Economy

LivingWage

Mark Fielding Speaks to the Nation: We Don’t Owe You Squat

, , No Comment

In the excellent Irish Times series on the Living Wage, Mark Fielding, Director of ISME (Irish Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises) has put it bluntly to workers and the nation:

‘It’s not our responsibility to give someone a living wage.’

That’s telling them, Mark. You want a wage that can afford you a minimum adequate standard income, don’t come to us. Not our problem. Be lucky to have a job – if we decide to hire you.

This is Thatcherism Irish-style. There is no such thing as society, only Mark’s members. But to be fair to Mark, he’s got form on this issue.

‘ISME chief executive Mark Fielding called on the Government to scrap the minimum wage . . . He said the minimum wage had failed to benefit the low paid . . . ‘

So scrapping the minimum wage would ‘help’ the lower paid. Hmmm.

Mark is at pains to explain the extraordinary burden his members suffer:

‘The minimum wage is €8.65. But it’s really €9.68, when you take into account employers’ PRSI contributions.’

Oh, my – a wage floor of €9.68 per hour. That sounds really bad. Workers in our hospitality sector (hotels and restaurants) must be really costing Irish employers a bomb – especially in comparison to other EU-15 countries. But is this the case?

hos_sectOur labour costs (made up almost exclusively of wages and employers’ PRSI) are far lower than most other EU countries in the graph. Labour costs would have to rise by 27 percent just to reach the mean average; they would have to rise by over 50 percent to reach French levels.

Of course, this data (the latest from Eurostat) is from 2011. Maybe Mark is worried about recent trends in low-paid sectors. Let me put his mind at ease. Irish labour costs in hospitality rose by 1.3 percent up to 2013; in the EU they rose by 3.2 percent. We’re even further behind.

That a representative from a business organisation would give out about wages, or paying higher wages, or even paying a decent wage is nothing new or unexpected. However, this ‘whether-people-can-live-on-the-wage-I-pay-has-nothing-to-do-with-me’ position got me to thinking: do all employers think like this? Would they all agree?

It’s hard to say in this country where the debate is dominated, loudly and persistently, by so many Mark Fieldings. But it is interesting to take a look at business organisations overseas, in the US, where such groups are no slouch when it comes to promoting their economic interests.

Read Post →

irishwaterT

Demanding the Future: The Right2Water and Another Ireland

, , No Comment

This article was originally posted on Critical Legal Thinking on the 29th of September.

The American abolitionist Frederick Douglass once observed that if you find out ‘just what any people will quietly submit to … you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them’ and that such injustices ‘will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both’. In Ireland, after six years of austerity and regressive tax reforms that have punished Irish working people for the benefit of Irish and European bond holders, it seems the Irish establishment may have finally discovered the measure of injustice that the people will not tolerate.

The Irish government is currently implementing a plan to install water meters, so that people’s domestic water usage can be monitored and they can be charged for the amount they use. In this way they are abandoning the traditional funding model for water provision in Ireland, which saw it paid for out of general taxation. This move by the Irish government is consistent with a global trend over the last twenty years towards the increased commodification of essential services, with water seen as a particularly lucrative market. Taking advantage of the economic crisis, as most governments in Europe have, the Irish government has accelerated a broad neoliberal policy drive (privatisation of services, cuts to public sector jobs, regressive taxes) under the well-worn mantra that “There Is No Alternative”.

However, this new tax–this commodification of an essential public good–is being met with trenchant resistance from working class communities throughout the island. From Crumlin to Togher, Edenmore to Caherdavin, communities have mobilised to prevent the installation of water meters in their areas. In these protests the community activists have remained resolute in the face of attempts at intimidation from both the company established to commodify the water service, Irish Water, and the police. As well as engaging in direct action to prevent the installation of meters, the bourgeoning movement is also encouraging a boycott of the attempts by Irish Water to enrol residents as “customers”, and calling for non-payment of any future bills.

Read Post →

111t

IBEC’s Myth Debunking is Just Bunk

, , No Comment

IBEC has published a paper entitled ‘Debunking Irish income tax myths’.  At its core it contains misleading, highly selective and ultimately disingenuous arguments.  In short, it is bunk.  Let’s go through one of their main arguments and see where they are misinforming the debate.

Personal Taxation – It is Lower than the EU Average

IBEC puts forward two graphs (Figures 2 and 3) to show that Irish personal taxation is much higher than in the EU-27.  This is an audacious presentation.  They use data selectively and exclude large parts of personal taxation.

(a)  Using GDP and GNP

IBEC produced the following calculations.

111According to IBEC, this proves that Irish personal taxation is higher than the average of the EU.  They further claim, that on these numbers, Irish ‘taxpayers’ are paying €3 billion more than the EU average on a proportional basis.  The problem is that they are not comparing ‘personal taxation’; they are comparing income tax.
They exclude a large portion of personal taxation; namely, social insurance or PRSI.  In almost all other European countries, PRSI plays a much greater role than income tax.  In the EU, PRSI makes up 37 percent of total personal taxation; in Ireland, it makes up only 12 percent.  In seven countries, revenue from PRSI is higher than revenue from income tax.  In the Netherlands, income tax raises €46 billion; social insurance, however, raises €63 billion.

Not only did IBEC ‘mould’ the data around the conclusions they wanted, they also mixed the measurements to suit their argument.  When comparing GDP, they used an ‘arithmetic’ average for the EU.  However, when using GNP, they used a ‘weighted’ average.  The difference is that in the former, you average the individual percentage of each country; in the latter you add up all countries together and calculate the average. It allows IBEC to claim that income tax makes up 7.8 percent of GDP (arithmetic) whereas using the weighted measurement gives a figure of 9.4 percent.

Here’s the actual data – using the weighted average.  All comparative data below is from Eurostat’s Taxation Trends in the European Union 2014.

IBEC 2

On all these measurements, Ireland is well below average.  On GDP we’re below, but we know that much of our GDP is multi-national froth.  Using the Fiscal Council’s hybrid-GDP (which compromises between GDP and GNP), we’re still below average.  Even when using GNI which is essentially GNP, we remain below, though less so.

If we use adjusted GDP we’d have to pay €3.6 billion more in personal taxation – income tax and PRSI combined.  However, this isn’t the best measurement.

(b)  A More Robust Measurement
There’s a problem in using GDP and GNP.  If, after years of recession and austerity, GDP and GNP are depressed, then you will probably not be comparing like-with-like with countries that didn’t have such an experience (or not in the degree we had).
There is a better measurement: the effective personal taxation rate.  This is the total amount of personal taxation revenue as a percentage of total wages and salaries.  The following is for employees (measuring the tax rate for self-employed is difficult as the data on self-employed income is limited) though it covers 83 percent of all those in work.

Read Post →

justice

Consumerism and Equality

, , No Comment

The consumerism generated by capitalism throughout the  ‘Developed‘ or ‘Western’ World is a major obstacle to tackling climate change, the biggest problem facing mankind.  So the next question must be: why is capitalism still so widely accepted?   Why do workers in the ‘West’ vote overwhelmingly for pro-capitalist parties?

One of the less obvious features of capitalism is that by exponentially expanding its ‘free’ market into every corner of  life it puts a price on everything, and it thereby becomes a great social leveller: kings and lords, upper-class birthrights and privileges decline as possession of money, which by chance can be acquired by anyone, comes to measure everything.  As a result, other than the massive inequalities of money, we now live in a society with a level of personal equality that was unimaginable throughout  human history up to perhaps 40 years ago for gender, race, single mothers, LBGT, etc.  But crucially this equality drive of capitalism has always encouraged constantly growing agitation by workers for a just and equal economic share of their social production. They now see themselves as the social equals of their bosses, which causes desperate problems for capitalists.  Capitalism thereby lacks the acceptance of difference which earlier civilizations did, and which could last thousands of years in spite of vast degrees of inequality, class divisions, emperors, slavery, etc.

England’s history demonstrates this capitalist dilemma. In response to the rapidly growing agitation the capital-owning class must react, like any ruling class, in two ways: some groups are violently repressed and exploited; some are bribed to keep them loyal. Thus colonies were plundered by Imperialism to deliver ‘bribes’ to English workers (noted in England by Engels1 ) finally resulting in the compromise of social democracy.    For example while the famine was devastating Ireland massive amounts of food were exported under British army guard to Liverpool. Violence was used in the 1819  Peterloo massacre of protesters.  But when Chartist agitation for equality  grew towards 1850, this time instead of violence the Corn Laws were ended to allow imports of cheap food to quieten the agitation. It is clear that most wars fought during Hobsbawm‘s Age of Empire2  and continuing today were concerned with access to cheap labour,  food, raw materials, and later oil.  The home working class was comfortable enough to forgo  dangerous agitation, even gaining the vote over the years. But after 2 diverting world wars, which were much caused by imperial rivalry, in the 1970’s there arose further demands for economic equality by English workers (e.g. the miners strike) and also agitation by the colonies for their own liberty, for the equality of nations.  As there were no new colonies to invade Thatcher and others in the West had to find another source of wealth to answer this new agitation.

Read Post →

ft_larget

Investment Remains the Key to a Real Recovery

, , No Comment

The Irish recession which began in the final quarter of 2007 is the most severe in the history of the state. GDP contracted by 12.1% in a little over two years ending in the 4th quarter of 2009. That slump is not over. The latest data shows that the economy still remains 3.4% below its pre-recession peak. In effect it is likely to take 5 years or more simply to recover the output that was lost in the slump.

Even then, the economy will remain way below its previous trend rate of growth. This is illustrated in Fig 1 below, which shows real GDP and real GNP from 1997 to the present. The average annual growth rate of the Irish economy from 1997 to 2007 was approximately 6%. Maintaining the trend rate of growth would have led the economy to be approximately 50% larger than it is currently, and there is a danger that this potential is lost permanently.

Fig.1 Medium-Term GDP & GNP

Fig.1 Medium-Term GDP & GNP

The causes of the slump are very clear. Over the entire period of the crisis the fall in investment more than accounts for the entirety of the decline in aggregate measures of output, either GDP or GNP. GDP in the 2nd quarter of 2014 is still €6.6bn below its late 2007 peak. Investment (Gross Fixed Capital Formation, GFCF) is €14.4bn below its peak. There are other compoents of GDP which have also failed to recover, notably personal consumption and government expenditure. But even taken together, their combined fall of €10.1bn is less than the fall in investment. The only component of GDP which has risen is net exports. The change in components of GDP is shown in Fig.2 below.

Fig.2 GDP & Components In the Slump. Source: CSO

Fig.2 GDP & Components In the Slump. Source: CSO

This data belies the notion that there is an ‘export-led recovery’ under way. Recorded net exports have grown very strongly, up €30.5bn over the period. But only one quarter of this or €7.4bn is a rise in the export of goods. A much larger statistical contribution has arisen from the decline in the imports of goods, down €14.6bn. As both investment and consumption have fallen, this simply suggests that both firms and households have been priced out of world markets by reduced purchasing power. The remainder of the rise in net exports is derived from international trade in services. These are particularly prone to the tax-induced flow of funds that plague the Irish economy and completely distort the economic data. There is little benefit from attempting to unravel them.

More importantly, it is clear that exports have not led a broad-based recovery at all. All the main domestic indicators of activity, consumption, government spending and investment are still far below their pre-recession peaks.

Read Post →

SPIC_thumb

Spatial Justice and the Irish Crisis

, , No Comment

Book Review: Spatial Justice and the Irish Crisis, eds: Gerry Kearns, David Meredith, and John Morrissey, Royal Irish Academy (2014) 

The new book Spatial Justice and the Irish Crisis, edited by Gerry Kearns, David Meredith, and John Morrissey and published by the Royal Irish Academy is extremely timely given its extensive analysis and detail on the causes of the Irish financial crisis, its socio-spatial impacts on inequality and suggestions for alternative, social-justice based, economic development. The Irish elite, government, big business and media are trumpeting that ‘austerity’ and ‘neoliberalism’ have worked. The Irish economy is now fully in ‘recovery’ it is claimed, ‘austerity’ will be eased with tax breaks again to be given out to the middle classes, employment is rising and we have a mini property boom in Dublin to celebrate. Even potential social partnership agreements are floating in the political air. However, it is now more than ever that critical political, economic, and socio-spatial justice analysis of the Irish economy is required. Rather than cheerleading blindly into another boom and bust cycle based on inequality and spatial injustice there is a need for academics and policy makers to engage in rigorous analysis and reflection on the crisis and the political economic trajectory for the coming decades.

Prof Gerry Kearns, of the Maynooth University Department of Geography, in the Introduction to the book, draws on President Higgins’ reflection on the importance of ‘critical thought’ in the wake of ‘failed orthodoxies’  as ‘the crisis is one of ideas as well as of policy’. Now more than ever, space and time must be given in the academic and public sphere in Ireland to identify the causes of the crisis, its impact on inequality, and alternative (non-capitalist) policies and approaches based on the common good and social justice rather than the interests of the minority elite – the 1%.

This book does this by placing social and spatial justice as an urgent consideration in all areas of social and economic policy. Interestingly, Kearns highlights how government responses to the current crisis go against Articles contained in the Irish Constitution including commitments of the state to ‘promot[ing] the welfare of the whole people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice and charity shall inform all institutions of the national life’ (Article 45.1). Significantly, this also includes ensuring that ‘the ownership and control of the material resources may be so distributed amongst private individuals and the various classes as best to subserve the common good’ (Article 45.2.ii).

The book covers the origins of the financial crisis, its political and territorial implications such as the outsourcing of state power to international credit rating agencies, the links between crisis, housing and planning, the uneven impacts of the crisis in different parts of the country and unevenly within cities such as failed regeneration, impacts on equality of opportunity, marginalization of migrants, and sustainability. Within these areas it addresses the questions of spatial justice and where the pain of crisis and the opportunities of recovery are distributed, geographically and socially. It highlights the uneven development that was at the heart of the Celtic Tiger in the inequalities that persisted through that period, how they were worsened by the crash and the forms in which they continue today.

The chapter by Prof Danny Dorling, Professor of Geography at the University of Oxford, on Spatial Justice, Housing and the Financial crisis makes important links between rising inequality and housing crises internationally. This chapter is very interesting for an Irish audience as it highlights how the current housing crisis in Ireland has similar causes to other countries and there is much we can learn in regard to social justice based responses. Dorling argues that “we really need to think of housing again as a way in which we feel safe about where we are: not as a source of investment or a pension or something that can be used for profit, but instead as primarily a source of shelter”.  He offers suggestions to address this such as a mansions tax, rent control, and using second and third homes for housing for those who need it. He explains that “housing is fundamental. It is what lies at the bottom of this crisis. Housing is one of the basic things that everybody needs and that policies can work out a way to guarantee.” He surmises that the reason this is not the case is because current policy appears to be ”trying to protect the equity interest of a small proportion of people who happen to own quite a lot of very expensive housing”.

Read Post →

thumb

China’s Economic Growth in the Light of the Findings of Modern Western Economic Research

, , No Comment

This article was originally posted on John’s blog Key Trends in Globalisation on the 2nd of September. 

Since 1978 China has seen the most rapid economic growth of any major country in world history, and the most rapid increase of living standards of any major economy. Furthermore, following the beginning of the international financial crisis, China far outperformed any other major economy – in the seven years from 2ndquarter 2007 to 2nd quarter 2014 China’s economy grew by 78% and the US by 8%. In a single generation China has gone from a ‘low income’ economy to the verge of achieving ‘high income’ status by World Bank criteria.

This unprecedented economic development is sometimes explained in terms of unique ‘Chinese characteristics’, but Western economic research over the last 30 years confirms that the reasons for China’s economic growth are rooted in universal economic processes. To be more precise, while the combination of global forces producing economic growth is unique in China, and produces unique ‘Chinese characteristics’, the forces propelling China’s growth operate throughout the world economy.

These modern advances in Western measurement and analysis of the causes of economic growth have major implications for China. Some economists in China have claimed that its very rapid growth is ‘aberrant’ and not in conformity with economic theory. Instead, supposedly China must switch from a growth pattern based on high investment and exports to one based on productivity, more precisely Total Factor Productivity (TFP), growth. Unfortunately such arguments are based on economic methods and concepts that are 30 years out of date and which have been formally replaced by the UN, US and OECD.

Modern economic methods show that growth in the world economy, therefore including China, is fundamentally driven by high levels of investment and by globalisation, which is division of labour on an international scale. The aim of this article, therefore, is to outline the results of the most advanced Western economic methods and their implications for China. First a brief characterisation of the scale of China’s economic achievement will be given, as this establishes the fundamental implications of this for economic theory, and then the implications of modern Western economic research for understanding China’s growth will be analysed. In particular, attention will be given to the formally registered advances of measurement and understanding of economic growth in general, by international economic agencies, and to the most comprehensive application of these to the study of China and Asia’s economic growth – Vu Minh Khuong’s masterpiece The Dynamics of Economic Growth: Policy Insights from Comparative Analyses in Asia.

Read Post →

111

Appreciating Facts

, , No Comment

Last night on Prime Time Brendan Burgess, from Ask About Money, stated that high-income earners in Ireland pay more tax than high earners in other countries.

‘We have a very low direct tax economy in this country for the lower and the middle paid and very high taxes for the upper paid.  And that’s something people don’t appreciate.  And they need to appreciate that.’

Let’s do some appreciation.  Are we a ‘very low’ direct tax economy?  Direct, or personal, taxes include income taxes, social insurance (PRSI) and other taxes on income such as Ireland’s Universal Social Charge or Germany’s surtax.

111a

We are low-tax, well below a lot of other countries.  But we are not that far behind the EU-15 weighted average, not that far behind ‘high-tax’ Sweden and ahead of another ‘high-tax’ economy, France.  So I don’t know that I would call it ‘very low’ but we certainly should be doing better.

But what about that ‘very high taxes for the upper paid’?  We don’t have ‘effective’ tax rates for different income groups to compare (that is, the tax rate when all reliefs and deductions are taken into account).  We only have ‘headline’ tax rates – which only include basic reliefs like personal tax credits.  But the following headline tax rates come from the OECD Benefit and Wages database.  The highest level of income for Ireland in the database is €119,000 (a couple, both working) so I’ll use that to compare with the same level of income in other countries.

111b

Headline tax rates on Irish high-earners are well below most other countries.  If they were living in Germany they’d be paying €11,000 more in income taxes and social insurance.

There is caveat in this.  In Ireland, taxpayers get relief on pension contributions, mortgage interest, health insurance and a rake of business investments.  Do taxpayers have access to the same level of reliefs and allowances?  More?  Less?  We don’t have easily accessible comparable data.  (Also, the tax rate for Italy in the above chart is for €107,000 – the highest level of income in the OECD database).

However, when looking at headline rate, Irish high-earners are not over-taxed in comparative terms.

And there are some further explanations needed (the type of explanations that rarely get a hearing on current affairs programmes).  Take the example of Sweden.  The chart above shows Swedish headline rates lower than Ireland.  In the first total direct taxation chart, Sweden is only slightly above Ireland.  Some might find this surprising since we all think of Sweden as high-taxed.

Read Post →

GCIThumb

The Loneliness of a Low-Tax, Low-Wage Economy

, , No Comment

The new Global Competitiveness Report is out. This is produced by the World Economic Forum (the crowd that occupies Davos once a year). It purports to rank countries by their business competitiveness. Ireland was ranked 25 in 2014. Last year we were ranked 28. Our competitiveness has improved. Yawn.

The rankings are based on a number of indicators – infrastructure, taxation, business efficiency, labour market, ease of doing business, etc. The rankings are compiled based upon a survey of 13,000 ‘business leaders’ throughout the world. So it is subjective – opinions formed by the executives of multi-nationals and large companies. You can only imagine what they might think. They’d probably give gold stars to countries that have hardly any tax, any wage, and require workers to bow every time the owner’s son drives by.

GCI1a

But actually, no. These captains of industry and finance actually like (or don’t dislike) high-tax, high-spend, high-regulated economies – everything that we have been told is bad for our economic health. Here’s how our peer group – small open economies in the EU-15 – rank in competitiveness.

All the other small open economies are ranked higher than Ireland. Two of the countries are ranked in the top 10 in the world – Finland and Sweden. Let’s go through some of the economic sins as written down in the orthodox bible and see how the different countries fare (taxation data is taken from Eurostat’s Taxation Trends).

Read Post →

www

Open Season on Workers (Again)

, , No Comment

The Sunday Business Post ran four stories last weekend- including a front-page banner headline – attacking not only public sector workers’ living standards, but workers in public enterprise as well.

Semi-States Enjoy Pay Increases During the Recession

Sitting Pretty in the Semi-States

Public Sector:  the Insider Story

The Special Protections of the Semi-States

The Sunday Business Post is determined to outdo the Sunday Independent in public sector worker bashing.

And the most interesting thing about these articles is that they are based on a survey and a reading of wage numbers that are not only completely wrong – but make the most basic statistical mistakes.  This is poor analysis, masquerading as informed commentary.  Let’s look at some of the claims and see where they went off the rails (unfortunately the SBP is behind a paywall).

The SBP Survey on Public Enterprise Wages

The SBP did a survey.  It purported to show the average wage in a number of public enterprises for 2009 and 2013.  From this they deduced whether the average wage rose or fell.  Here’s what their survey found.

Read Post →

whatnext2_t

From Alpha 2 Omega Podcast #53: What’s Next? Part II

, , Comment Closed

This week we have part two of our discussion with Professor Peter Hudis, of Oakton Community College, about his book ‘Marx’s Concept of the Alternative to Capitalism’. The first part can be found here.

In this week’s show we talk about the Soviet experiment and the alienation of labour, the role of the state in a post-capitalist society, the Spanish revolution and the anarchist understanding of revolution, and the co-operative model as an alternative.

You can get the Professors book here.

Read Post →

Dude_Job_Creation_t

Dismal Job Numbers Expose Government Spin

, , Comment Closed

Question: why has employment growth collapsed in the first half of the year after recent claims by the Government that 60,000 jobs per year were being created?

The answer lies in statistical misunderstanding, Government spin and the failure of many commentators to read the numbers correctly. For the fact is that the 60,000 job-creation number was never real and the recovery in the labour market is sluggish at best. This post may get a bit involved but stay with me – for this is as much a story about how the recovery is being contrived as it is about bald numbers.

Last year, employment growth suddenly took off. In 2012 employment actually fell by 11,000 – and this was after a loss of nearly 300,000 since the start of the crisis. However, in 2013 everything changed. Employment grew on a full-year basis by 43,000 (this is consistent with claims by the Government who were using quarter-to-quarter figures).

This was quite a turnaround. The Government claimed their policies were working. For many commentators this was proof that recovery had returned. But there were a couple of problems.

  • First, this employment growth took place while the economy remained in a domestic demand recession. Given that employment is sensitive to domestic demand, this didn’t make sense.
  • Second, the usual pattern of an economy coming out of a recession is that employment growth lags. This is because if there increases in business output, the first beneficiaries are those already in employment; they get an increase in hours which had previously been cut.
  • Third, the actual job numbers were throwing up some strange happenings. Self-employment (own-account workers) grew by over 10 percent and made up over half of the total employment growth. At one stage, self-employment was growing by nearly four times the rate of growth during the boom. This didn’t make sense – not with domestic demand stagnation. Agriculture employment showed a similar pattern.

These concerns were dismissed. Government policies were working and critics were just nit-picking. However, the CSO published warnings throughout all last year – warning people against interpreting growth trends. Why? Because they were re-aligning their sample base with the recent Census (don’t forget, the Quarterly National Household Survey is not a comprehensive head-count, just a sample; like a poll). This happens after every Census.

Read Post →

Deng XiaT

Deng Xiaoping – The World’s Greatest Economist

, , 16 Comments

This article was originally posted on John’s blog, Key Trends in Globalisation on the 23rd of August.
August 22, 2014 is the 110th anniversary of the birth of Deng Xiaoping. Numerous achievements would ensure Deng Xiaoping a major position in China’s history – his role in shaping the People’s Republic of China, his steadfastness during persecution in the Cultural Revolution, his extraordinarily balanced attitude even after return to power towards the development and recent history of China, his all-round role after 1978 in leading the country. But one ensures him a position among a tiny handful of people at the peak not only of Chinese but of world history. This was China’s extraordinary economic achievement after reforms began in 1978, and the decisive role this played not only in the improvement of the living standards of Chinese people but the country’s national rejuvenation. So great was the impact of this that it may objectively be said to have altered the situation not only of China but of the world.

China’s economic performance after the beginning of its 1978 reforms simply exceeded the experience of any other country in human history. To give only a partial list:

  • China achieved the most rapid growth in a major economy in world history.
  • China experienced the fastest growth of living standards of any major economy.
  • China lifted 620 million people out of internationally defined poverty.
  • Measured in internationally comparable prices, adjusted for inflation, the greatest increase in economic output in a single year in any country outside China was the U.S. in 1999, when it added US$567 billion, whereas in 2010 China added US$1,126 billion – twice as much.
  • During the beginning of China’s rapid growth, 22 percent of the world’s population was within its borders – seven times that of United States at the beginning of its own fast economic development.

Wholly implausibly, it is sometimes argued that this success was merely due to “pragmatism” and achieved without overall economic theories, concepts, or a leadership really understanding the subject (particularly with no knowledge of U.S. academic economics!). If true, then the study of economics should immediately be abandoned – if the greatest economic success in world history can be achieved without any understanding of the subject, then it is evidently of no practical value whatever.

In reality this argument is entirely specious. Deng Xiaoping’s approach to economic policy was certainly highly practical regarding application – the famous “it doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white provided it catches mice.” But it was extremely theoretical regarding foundations – as shown clearly in such works as In Everything We Do We Must Proceed from the Realities of the Primary Stage of Socialism, We Are Undertaking An Entirely New Endeavour, and Adhere to the Principle to Each According to his Work. Deng Xiaoping’s outstanding practical success was guided by a clearly defined theoretical underpinning, which can be understood particularly clearly in its historical context and in comparison with Western and other economists.

Read Post →

water

Perverse Economics and Water Charges

, , Comment Closed

If you’re into perverse economics, then you’re going to love the debate in the run-up to the budget. Already we have Minister Simon Harris calling for income tax cuts (didn’t the Taoiseach tell Ministers last year to shut-up during pre-budget discussions?). Of course, there is almost no discussion regarding affordable childcare, reducing education costs or introducing universal pre-primary education, providing affordable pay-related pensions to all workers, reducing health costs, reversing the high levels of deprivation and poverty, etc. Almost no discussion at all about how we can improve our living standards.

But of real interest to fans of the perverse is that while Ministers and interest groups line up to demand tax cuts, the Government will be introducing an extremely regressive ‘tax’ on almost all households – and there is no discussion about how this can be avoided. I am referring to the water charge.

While there has been considerable discussion about the costs to the average household (measuring showers, baths, brushing teeth), there has been little reference to the distributional impact of the charges; that is, the impact on different income groups. Let’s see if we can start to fill this gap.

Of course, we don’t have a history of water charges to measure so let’s look at waste collection charges. User charges, like sales taxes (VAT, excise) are generally regressive – they impact more on low/average groups. This is in the nature of the tax as lower income groups consume, whether goods or water or waste, more of their income than high income groups. The CSO Household Budget Survey provides information on waste collection charges from 2009/10.

waste

There are two things worth noting about the above chart.

Read Post →