Many of the key
events of the last eight years have a common thread to them. In the
case of austerity, the Eurozone crisis, the 2015 UK election, the
Brexit vote in the UK and Trump’s election, the media played a
critical role in making them happen. This involved ignoring
expertise, ignoring facts that didn’t fit the chosen narrative of
one side, or simple lies. None of these events are mistakes only in
hindsight, but rather errors that were predicted at the time.
Documenting that is an important part of this book.
It was for that
reason that I tell the story through my blog posts at the time, with
additional postscripts, preambles and introductions that enable each
chapter to tell a complete story. There seemed no better way of
showing how all of these policy or electoral errors were understood
at the time and therefore could easily have been avoided.
I began writing my
blog mainlymacro because of my anger at austerity, and the fact that
the view of the majority of macroeconomists that it was a bad idea
was largely ignored by the media. When the media did talk to
economists, they tended to be from the financial sector. Financial
sector economists are biased in two directions: they tend to be right
wing and they tend to talk up the importance of a capricious
financial market and their own ability to know its ‘needs’. I used
the term ‘mediamacro’ to describe how most of the media seemed
happy to tell the story of the deficit as if the government was a
household, which any first year undergraduate textbook explains is
not true.
Many used the
Eurozone crisis as an excuse for austerity, but I quickly discovered
that the line most journalists took was missing the key reason for
that crisis. Eurozone countries cannot create their own currency, and
the institution that could act as an unlimited lender of last resort
to individual governments, the European Central Bank, was refusing to
do so. The crisis ended when the Eurozone changed this policy and
became a lender of last resort to most countries. The exception was
Greece, and I tell their more complex but shocking story in a few
posts.
Before the UK’s
2015 election the Conservatives talked about a strong economy, and
talked up rising employment levels. The media went along with this
narrative. In reality the recovery from the recession had been the
weakest for centuries, in good part because of the policy mistake of
immediate austerity. Strong employment growth combined with weak
output growth meant productivity was stagnant, which in turn helped
create falling real wages. Yet for mediamacro the government’s
deficit was a more important goal of policy than economic growth or
real wage growth, and as a result the economy was the Conservatives
strong card that led them to victory at the election. Adapting an old
Sun headline, I argued it was mediamacro wot won it, although luck
also played its part.
Defeat in 2015 led
to Jeremy Corbyn being elected as leader of the Labour party.
Although this took the commentariat by surprise, I argued it was the
logical result of Labour’s weak or non-existent stand against
austerity and a lot of what austerity required. When John McDonnell
became shadow Chancellor, he invited me to be part of an Economic
Advisory Council, and I explain how this led me to help create
Labour’s fiscal rule, which is the first such rule that prevents
austerity. I also explain why the Council came to an end.
A consequence of the
Conservatives winning in 2015 was a referendum on Brexit. A few
months before I wrote a post reproduced in the book which fairly
accurately set out how the campaign would play out. Remain’s case
was that leaving the EU would have serious economic consequences, and
it was a very strong case, but I suggested the media would balance
this case against nonsense from Leavers, and the electorate could
convince themselves that the economics was not clear cut. The fact
that free movement prevented controlling immigration from the EU was
by contrast clear cut, but as the government had played up the
negative aspects of immigration they could not credibly change
course.
Alas the media’s
failed to present near unanimous expert opinion in economics and
elsewhere as knowledge, and instead it became just Remain’s opinion
to be balanced by the other side. As a result the electorate, who
craved information about the EU, did not get it from the broadcast
media. In addition, those that read most of the daily papers by
readership got propaganda pure and simple, and had been getting it
for a year at least. I present strong evidence at how influential the
media can be, and therefore argue that Brexit represented the triumph
of the right wing press. I showed that the media were failing in
similar ways in the US, and that therefore confidence that Trump
would not get elected could be misplaced,
The book also has a
chapter on the role of economists in influencing policy. Did the
global financial crisis or the failures of macroeconomic forecasting
discredit economics, and is macroeconomics influenced by ideology? I
explain why the delegation of economic decisions can be partly about
transparency, and why economics is most like medicine among the
sciences.
While the media
played an important role in Trump becoming President and Brexit it
does not explain why those things are happening now rather than ten
or twenty years ago. The final chapter in the book looks at what
neoliberalism is, and why both austerity and using fear of
immigration to gain votes despite austerity can be seen as neoliberal
overreach, by which I mean taking deception of the electorate in
order to pursue ideological goals to a dangerous extreme. Both
austerity and anti-immigration feeling helped the cause of Brexit and
helped elect Trump.
The Global Financial
Crisis required a strong and quick recovery to avoid the dangers of
populism. Austerity prevented a strong recovery, and it was
undertaken as a cynical attempt to reduce the size of the state. The
subsequent populist mood was directed towards the right by
politicians and the media playing on racism and xenophobic fears.
This was fertile ground for disasters like Brexit and Trump to
happen. This suggests that even if we could go back to the world as
it was before Brexit and Trump that is not enough to stop similar
disasters happening again.
We sure are on the same side, your book is on my reading list: there's comfort in numbers! For me money is a tool to serve the needs of people, not people are there to serve the needs of money.
ReplyDeleteTrump understands more economics than you, because he's been through bankruptcies and knows that bluster creates an unlimited supply of money. It's all lies; the story you tell is a lie too and deep down, I think you know it. Trump sells his lies better and is more self-aware to boot ...
ReplyDeleteyou are great economist Simon - but a rubbish businessman - "wot no link to the book"!! I'm looking forward to getting my copy next week!
ReplyDeleteYes, paradigms are in part created by the press. That is why austerity is good, supporting demand with expansionary monetary and fiscal measures is bad. That people should listen to a know-nothing partisan journalist instead of a Nobel Prize in Economics (e.g. Stiglitz on the Eurozone, Greece and austerity) is beyond me. Your note here makes similar points. It is in part German nightmares of hyperinflation of 100 years ago that govern the EU monetary and fiscal rules today...
ReplyDelete"This involved ignoring expertise, ignoring facts that didn’t fit the chosen narrative of one side, or simple lies."
ReplyDeleteOk, but that's been going on throughout the entirety of human history - well, at least the recorded part, anyway.
So what can be done to ameliorate this insanity and correct the dishonesty ? I don't reckon electing Corbyn would achieve much, would it ?
Now here's a thought: much the greater part of the human race has an IQ (in the original Binet meaning and sense) of less than 105. What level of IQ do you think is required to grasp and accept expertise, register all facts, supportive or otherwise, and show a developed 'bullshvt sensitivity' (as opposed to the simpleminded 'bullshvt receptivity' we currently suffer from) ?
And would it work on 'global warming' too ?
How is going against the classic, mainstream notions of using monetary stimulus and fiscal policy (in the sense of governing expenditures on activities with present costs and future benefits according to an NPV rule, which would be highly "anti-cyclical) and the equally mainstream economic case that migration is a net gain (at least for destination countries) "neo-liberal overreach?"
ReplyDeleteUnintentionally apt title!
ReplyDelete