day plus restock, only to return the next day to repeat the process. It’s “one day at a time” to push a family at the frontline of absorbing tremendous costs to squeeze just a few coins to convert to food to survive as government has eaten up all the value in the economy. Although numerical the budget is £172.9 billion over 365 days, its value envelope is £2 trillion ( being £12 budgets in one calendar year).
After what trip in time occurs its ramifications will be felt political.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henry Rech Sep 6, 2022

"Howe’s sensational 1981 budget turned out to be the low point of the 1980-81 slump and inaugurated a decade of record growth. "

As the statisticians say, correlation is not causation.

The UK was not unique. The West, in general, enjoyed a decade of growth in the 1980s.

The 1970s stagflation and the deep recession of the early 1980s naturally gave way to recovery. The oil price, that caused so much damage in the 1970s, was tamed, and there was an emerging boom in personal computing.

In fact, it might be argued that Howe's budget deepened the 1982-83 recession.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/i2Wp6laar

هل ستُعيد ليز تراس تأهيل كينز؟

Subscribe to PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

هل ستُعيد ليز تراس تأهيل كينز؟

Subscribe to PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification