Author Archives: Alastair Bowman

Free markets work; free trade only benefits tyrants

Free markets liberated us from the overweening power of church and aristocracy and created a rights culture.  Emile Durkheim established back in 1893 the constitutional, commercial and civil law required to govern the society of strangers that capitalism creates.  Free markets empower people with a choice of where to buy, work and live, and vendors compete with lower prices right down the supply chain.  Free trade operates above our heads, regulating governments and giving capital the right to own, operate and profit, in markets that may be scarred by monopoly, corruption, slavery and child labour.  Free markets are democratising; free trade can entrench power, concentrate wealth, limit the scope of civil society, and undermine prospects for economic and political development.  With free trade, we are exporting the economics of capitalism while keeping the rights culture for ourselves.

When an African landowner chooses to export, the farm worker still has a job but the product of the local land, water and labour is shipped out of the country for the benefit of someone else.  With less food grown for local consumption, everyone faces higher prices.  In recompense, the landowner receives more profit.

Unless there is a labour shortage, there is no reason to expect higher profits to fund higher wages.  More likely, any hard currency is placed in foreign bank accounts, or spent on imported luxuries, or imported machinery to replace the labourers altogether.  Worst of all, the money could be used to buy guns.  Then people lose twice over from free trade, seeing the product of the local land, water and labour exported and the tools of their repression bought with the proceeds.

Free trade makes our imports cheaper but at the cost of our long-term security.  Moreover, it gives despots a competitive advantage because people without rights are cheaper to employ and easier to exploit.  Putting high tariffs on countries that restrict or abuse basic rights would help rich and poor democracies by cutting unfair competition.

Struggling democracies would be the first to benefit, but the captive populations could be the real winners.  Longer term, tariffs on tyrants would incentivise democracy and human rights instead of entrenching despotic wealth and power.  Near term, captive populations benefit from any switch to domestic demand needed to stem unemployment, which despots fear as destabilising and unprofitable.  If selling to the free is much harder, they will have to sell to the un-free, making them better off, consuming their own output with less profit for their abusers.  We, in turn, should use our considerable purchasing power to support democracy and human rights, instead of buying imports on the cheap by exploiting people who lack basic freedoms.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 32 Comments

Markets work, but not for poor people

The economic concept of ‘demand’ was developed in the 19th century but merging our wants with our needs has its roots in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nation (1776).  He observed that people were highly motivated to improve their own lives, spurring social progress.  Yet the mechanics of supply and demand mean that poor people lose out.

Smith believed that self-interest, combined with specialisation from a more complex division of labour, would unleash so much productivity and innovation that even the poorest benefit.  He claimed that markets are just because they advantage everyone, giving us permission to pursue our wants irrespective of other people’s needs.  Famously he wrote that markets are ‘led by an invisible hand’ though the end of that sentence is less widely cited: ‘to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants’

With the benefit of hindsight we know he was wrong.  Today’s welfare state only exists because 19th century laissez-faire failed to address extreme poverty.  In reality, the market would fill a rich man’s swimming pool before quenching a poor family’s thirst given sufficient disparity in wealth.  Smith was right about capitalism’s productivity and innovation, but he was wrong to claim that market outcomes advantage the poorest.  He let us off the hook regarding the well-being of others, making selfishness consistent with the common good.  This is highly comforting for those who do well, but if something is too good to be true, it usually is.

Markets can be liberating, challenging established hierarchies and empowering people with choices through free exchange.  People facing acute need do not participate in this win-win.  Markets allocate on price and unequal bargaining power at the heart of every transaction systematically favours the stronger side.  Money exerts its own gravity, and tends to mass into fortunes as market prices suck wealth up from the poorest.

On the supply side, all workers sell their produce or their time, but those trading to meet their basic­ needs are forced sellers.  They must accept worse prices and lower wages because they have so little bargaining power.  When your children will go hungry or some other need will not be met, you are not just competing with others in the market but also racing against the clock, because needs get worse over time.  Those who survive this race to the bottom must tread water – they live to fight another day but are no better off.  They cannot afford any advancement, or enjoy any choice, through which the rest of us progress.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 19 Comments

How to save hundreds of billions of pounds

Central banks raise interest rates to control inflation.  UK debtors have paid a ballpark £500 billion since rates began rising in November 2021, mostly through higher mortgage and credit card payments, averaging 7% of GDP each year.  The banks keep a chunk, and the rest goes to their clients, with taxes collected along the way.  The average UK saver is getting a few hundred pounds in interest each year but the vast majority of that half trillion (and rising) is going to the already rich.

Yet over half of UK owner-occupation is outright ownership.  Their savings grow from any interest rate increase intended to curb inflation by making us poorer.  The pain inflicted on mortgage holders and other debtors (including government) is all the greater to compensate for the extra purchasing power going to the already rich.  Their higher propensity to save reduces demand temporarily, later adding to the annual £100 billion in inflationary inheritances that the debtors must also counter.

There is a better way.  Inflation management requires pain, but if we inflict it through higher taxes instead of higher interest rates we can use the money to pay off the national debt and restore public finances.  £500 billion exaggerates the savings we have missed in recent years if less pain is needed because tax changes are more immediate and better targeted, but less pain is its own reward.  Paying off the national debt locks the money away, instead of redistributing it to the already rich, which is both counter-productive and highly regressive.

Later in the cycle, as tax rates are cut to stimulate the economy, tax revenues would still accrue relative to the position pre-tightening, only more slowly.  Interests rates would remain the backstop against inflation, deflation, and government profligacy.  Good fiscal governance could see the interest rate unchanged throughout the economic cycle, increasing stability and reducing costs.  Corporations would invest more, easing inflationary pressures.  Currently investment is often cut when companies are hit as collateral damage by interest rate hikes aimed at changing consumer behaviour.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 33 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Chloe
    After Burnhams arrival at Westminster hall on a Donkey - given the adulation he received, maybe he's tired from such a long journey. As for Phillipson, she des...
  • David Raw
    Watched P.M.Q.'s today. Thought Sir Keir Starmer handled it well with great dignity - which is more than I can say for Ms Badenoch who was shrill and cheap in h...
  • Jana
    @Chris Cory “ any result it throws up is fine and shows our democracy is in good shape” No, any result is not ‘fine’ - it may be very unpalatable - ...
  • Peter Black
    @Simon McGrath nobody on the doorstep thought that our budget deal was'keeping Labour in power'. It did not come up at all. Remember that, unlike Wimbledon, Wal...
  • Nigel Quinton
    @Paul why do you say this will be a return to two party politics? Even if Reform diminish, surely Labour and Tory are now shadows of their former selves? LibDem...