Macroeconomic Policy Reform the IPPR way

Monetary and fiscal policy makers in the UK seem to think they had a good recession. You can tell that because neither group seem particularly interested in learning any lessons. This is despite the fact that we had the deepest recession since the 1930s, and the slowest recovery for centuries. It is also despite the fact that the level of UK GDP is almost 20% below the level it would be if it had followed pre-recessions trends, and all previous recessions have had the economy catch up with that trend.

You can tell from this paragraph that I do think serious changes are required to how monetary and fiscal policy are done. So does the IPPR, and their detailed analysis and proposals are set out in a new report by Alfie Stirling. The analysis is not too technical, well presented, well researched and I agree with a great deal of what is said. I will look a monetary policy first, and then fiscal policy.

What the Great Recession showed us (although many macroeconomists already knew) is that once nominal interest rates hit their effective lower bound (ELB) [1], monetary policy makers lose their reliable means of combating a recession. The report is dubious about Quantitative Easing (QE) for much the same reason that I have been for anything other than a last resort instrument. In brief, the impact of QE is very uncertain because it is not routinely used, and in addition there may be important non-linearities. It is not a reliable alternative to interest rates.

The report makes much the same point about negative nominal interest rates: partially or perhaps fully removing the lower bound. To quote:

“Like QE, the impacts of negative rates are uncertain and, depending on the behavioural response from banks and savers, could actually reduce spending in the economy, or else increase the number of risky loans (see for example Eggertsson, Juelsrud and Wold 2017).”

I know some macroeconomists will disagree with that assessment, but I think the point is valid.

The report also rejects helicopter money as a solution to the ELB problem. Here I found their discussion less convincing, but they do recognise that a form of helicopter money has already been undertaken by some central banks through creating money to change the relationship between borrowing and lending rates, a point that Eric Lonergan has stressed.

The two reforms to monetary policy that have been suggested and which the report does support are adopting unemployment or nominal GDP as either a second target or as an intermediate target, and raising the inflation target by one or two percent. I have argued strongly for a dual mandate and also for using nominal GDP as an intermediate target, so I have no objections here.

The report recognises, however, that none of their proposed reforms to monetary policy eliminates the ELB problem completely. We have, inevitably, to think about the other reliable and effective instrument that we have to stimulate aggregate demand: fiscal policy. Their proposed fiscal rule is very similar to Labour’s fiscal credibility rule. It includes (a) a ‘knockout’ to switch to fiscal expansion if interest rates reach their ELB, (b) 5 year rolling target for a zero current balance (c) a 5 year rolling target for public investment (d) a similar target for debt to GDP. The last in this list you will not find in Portes and Wren-Lewis, in essence because it involves double counting, and debt targets are less robust to shocks than deficit targets.

If governments followed this fiscal rule, then the ELB would not be the serious problem that it is, because reliable fiscal stimulus would replace reliable monetary stimulus at the ELB. But the IPPR worry that governments might not do what the fiscal rule, and with the knockout what the Bank of England, tells them to do. They are concerned that what they call ‘surplus bias’ might be so strong that the government would not run the deficits that the Bank asks them to run.

To overcome this concern, they suggest an alternative to QE at the ELB: the Bank should create reserves to fund projects that are part of a National Investment Bank (NIB). The NIB would be independent of government in terms of the projects it funded (but not its high level mandate), and it would normally raise funds in the open market. (This makes it different from proposals that the NIB be entirely funded by the Bank: see here.) In an ELB recession, the Bank of England would ask the NIB to fund additional projects, with the Bank providing the finance.

As public investment is particularly effective as a countercyclical tool if undertaken immediately, and as it is usually possible to some degree to bring forward investment projects, this proposal seems a superior alternative to QE, as long as the link between additional purchases of NIB debt and additional investment by the NIB was reasonably clear. The key point here is that although conventional QE might try to stimulate private investment by reducing firm borrowing costs, in a situation where there is chronic lack of demand that can be like trying to push on a string. The same problem should not arise with an NIB. In that sense it just seems like a good idea.

Whether it would be enough alone to circumvent the problem of a rabid surplus bias government during a recession I doubt. The kind of public investment that is easy to ramp up quickly in a recession are things like flood defences or filling holes in the road, rather than the kind of things an NIB would fund. A government suffering strong surplus bias could cut these things quicker than an NIB could fund additional projects. Some form of QE would be more powerful in this respect. The danger in either case is that you just encourage the government to try and get down debt even faster: if QE gives money directly to people, the government just raises VAT.

How seriously should we worry about (design policy for) a government offsetting everything the Bank is able to do to stimulate demand in a recession? The answer may be given by imagining the following scenario. The government operates a fiscal rule that has an explicit ELB knockout. The Bank of England, when rates hit the ELB, requests the government undertake fiscal stimulus. If Cameron/Osborne had been faced with both those things, would they have still cut back public investment? I suspect the answer is no. That of course by implication means that central bankers in Europe played a large part in facilitating (or encouraging) austerity, which in the UK stemmed from a failure to admit the problems of the ELB because of a naive faith in QE.

Which brings us to central bank independence and what I call the conventional assignment (outwith the ELB, monetary policy deals with macroeconomic stabilisation). The IPPR stay with the mainstream macroeconomic consensus in wanting to keep both. People with a more MMT type view, like Richard Murphy, would reverse [2] the conventional assignment, and have fiscal policy doing the macroeconomic stabilisation. I have written a great deal on the distinction and will not repeat that here. However it is worth making one point on independence.

The reasons for making central banks independent are not peculiar to monetary policy. They are that if the complex task of macroeconomic stabilisation is left in the hands of politicians who get secret advice, they can mess things up for political ends. [3] Messing things up can be minor (e.g. delaying necessary measures), structural (e.g. time inconsistency) or explosive (e.g. hyperinflation). Austerity shows that this fear is justified. MMT’s answer to the IPPRs concern about a surplus bias government is that this is just a cost of democracy or the good guys would always be in power, which I suspect many might not find reassuring. Yet that is also why European central bank’s encouragement of austerity was far from helpful to the case for the delegation of macroeconomic stabilisation.

[1] 'Effective' because in practice it is up to the central bank to decide at what point they cannot reduce nominal rates further. 

[2] Not strictly true. In the conventional assignment monetary policy does inflation/aggregate demand and government looks after its debt, while in MMT fiscal does inflation/aggregate demand and government debt looks after itself.

[3] I hope time inconsistency can be subsumed under this broad definition.

Is a flexible labour market a problem for central bankers?

Recessions and milder economic downturns are typically a result of insufficient aggregate demand for goods. The only way to end them is to stimulate demand in some way. That may happen naturally, but it may also happen because monetary policymakers reduce interest rates. How do we know we have deficient aggregate demand? Because unemployment increases, as a lower demand for goods leads to layoffs and less new hires.

A question that is sometimes posed in macroeconomics is whether workers in a recession could ‘price themselves into jobs’ by cutting wages. In past recessions workers have been reluctant to do this. But suppose we had a more prolonged recession, because fiscal austerity had dampened the recovery, and over this more prolonged period wages had become less rigid. Then falling real wages could price workers into jobs, and reduce unemployment. [1]

This is not because falling real wages cure the problem of deficient aggregate. If anything lower real wages might reduce aggregate demand by more. But it is still possible that workers could price themselves into jobs, because firms might switch to more labour intensive production techniques, or fail to invest in new labour saving techniques. We would see output still depressed, but unemployment fall, employment rise and stagnant labour productivity. Much as we have done in the UK over the last few years.

It is important to understand that in these circumstances the problem of deficient demand is still there. Resources are still being wasted on a huge scale. Quite simply, we could all be much better off if demand could be stimulated. How would central bankers know whether this was the case or not?

Central bankers might say that they would still know there was inadequate demand because surveys would tell them that firms had excess capacity. That would undoubtedly be true in the immediate aftermath of the recession, but as time went on capital would depreciate and investment would remain low because firms were using more labour intensive techniques. The surveys would become as poor an indicator of deficient aggregate demand as the unemployment data.

What about all those measures of the output gap? Unfortunately they are either based on unemployment, surveys, or data smoothing devices. The last of these, because they smooth actual output data, simply say it is about time output has fully recovered. Or to put it another way, trend based measures effectively rule out the possibility of a prolonged period of deficient demand. [2] So collectively these output gap measures provide no additional information about demand deficiency.

The ultimate arbiter of whether there is demand deficiency is inflation. If demand is deficient, inflation will be below target. It is below target in most countries right now, including the US, Eurozone and Japan. (In the UK inflation is above target because of the Brexit depreciation, but wage inflation shows no sign of increasing.) So in these circumstances central bankers should realise that demand was deficient, and continue to do all they can to stimulate it.

But there is a danger that central bankers would look at unemployment, and look at the surveys of excess capacity, and look at estimates of the output gap, and conclude that we no longer have inadequate aggregate demand. In the US interest rates are rising, and there are those on the MPC that think the same should happen here. If demand deficiency is still a problem, this would be a huge and very costly mistake, the kind of mistake monetary policymakers should never ever make. [3] There is a fool proof way of avoiding that mistake, which is to keep stimulating demand until inflation rises above target.

One argument against this wait and see policy is that policymakers need to be ‘ahead of the curve’, to avoid abrupt increases in interest rates if inflation did start rising. Arguments like this treat the Great Recession as just a larger version of the recessions we have seen since WWII. But in these earlier recessions we did not have interest rates hitting their lower bound, and we did not have fiscal austerity just a year or two after the recession started. What we could be seeing instead is something more like the Great Depression, but with a more flexible labour market.

[1] Real wages could also be more flexible because the Great Recession allowed employers to increase job insecurity, which might both increase wage flexibility and reduce the NAIRU. Implicit in this account is that lower nominal wages did not get automatically passed on as lower prices. If they had, real wages would not fall. Why this failed to happen is interesting, but takes us beyond the scope of this post.

[2] They also often imply that the years immediately before the Great Recession were a large boom period, despite all the evidence that they were no such thing outside the Eurozone periphery

[3] J.W. Mason has recently argued that such a mistake is being made in the US in a detailed report.

Ricardian Equivalence, benchmark models, and academics response to the financial crisis

Mainly for economists

In his further thoughts on DSGE models (or perhaps his response to those who took up his first thoughts), Olivier Blanchard says the following:

“For conditional forecasting, i.e. to look for example at the effects of changes in policy, more structural models are needed, but they must fit the data closely and do not need to be religious about micro foundations.”

He suggests that there is wide agreement about the above. I certainly agree, but I’m not sure most academic macroeconomists do. I think they might say that policy analysis done by academics should involve microfounded models. Microfounded models are, by definition, religious about microfoundations and do not fit the data closely. Academics are taught in grad school that all other models are flawed because of the Lucas critique, an argument which assumes that your microfounded model is correctly specified.

It is not only academics who think policy has to be done using microfounded models. The core model used by the Bank of England is a microfounded DSGE model. So even in this policy making institution, their core model does not conform to Blanchard’s prescription. (Yes, I know they have lots of other models, but still. The Fed is closer to Blanchard than the Bank.)

Let me be more specific. The core macromodel that many academics would write down involves two key behavioural relationships: a Phillips curve and an IS curve. The IS curve is purely forward looking: consumption depends on expected future consumption. It is derived from an infinitely lived representative consumer, which means Ricardian Equivalence holds in this model. As a result, in this benchmark model Ricardian Equivalence also holds. [1]

Ricardian Equivalence means that a bond financed tax cut (which will be followed by tax increases) has no impact on consumption or output. One stylised empirical fact that has been confirmed by study after study is that consumers do spend quite a large proportion of any tax cut. That they should do so is not some deep mystery, but may be traced back to the assumption that the intertemporal consumer is never credit constrained. In that particular sense academics’ core model does not fit Blanchard’s prescription that it should ‘“fit the data closely”.

Does this core model influence the way some academics think about policy? I have written how mainstream macroeconomics neglected before the financial crisis the importance that shifting credit conditions had on consumption, and speculated that this neglect owed something to the insistence on microfoundations. That links the methodology macroeconomists use, or more accurately their belief that other methodologies are unworthy, to policy failures (or at least inadequacy) associated with that crisis and its aftermath.

I wonder if the benchmark model also contributed to a resistance among many (not a majority, but a significant minority) to using fiscal stimulus when interest rates hit their lower bound. In the benchmark model increases in public spending still raise output, but some economists do worry about wasteful expenditures. For these economists tax cuts, particularly if aimed at those who are non-Ricardian, should be an attractive alternative means of stimulus, but if your benchmark model says they will have no effect, I wonder whether this (consciously or unconsciously) biases you against such measures.

In my view, the benchmark models that academic macroeconomists carry round in their head should be exactly the kind Blanchard describes: aggregate equations which are consistent with the data, and which may or may not be consistent with current microfoundations. They are the ‘useful models’ that Blanchard talked about in his graduate textbook with Stan Fischer, although then they were confined to chapter 10! These core models should be under constant challenge from both partial equilibrium analysis, estimation in all its forms and analysis using microfoundations. But when push comes to shove, policy analysis should be done with models that are the best we have at meeting all those challenges, and not models with consistent microfoundations.

[1] Recognising this point, some might add some ‘rule of thumb’ consumers into the model. This is fine, as long as you do not continue to think the model is microfounded. If these rule of thumb consumers spend all their income because of credit constraints, what happens when these constraints are expected to last for more than the next period? Does the model correctly predict what would happen to consumption if the proportion of rule of thumb consumers changes? It does not.  

Explaining the last ten years

The Great Recession was larger than any previous post WWII recession. But that is not what it will be mainly remembered for. Unlike previous recessions, it appears to have led to, or coincided with, a permanent reduction in the productive potential [1] of the economy relative to previous trends. As unemployment today in the US and UK is not very different from pre-recession levels, then another way of saying the same thing is that growth in labour productivity and real wages over the last seven years has been much lower than pre-recession trends. (As employment has not yet recovered in Europe, I will focus on the US and UK here.)

I have posted charts showing this for the UK many times, so here is something similar for the US. It plots the log of real GDP (green) against the CBO’s (Congressional Budget Office) estimate of potential output (yellow). Unlike the UK, potential growth in the US does not appear constant from 1955, but the CBO has potential output growth between 3 to 3.5% in most years between 1970 and the early 2000s. The break created by the Great Recession is clear: potential growth fell to as low as 1% immediately after the recession, is currently running at 1.5%, and the CBO hopes it will recover to 2% by 2020.

US Actual (green) and Potential (yellow, source CBO) Output, logged. Source: FRED.

There seem to be two ways of thinking about this decline in potential output growth. One is that the slowdown in productivity growth was happening anyway, and has nothing to do with the global financial crisis and recession. This seems unlikely to be the major story. For the UK we have to rewrite the immediate pre-recession years as boom periods (a large positive output gap), even though most indicators suggests they were not. A global synchronised slowdown in productivity growth seems improbable, as some countries are at the technological frontier and others are catching up. As Ball notes, “in the countries hit hardest by the recession, the growth rate of potential output is much lower today than it was before 2008.” However the coincidence story is the one that both the OECD and IMF assume when they calculate output gaps or cyclically adjusted budget deficits. The CBO numbers for the US shown above adopt the coincidence theory to some extent, reducing potential growth from 3.5% in 2002 to 2.0% by the end of 2007.

If we stick to the more plausible idea that this is all somehow the result of the financial crisis and recession, we can again split explanations into two types: those that focus on the financial crisis and argue that crises of this type (rather than other types of recession) impact on potential output, and those that look at the impact of the recession itself. The distinction is important in understanding the impact of austerity. If the length and depth of the recession has permanently hit potential output, as Fatas and Summers suggest, then the cost of austerity is much greater than we could have imagined.

Looking at previous financial crises in individual countries, as Nick Oulton has done for example, does suggest a permanent hit to potential, but I have noted before that this result leans heavily on experience in Latin American countries, and Sweden’s recovery from its 1990 crisis suggests a more optimistic story. Estimates based on OECD countries alone suggest more modest impacts on potential output, of around only 2%.

What about the impact of the recession itself? Here it is helpful to go through the textbook story of how a large negative demand shock should impact the global economy. Lower demand lowers output and employment. Workers cut wages, and firms follow with price cuts. The fall in inflation leads the central bank to cut real interest rates, which restores demand, employment and output to its pre-recession trend.

We know why this time was different: monetary policy hit the zero lower bound (ZLB) and fiscal policy in 2010 went in the wrong direction. Yet employment has recovered to a considerable extent (although less so in the US than the UK). A recovery in employment but not output (relative to pre-recession trends) means by definition a decline in labour productivity growth. How could this happen?

The table below shows the rate of growth of real and nominal wages in the UK and US in pre and post recession periods.

US	2002-7	2008-15
Annual wage growth (1)	3.8%	2.1%
Annual price growth (2)	2.5%	1.5%
Difference	1.3%	0.6%
UK
Annual wage growth	4.5%	1.7%
Annual price growth	2.8%	2.1%
Difference	1.7%	-0.4%

1. Compensation per employee, source OECD Economic Outlook
2. GDP deflator, source OECD Economic Outlook

Nominal wage growth followed the textbook story. But price inflation did not fall to match, implying steadily falling real wages, particularly in the UK. This could just reflect the decline in productivity, which occurred either coincidentally or as a result of the financial crisis and recession.

The financial crisis could have reduced productivity growth if a ‘broken’ financial sector had stopped financing high productivity investment projects, or kept inefficient firms going through ‘pretend and extend’ lending. The recession could have reduced productivity growth by reducing investment, and therefore embodied [2] technical progress. Perhaps this loss of embodied technical progress occurs in all recessions, but we do not notice it because recoveries are quick and complete.

However the causality could be the other way around. Falling real wages led firms to switch production techniques such that they employed more labour per unit of capital. Workers priced themselves into jobs. The big question then becomes why did firms let this happen? Why did firms not take advantage of lower wage increases to reduce their own prices, and choose instead to raise their profit margins?

One story involves a secular increase in firms’ profit margins (Paul Krugman’s robber barons idea), either because of a reduction in goods market competition (profit margins are sometimes called the degree of monopoly), or a rise in rent seeking as Bob Solow suggests (HT DeLong). [3] However it is not obvious why this should be connected to the recession. If it is not, it is like the coincident and exogenous productivity decline. We will not get back to the earlier productivity growth path without reversing whatever caused this secular rise in profit margins.

Another, in some ways more optimistic, story involves different degrees of nominal rigidity: nominal wages are less sticky than nominal prices. As a result nominal wages led prices in reacting to the recession, but now prices are ‘catching up’ and profit margins will fall back. That would fit nicely with inflation continuing below target for some time, and real wages and productivity recovering. It is an optimistic story, because an additional demand stimulus would increase wage but not price inflation, and we would see rapid growth in labour productivity as firms reversed their earlier labour for capital substitution.

Unfortunately recent data suggests this is not happening. Instead core inflation is now above target in the US and rising to target in the UK.    

So is there some other way that a large recession in itself can cause a large reduction in potential output? Macroeconomists group such explanations under a general heading called ‘hysteresis mechanisms’: mechanisms whereby recent history can have permanent effects. Ball summarises the three main types of mechanism that economists have identified: “it appears that recessions sharply reduce capital accumulation, have long-term effects on employment (largely through lower labour force participation), and may slow the growth of total factor productivity.” If technical progress is embodied, we can link the first and last. That will be the subject of a later post.  

[1] For those not familiar with the term, a traditional way of thinking about potential output is that it is what output and incomes could have been if we had avoided booms and recessions, or equivalently if we had avoided domestically induced variations in inflation. Potential output can increase either because the labour force increases, or because labour productivity increases due to either technical progress and investment.

[2] Embodied technical progress is greater labour productivity brought about through new machinery i.e. it needs investment for it to happen.

[3] Postscript (just): Here is Martin Sandbu on the same issue   

Can central banks make 3 major mistakes in a row and stay independent?

Mistake 1

If you are going to blame anyone for not seeing the financial crisis coming, it would have to be central banks. They had the data that showed a massive increase in financial sector leverage. That should have rung alarm bells, but instead it produced at most muted notes of concern about attitudes to risk. It may have been an honest mistake, but a mistake it clearly was.

Mistake 2

Of course the main culprit for the slow recovery from the Great Recession was austerity, by which I mean premature fiscal consolidation. But the slow recovery also reflects a failure of monetary policy. In my view the biggest failure occurred very early on in the recession. Monetary policy makers should have said very clearly, both to politicians and to the public, that with interest rates at their lower bound they could no longer do their job effectively, and that fiscal stimulus would have helped them do that job. Central banks might have had the power to prevent austerity happening, but they failed to use it.

Monetary policy makers do not see it that way. They will cite the use of unconventional policy (but this was untested, and it is just not responsible to pretend otherwise), the risks of rising government debt (outside the ECB, non-existent; within the ECB, self-made), and during 2011 rising inflation. I think this last excuse is the only tenable one, but in the US at least the timing is wrong. The big mistake I note above occurred in 2009 and early 2010.

What could be mistake 3

The third big mistake may be being made right now in the UK and US. It could be called supply side pessimism. Central bankers want to ‘normalise’ their situation, by either saying they are no longer at the ZLB (UK) or by raising rates above the ZLB (US). They want to declare that they are back in control. But this involves writing off the capacity that appears to have been lost as a result of the Great Recession.

The UK and US situations are different. In the UK core inflation is below target, but some measures of capacity utilisation suggest there is no output gap. In the US core inflation is slightly above target, but a significant output gap still exists. In the UK the output gap estimates are being used to justify not cutting rates to their ZLB [1], while in the US it is the inflation numbers that help justify raising rates above the ZLB. (The ECB is still trying to stimulate the economy as much as it can, because core inflation is below target and there is an output gap, although predictably German economists [2] and politicians argue otherwise.)

I think these differences are details. In both cases the central bank is treating potential output as something that is independent of its own decisions and the level of actual output. In other words it is simply a coincidence that productivity growth slowed down significantly around the same time as the Great Recession. Or if it is not a coincidence, it represents an inevitable and permanent cost of a financial crisis.

Perhaps that is correct, but there has to be a fair chance that it is not. If it is not, by trying to adjust demand to this incorrectly perceived low level of supply central banks are wasting a huge amount of potential resources. Their excuses for doing this are not strong. It is not as if our models of aggregate supply and inflation are well developed and reliable, particularly if falls in unemployment simply represents labour itself adjusting to lower demand by, for example, keeping wages low. The real question to ask is whether firms with current technology would like to produce more if the demand for this output was there, and we do not have good data on that.

What central banks should be doing in these circumstances is allowing their economies to run hot for a time, even though this might produce some increase in inflation above target. If when that is done both price and wage inflation appear to be continuing to rise above target, while ‘supply’ shows no sign of increasing with demand, then pessimism will have been proved right and the central bank can easily pull things back. The costs of this experiment will not have been great, and is dwarfed by the costs of a mistake in the other direction.

It does not appear that the Bank of England or Fed are prepared to do that. If we subsequently find out that their supply side pessimism was incorrect (perhaps because inflation continues to spend more time below than above target, or more optimistically growth in some countries exceed current estimates of supply without generating ever rising inflation), this could spell the end of central bank independence. Three counts and you are definitely out?

I gain no pleasure in writing this. I think a set-up like the MPC is a good basic framework for taking interest rates decisions. But I find it increasingly difficult to persuade non-economists of this. The Great Moderation is becoming a distant memory clouded by more recent failures. The intellectual case that central bank independence has restricted our means of fighting recessions is strong, even though I believe it is also flawed. Mainstream economics remains pretty committed to central bank independence. But as we have seen with austerity, at the end of the day what mainstream economics thinks is not decisive when it comes to political decisions on economic matters. Those of us who support independence will have to hope it is more like a cat than a criminal.

Postscript (11/04/16). If you think that those who are antagonistic to central bank independence are only found on the left, look at the Republican party, or read this. 

[1] Unfortunately I think some of this survey data is not measuring what many think it is measuring. More importantly, not cutting rates after the Conservatives won the 2015 election was a major mistake. That victory represented two major deflationary shocks: more fiscal consolidation, plus the uncertainty created by the EU referendum. So why were rates not cut?

[2] But not all German economists, as this shows.         

Time to rewrite a bit of oral history

I have written at great length about the myth that the Labour government created the need for austerity, or as George Osborne likes to put it, how he has had to clear up the mess that Labour created. Here he is again, in an exchange with Yvette Cooper yesterday. And I long for the day that after he, or any other Conservative, repeats this line, someone has the courage to reply: “that is total bollocks”. This bit of oral [1] history has survived for too long.

I will not go again through all the details (for that see these two posts), because a simple picture tells you all you need to know. Here is the UK government deficit, as a percentage of GDP, since 1970.

The deficit in the five years before the global financial crisis was around the average over this whole period. It shoots up in 2008/9 and 2009/10 for one simple reason: the UK, like most other countries, experienced the largest recession since WWII. Osborne has been clearing up the mess left by a major recession, which left UK GDP around 15% below its pre-recession trend. And the real irony is that he has done nothing to fix that very real problem, but instead obsesses about one of its symptoms.

Yet as long as this myth continues to go unchallenged, Osborne can portray Labour as unfit to run the national finances. As long as it goes unchallenged, a large section of voters will continue to believe that austerity was Labour’s fault. I think most people now agree that Labour made a huge tactical mistake when they failed to combat this narrative five years ago. But as this little exchange from yesterday shows, the damage to Labour the myth has done is not going to go away because the Conservatives will not stop repeating the myth.

I therefore have a suggestion. John McDonnell should send a copy of this chart to every Labour MP and tell them to always keep a copy with them. The next time the ‘clearing up the mess they left’ line is repeated, they should respond not by changing the subject or looking sheepish. They should produce the chart and say that it is just not true. The deficit went up because of the recession following a global financial crisis, and this chart proves it. [2]

[1] I know I'm abusing the meaning of 'oral history' here, but I do so because the written history is very different. The few scholarly papers on fiscal policy under the Labour government are consistent with the data and facts.

[2] I am also happy to suggest simple knock downs to possible responses. For example:

C: The recession was caused by inadequate financial regulation during Labour’s watch.

L: But you were constantly arguing for less regulation at the time.

C: IMF/OECD data show huge cyclically adjusted deficits in the pre-recession years

L: Extremely dubious (the OBR who use real data to cyclically adjust do not have this, and few signs of a huge boom at the time), and pure hindsight (both groups suggested otherwise at the time).

C: Everyone knows Gordon Brown bent the rules and missed his targets

L:  George Osborne has missed 3 of his own targets. Of course policy was not perfect under Labour, but that does not change the fact that the deficit more than tripled in size between 2007 and 2009, and that was all down to the recession.

C: Labour did nothing to tackle the deficit in their last two years in office, when George Osborne was saying they should.
L: You are right, and we make no apology for it. In 2009 the UK, along with the US, Germany and China, undertook a fiscal stimulus, which George Osborne argued against. Every serious economist agrees that helped prevent the recession being even worse than it was. Which means if Osborne had been Chancellor in 2009, UK unemployment would have risen by more and real wages would have fallen even more.