Post-truth and propaganda

A long read on why it is time the rest of the media stopped treating Fox as TV news, and some UK tabloids as newspapers.

George Osborne becomes editor of the London Evening Standard. Donald Trump blames GCHC for bugging him because of something he saw on Fox News. The lines between right wing media and right wing politicians seem very blurred nowadays. This should not come as a surprise, because right wing media have been becoming much more like propaganda outlets than normal media organisations for some time. The conventions of journalism may have pretended otherwise, but it time we recognised reality.

Let me define two archetypes. The first, which could be called the truth purveyor, is the one we are familiar with, and which much of the mainstream media (MSM) like to imagine they correspond to. The aim is provide the best information to readers or viewers. The second is propaganda. One way of characterising the two archetypes is as follows. Readers have certain interests: objectives, goals, utilities etc. The truth purveyor will provide readers with the information they need to pursue those interests. (As exemplified here, for example.) Propaganda on the other hand, to borrow from Jacob Stanley, aims to provide information that will deceive people from seeing what is in their best interest. Propaganda provides information that supports a particular political goal or point of view.

Take, for example, the issue of welfare benefits. Media as the truth-purveyor type will try and present a rounded and accurate picture of those claiming welfare benefits. Right wing propaganda on the other hand will focus on examples of benefit fraud, or cases where the benefit recipient will be perceived by the reader as taking advantage of the system, with little or no attempt to put the example in any kind of context. This slanted coverage is designed to give the impression that benefit recipients are often scroungers and skivers. The political goal is to make it easier for governments to cut welfare payments, which in turn may allows taxes to be cut.

These are archetypes, and any media organisation will mix the two to some extent. Many would argue that even the most truth-purveyor type organisation may still embody certain assumptions or points of view that distort their readers view of what should be in their best interest. (As argued in Manufacturing Consent, for example.) Mediamacro is an example of this. But that should not blind us to what is happening elsewhere. Lines like “liberals’ nostalgia for factual politics seems designed to mask their own fraught relationship with the truth” [1] suggest nothing new is happening, let’s move on. That would be a huge mistake. It is like saying all news is propaganda, who cares. But because there are two archetypes, organisations can gradually move from one to another, and that movement is important. It played a crucial role in the success of Brexit and Trump.

In both in the UK and US there is a large part of the media which is becoming more and more like a pure propaganda outlet. We are used to thinking about propaganda as being associated with the state, but there is no reason why that has to be the case. In the UK and US, we now have propaganda machines that support political ideas that are associated with the far right, and political interests associated with the very wealthy. Their output is governed more and more by whether it assists those two goals.

Apologists for this right wing propaganda say that most media organisations have their particular political bias, and that will be reflected in the opinions you see in that media outlet. But I’m not talking about opinion pieces or leaders, but about the selection of stories and increasingly about making up stories. I cannot see either the Guardian, Mirror or MSNBC only reporting terrorist incidents by white supremacists, and ignoring those by Muslims. Nor would these organisations make up claims about foreign cities being ‘no go areas’. Suggesting an equivalence between The Mail and The Mirror, or between Fox and MSNBC, is a trap that many fall into.

Now it is natural, in a liberal democracy, that the part of the media that conveys propaganda should pretend it is just a purveyor of truth. When its propaganda becomes self-evident, it is also natural for it to claim that this is because it is others who are distorting the facts. In this sense, the fact that Trump and his supporters talk about the dominant liberal media producing fake news, and the right wing tabloids talk about bias at the BBC should not worry us at all. It is merely indicative that those making the allegations are in the business of, or supporting those, supplying propaganda. [2] More importantly, if we allow this attempt at deflection to move us away from examining what different parts of the media are doing, then the propagandists have won.

………………………………………………………………………….

I think it was Charlie Bean who first told me about the stupidity of a firm announcing that it was going to have to make redundancies, without specifying where those redundancies would be. It is foolish because the atmosphere of uncertainty created means that those most able to leave, who are almost certainly the brightest and best and therefore those that the firm would like to keep, end up leaving the firm because they can. Voluntary quits mean the firm no longer needs to create redundancies, but its loses its best quality staff to other firms.

I thought about this when reading about yet more examples of how EU citizens are currently being treated by this government. Colin Talbot has documented what is going on here, but there are literally thousands of similar stories. People who have lived and worked in the UK for years are told by the home office, when their application for permanent residence is turned down, to prepare to leave the UK. Applications which ask for a ridiculous amount of information and are turned down for often mindless reasons. It is a system designed to increase the chances that applicants will fail.

The effect this has, of course, is that those most able to leave the UK, who will often be the most able in terms of the importance of the work they do, will go. Refusing to confirm the rights of EU residents and sending them scary letters is how the UK government is making the same mistake as the firm that announces future unspecified redundancies. I am sometimes told that Brexit will allow the UK to choose the ‘best immigrants’, the ones that will contribute most to UK output and the public purse. Here we see Brexit achieving exactly the opposite: a system designed to encourage the best to leave.

But this is not a new Brexit phenomenon. As I described here, students wanting to come and study in the UK have faced a similar brutal regime, where a mistake by the UK bureaucracy - even when it is acknowledged as such - can lead to additional expense for the student and a period of uncertainty which can only set back their learning. Students midway through their course are told they have 60 days to find an alternative institution to sponsor them or face deportation. The UK Border Agency has no reason to believe that these are not perfectly genuine students who have paid good money to study in the UK, but it chooses to punish them because of alleged failings by a university.

There is an obvious pattern here. It is to treat those who are not UK nationals with a complete lack of humanity. It is, quite simply, very cruel. I talked above about how counterproductive it is, but even if it was not it remains very wrong. It is not something that any democratic government should do. Similar things are happening in the US as a result of Trump’s victory. This lack of humanity comes from a government that begins treating foreigners as a problem, as something to be discouraged, rather than as the people that they are. And it persists because a large part of the press deliberately ignores what is going on. That in turn reduces coverage in the broadcast media.

Contrast this with Germany, which has admitted around 1 million refugees over the last two years. Whatever the motives of the German government, German society adopted a ‘welcome culture’ to these refugees. There have been problems of course, but it is significant that the most serious you may have read about have been made up by certain US media organisations. Contrast this with the UK government shutting down the ‘Dubs amendment’ programme after only a few hundred refugee children had been admitted to the UK. For Germans it seems that refugees are people who have suffered and need help, but for the British they are something to fear and should be kept away at all costs.

Why is Germany welcoming a million refugees and the UK appears to do what they can to keep them out? Is the difference between the two countries something to do with an innate difference in national character? Do we in the UK allow our government to continue their inhuman treatment of foreign nationals because there is

“a special kind of British suggestibility – willingness to obey orders, thinking in generalisations, the search for panaceas, faith in power, which made many British capable of falling to deeper depths than many people of other nations”

Of course not. The above is a quote from Stephen Spender, visiting Germany in 1945, where I have changed German to British. After WWII it was common to believe that what happened in Germany under Hitler could only have happened if there had been some common abnormality in the German character. It was as mistaken then just as it is mistaken now to believe the British are particularly hostile to foreigners. But we should not be surprised when those outside the UK begin to think that way.

There is a much simpler explanation in both cases. The state propaganda machine of Nazi Germany was a critical ingredient in their rise to power and maintaining power. Hitler devoted chapters of Mein Kampf to the study and practice of propaganda. It is perhaps the best real world example of the propaganda archetype I described before. In the UK and US it is very different. Critically propaganda outlets do not have a monopoly of information, and they need to appear much like the rest of the media to retain their readers and their influence on the national stage. But a large part of the UK and US media is nevertheless increasingly acting as a propaganda vehicle, particularly in the area of immigration.

This change is measurable, as this report of a study shows. To quote “over the last 10 years [the UK press] appears to have been complicit in the narrowing of a discussion that is now characterised by an increasingly negative tone.” The anti-immigration propaganda in the Mail and Express reached a peak just before the referendum. As Liz Gerard describes here, these two papers printed on average two or three hostile immigration stories in each issue in 2016. The day before polling, the Mail printed six whole pages devoted to immigration. You would have to be a fool to believe these were ‘reflecting the interest of readers’: it was designed to push the referendum vote the way these papers wanted. It was pure propaganda.

…………………………………………………………………………..

The are lots of stories around about a post-truth world created by social media. It is usually written up as if it is a new phenomenon created by new technology, but as Timothy Garton Ash notes ‘post-truth’ is nothing new. Equally the hype over Cambridge Analytica (here or here), whether it is accurate or not, is just the technological extension of something that is already happening, and has happened in the past. Most people still rely on the MSM for their news. Post-truth mainly comes from the part of the MSM whose business is propaganda, and the inability of others to treat it as such. Fake news stories on social media did not win the election for Trump. Fox News almost certainly did.

As Tim Harford notes, successful attempts to divert those in a democracy from the truth have a long history. Scientists published evidence that smoking caused lung cancer in the early 1950s. It took decades for that information to lead to campaigns to discourage smoking and for smokers to acknowledge there was a problem, and the reason it took decades was that the tobacco companies conducted a PR plan with that aim in mind. Exactly the same happened with climate change, with considerable success in the US as we are now witnessing with Trump’s election. As a tobacco firm wrote “doubt is our product”.

As Tim and George Lakoff explain, simply rebutting lies with facts can often be counterproductive. The Leave campaign's £350 million a week was a classic example. The more it was talked about, the more it became fixed in the mind of voters. The regrettable truth is that most people do not read the detail, but instead just absorb the headline. In many ways the EU referendum is a classic example of how facts can lose out to propaganda.

All this can just seem depressing, but it is not if we learn some obvious lessons. The first, which Ben Chu explains, is for policy makers not to fall into the trap of appeasement.

“Christina Boswell and James Hampshire have highlighted how the public discourse on immigration in Germany was transformed between 2000 and 2008. Social Democratic politicians used familiar arguments about the economic benefits of immigration. But they did this alongside a campaign to promote positive narratives about immigration and its place in the country’s history to counter entrenched perceptions of Germany being kein Einwanderunglsand (“not a country of immigration”). This twin approach largely succeeded in changing attitudes, flowering in the generous position taken by Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrat government towards Syrian refugees in the summer of 2015.

By contrast in the UK, at the same time, Labour began to talk up “British jobs for British workers” and never seriously rebutted the dominant and dismal narrative of the tabloid press about immigration being an economic burden and culturally corrosive, arguably helping to set the scene for the current bout of self-harming Brexit-related xenophobia.”

Now politicians here may respond that the German example is impossible given the strength of the propaganda coming from UK tabloids (compared to its relative absence in Germany), but that just strengthens my point that we should start recognising that propaganda for what it is. That recognition needs to start in the rest of the mainstream media. According to a study outlined here, “a right-wing media network anchored around Breitbart developed as a distinct and insulated media system ... This pro-Trump media sphere appears to have not only successfully set the agenda for the conservative media sphere, but also strongly influenced the broader media agenda, in particular coverage of Hillary Clinton.”

But the authors also note that “Our data strongly suggest that most Americans, including those who access news through social networks, continue to pay attention to traditional media, following professional journalistic practices, and cross-reference what they read on partisan sites with what they read on mass media sites.” What this traditional media needs to do, in both the UK and US, is to recognise propaganda for what it is, and treat it with the disdain that it deserves.

In the US that is quite a challenge because a lot of that propaganda is now created or recycled by the President himself. In the UK it is a challenge because the right wing tabloids have the government’s support, and the government holds the purse strings of the BBC. [4] It is very easy just to ignore what is happening, and carry on as usual. But this inability or unwillingness to recognise the danger posed by propaganda is part of the reason 2016 happened. Liberal democracy’s survival in the UK and US may depend on recognising and resisting what is in the process of destroying it.

[1] Taken from Stahl and Hansen. The implication that they draw, that propaganda as news or post-truth or whatever you want to call it can be combatted by a “democratic revival” seems simply naive. To see the profound difference between, say, the Blair government compared to what came before and after them, you only have to look at how they regarded academics.

[2] For those who say how do we know who is telling the truth, then you are part of the problem.

[3] And among academics, UK nationals as well. 

[4] And, it seems, increasingly supplies its journalists.

People's QE and Corbyn’s QE

Politicians can be adept at co-opting attractive sounding terms to their own cause, even when they distort their meaning while doing so. Osborne announced what was in reality a partial but large increase in the minimum wage, but he called it a ‘living wage’. This was especially devious, as calculations of the actual living wage take into account the tax credits that Osborne was at the same time cutting.

Is Labour leadership contender Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘Peoples QE’ an example of the same thing? It is certainly true that the way that some macroeconomists, including myself, have used the term is different from Corbyn’s idea. For us Peoples QE is just another term for helicopter money. Helicopter money was a term first used by that well known radical Milton Friedman. It involves the central bank creating money, and distributing it directly to the people by some means. It is a sure fire way [1] for the central bank to boost demand: what economists sometimes call a money financed fiscal stimulus.

The idea has been recently revived, most prominently in the UK by Adair Turner, because of the failure of conventional monetary policy (changing interest rates) to bring a quick end to the Great Recession, which in turn is because governments were undertaking fiscal austerity (a bond financed fiscal contraction) rather than fiscal stimulus. In contrast central banks in Japan, the US and UK, and now the Eurozone, have been creating money to buy financial assets (mainly government debt), which is called Quantitative Easing (QE). Hence the term People’s QE for helicopter money: instead of the central bank creating money to buy assets, it creates money and gives it to the people.

The genesis of Corbyn’s QE seems rather different. Corbyn adviser Richard Murphy had previously suggested what he called a Green Infrastructure QE, which is that a “new [QE] programme should buy the new debt that will be issued in the form of bonds by the Green Investment Bank to fund sustainable energy, local authorities to pay for new houses, NHS trusts to build new hospitals and education authorities to build schools.” This in turn is related to two ideas: first a near universal view among macroeconomists that public sector investment in infrastructure should be rising not falling when interest rates are low and labour is cheap, and second that a National Investment Bank (NIB) might be useful in helping to encourage private sector investment. (See, for example, the recommendations of the LSE growth commission.)

The main difference between helicopter money and Corbyn’s QE therefore seems to be where the money created by the central bank goes: to individuals in the form of a cheque from the central bank, or to financing investment projects. I think that is wrong, and to see why we need to ask an obvious question: what is this policy innovation designed to achieve. I think it is here that confusion has arisen.

As I noted above, the idea behind helicopter money is to provide a tool for the central bank to use when interest rate changes are no longer possible or effective. With an independent central bank, that means that they, not the government, get to decide when helicopter money happens. In contrast, if your goal is to increase either public or private investment (or both) for a prolonged period, then its timing and amount should be something the government decides. While QE is hopefully going to be something that is unusual and rare, the goal of an investment bank is generally thought to be more long term, and not something that only happens in severe recessions.

For that reason, Corbyn’s QE looks like one of those ideas that is superficially attractive because it seems to kill two birds with one stone, but on reflection turns out to be a bad idea. If we want to keep an independent central bank we do not want the government putting the bank under pressure to do QE because the government wants more investment, and if that does not happen we do not want the central bank deciding whether extra investment happens. Indeed some of those who dislike the idea of helicopter money have already been using Corbyn’s QE to say ‘I told you helicopter money was a slippery slope that would lead to the end of central bank independence’.

However I think it is unfair and unproductive to leave it there. Suppose that a NIB is created, not on the back of QE but using more conventional forms of finance. (If the government wants to encourage it, just directly subsidise that finance with conventional borrowing. Don’t be put off doing so by deficit fetishism.) Suppose we also like the concept of helicopter money - not for now, but for the next time interest rates hit their lower bound and the central bank wants more stimulus. In those circumstances, it might well make sense for helicopter money to be used not only to send cheques to individuals, but also to bring forward investment financed by the NIB, or public sector investment financed directly by the state. If those investment projects could get off the ground quickly, and crucially would not have happened for some time otherwise, then what I have elsewhere described as ‘democratic helicopter money’ would make sense. [2] This is because investment that also boosts the supply side is likely to be a far more effective form of stimulus than cheques posted to individuals.

So one day, this form of Corbyn’s QE could happen. But we need to get the idea of helicopter money, and the need for public investment and a National Investment Bank, accepted in their own right first. Putting the two ideas together right now is misconceived, and is in danger of discrediting two potentially good ideas.

[1] Unless you believe in complete Ricardian Equivalence

[2] When I put forward the idea of ‘democratic helicopter money’ here to Tim Harford, Tim responded that he thought it was probably the most radical and politically infeasible idea of those he had canvassed. If Corbyn wins, I will have pleasure in reminding him of that!  

A budget for our next Prime Minister

There is a simple way to read George Osborne’s budgets. Forget the economics, and just think politics.

Take the macroeconomics of aggregate fiscal policy, for example. Many pages have been filled (in some cases by me) about the folly of fiscal austerity while interest rates are near their lower bound. Under the coalition I calculated (with the OBR’s help) that this policy cost the average household the equivalent of at least £4,000 over the last five years. The arguments put forward to support this misguided policy have changed, but they seem to get worse rather than better: I go through the latest in this short piece for today’s Independent. But the focus on the deficit helped Osborne win the last election (admittedly with the help of Labour’s reluctance to challenge what he said), and is on course to lead to a radical reduction in the size of the UK state, as Colin Talbot sets out here.

How about his bold move of a substantial increase in the minimum wage? At first sight it seems very strange: it is a policy that if introduced by Labour would have much of the press, and most economic journalists, screaming about unnecessary interference with the market and the onset of socialism. Until now the level of the minimum wage has been carefully calculated by the Low Pay Commission to avoid significant job losses. The OBR calculate that Osborne’s proposed hike will lose about 60,000 people their jobs. But as Tim Harford explains, it is not as if Osborne has an alternative economic view. He just needed a dramatic move to give him political cover for his large cuts in tax credits.

Most of those on low earnings will still be worse off - by a lot in some cases, often decreasing work incentives - but he knows from the last election that impressions are more significant than numbers. [1] Probably the most important impact of this budget will be to raise poverty, particularly child poverty. The previous coalition’s policy changes also increased poverty, but their impact on the official statistics was offset by the overall decline in real wages. Over the next five years that will no longer happen, so again the cover is being put in place: change the definition of poverty. The economics is ludicrous, but we should have got used to that by now.

Then there is inheritance tax. It is not often I agree with Janan Ganesh, but he is correct when he wrote just before the budget:

 “George Osborne wants to refurbish the Conservatives as the natural habitation for working people … But the message will always be muffled as long as the tax system favours assets, including those bequeathed, over earned income … the greatest perversity of the system survives and will only worsen if the threshold for inheritance tax is lifted this week.”

But this year, and probably for the next one or two, George Osborne has a more important political goal in mind than confining Labour to opposition (particularly when they are doing just fine without his help). He wants to be sure that when David Cameron steps down, as he has promised to do, it will be George Osborne who is seen as the natural successor. Most of the Conservative base is not devoted to the cause of free markets, but is passionate about their own families’ income and wealth. It also likes high defence spending, so the budget contained a commitment to keep to the 2% Nato target. For those who hope for measures to tackle what Chris Dillow calls the true ‘something for nothing’ culture, the UK housing market, I suspect that too will not happen before the Conservative Party have elected their new leader (if it happens at all).    

If this sounds too cynical to you, all I can say is that I learn from experience. When I wrote this three years ago, Paul Krugman no less said I was getting “remarkably cynical”. Unfortunately, save for one detail, my cynicism proved pretty accurate. When it comes to implementing good (evidence based) economic policy, in both the UK and the rest of Europe, we are living through very depressing times.

[1] Postscript: the reaction of the UK press is outlined here

Should economists rule?

Tim Harford in the FT talks to seven random mainstream economists about their radical ideas for economic policy. (Podcast, not pay walled, here.) Nick Stern wants green cities (with much greater economic autonomy), Jonathan Haskel wants more spent on research (because the returns are very high), Gemma Tetlow wants to merge income tax with national insurance, Diane Coyle wants to reduce boardroom pay, John van Reenen wants new institutions to promote infrastructure, Kate Barker wants changes to how housing is taxed, including capital gains on main residences, and Simon Wren-Lewis wants ‘democratic helicopter money’.

You can find more details about democratic helicopter money here. The democratic bit is that the central bank gives the created money to the government on condition that it is used for a stimulus package, but the form of the stimulus package would be the government’s choosing. I was impressed that Tim managed to turn a very pleasant chat over coffee (while taking few notes) into a coherent account of my argument. The only point I might have added is that my suggestion of turning helicopter money democratic is in part to avoid some of the political difficulties he alluded to.

The common strand in many of these suggestions, which Tim draws out, is a desire to replace direct political control by something more technocratic. Now you could say that this is simply a power grab by economists. However if you think about the examples here, they represent important and widely recognised policy mistakes which tend to be universal and persistent: failure to deal with climate change, failure to invest enough in R&D, unnecessary complications in the tax system, runaway boardroom pay, failure to invest in infrastructure even when borrowing is ultra cheap, a broken housing sector and procyclical fiscal policy. It is not as if the status quo is doing just fine.

I would add just two observations. First, the argument is often not about ‘losing democratic control’, but instead about advice being open and transparent. The alternative to some advisory body, whose deliberations should be publicly available and subject to scrutiny, is often secret advice from the civil service, or worse still from policy entrepreneurs. Second, what is thought political infeasible today may relatively quickly become commonly accepted.

I was quite surprised that Tim thought democratic helicopter money was particularly radical and politically infeasible. But then I remembered fiscal councils. My first published piece advocating (advisory) fiscal councils was in 1996, and for more than a decade this was considered the impractical idea of a few ‘out of touch’ economists, who were obviously anti-democratic. Then, little more than a decade later, the idea very quickly became acceptable. Nowadays, it seems like fiscal councils are everywhere. So the one part of Tim’s piece that I would not take too seriously are his scores for political feasibility and radicalism. Today’s supposedly radical idea can quite quickly become received wisdom.

Tim Harford’s new book on macroeconomics

Let me first deal with a potential conflict of interest. Tim has a wide twitter following, and quite often tweets a reference to my blog posts. This might lay me open to the charge that I would be inclined to favourably review his new book to return this favour. Actually it has the opposite implication. The fact that he finds my blog interesting simply shows he appreciates good macroeconomics, which is just as well for someone who has just written a book about the subject. What it does mean is that if I had found anything in his book which I had clearly shown to be fallacious in one of my posts, I would be doubly disappointed.

A difficult hurdle to pass, that. I suspect the only person who could write a book that agreed with everything in your blog is yourself, and even you might find that difficult

Ah, that reminds me of the second thing I should say at the start. The book employs the dialogue format that Tim uses in his FT columns so well. This is more unusual in a book and might potentially bother some, although most of the time it is used much more sparingly than in the columns. Otherwise it is written in just the same style that makes his other books so readable.

Yes, but microeconomics and the other subjects he has written about before are potentially interesting. This book is all about macroeconomics: yawn, yawn.

Indeed. Up until now it was unclear whether it was possible to write a general explanatory (rather than specifically topical) book on macro that did not have the eyelids dropping after a few chapters, or which began to stretch the reader quite quickly. Given Tim’s ability to write about economics in an engaging way, with this book he could settle the matter one way or another. Now in one sense I’m probably not the best judge, given my prior knowledge, but it seems to me Tim has pulled it off.

Oh come on. How can you make understanding Keynesian economics enjoyable?

With a mixture of stories about economists of the past, and lots of useful analogies and examples. So, not surprisingly, Bill Phillips and his machine play a major role, as do shortages of ‘money’ in baby sitting circles and Iphones when discussing price stickiness. Some I knew about, but others (like Henry Ford’s application of efficiency wages) I had forgotten about.

But I bet it is highly selective in the stuff it covers. All the juicy topical issues, but nothing on RBC models or how you measure GDP.

Actually no. Chapter 11 is all about measuring GDP, and it beats most treatments you will find in the textbooks hands down. The Lucas critique, and how that changed the way macroeconomists use evidence, is there. The importance of commitment is illustrated with quotes from the film Dr. Strangelove. That allows him to cover not just how commitment can help, but also when it goes wrong. Let me quote: “That is the problem with commitment devices: if something goes unexpected wrong and a crisis happens anyway, the commitment device guarantees that it will escalate into Armageddon. Unfortunately we have an important parallel in economics: it is called the Eurozone.”

Hmm, very amusing, but hardly the neutral account you might find in a textbook.

Which means Tim is not afraid to occasionally call it how he sees it. For example you will find the equivalent of the standard discussion of the optimal rate of inflation early on, but Tim makes it pretty clear he thinks raising inflation targets above 2% would be a good idea. You will also not find any equations in this book, but it does cover much of the same ground as a textbook. 

So it is like a readable and amusing textbook without the maths

Is that so surprising? Tim wants to discuss the material that will enable readers to understand the big macro issues of the day, and I’ve always argued that textbook macro does a pretty good job of doing that (although with a few obvious gaps). But you will also find some things here that would not normally be in a macro textbook. There is a chapter of management, for example, drawing on the work of Bloom, van Reenen and others. There is a chapter on happiness, and one on inequality. Finally Tim has the advantage of not being part of the macro tribe, which he argues has become far too insular and narrow in the last forty years. So he can maintain a healthy critical perspective. Here is one example. “Robert Shiller told me that while the microeconomists would show up to argue when he gave seminars on behavioural finance, the macroeconomists just haven’t showed up at all.”

Which means macroeconomists will not be adopting this book as their set text then!

That is not the market he is aiming for. It is ideal for the interested non-economist who wants to understand something of macroeconomics in an easy and enjoyable way. However I also think it is a great supplement to the textbooks for students. All too often, students reading textbooks focus on the formalism, and fail to understand the key concepts, or relate them to the real world. Tim’s book is an excellent antidote to that. And last but not least, it provides a wealth of material  for academics to make those lectures much more fun for students.

So it’s both thumbs up from you then

Absolutely, although I’m still not sure about that dialogue style.