Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The economic causes of the cost of living crisis

Critisticuffs doing their thing:
Backing this up is a recently published paper by the IMF which I saw referred to by Michael Roberts, where the authors looked for evidence of wage-price spirals historically and essentially found nothing much.
IMF said:
Wage-price spirals, at least defined as a sustained acceleration of prices and wages, are hard to find in the recent historical record. Of the 79 episodes identified with accelerating prices and wages going back to the 1960s, only a minority of them saw further acceleration after eight quarters. Moreover, sustained wage-price acceleration is even harder to find when looking at episodes similar to today, where real wages have significantly fallen. In those cases, nominal wages tended to catch-up to inflation to partially recover real wage losses, and growth rates tended to stabilize at a higher level than before the initial acceleration happened. Wage growth rates were eventually consistent with inflation and labor market tightness observed. This mechanism did not appear to lead to persistent acceleration dynamics that can be characterized as a wage-price spiral.
Whether this will travel far enough down the chain of entrail readers to reach the luminaries of the Bank of England for example remains to be seen, doubt it will shake their certainty that wages must be suppressed one way or the other anyway.
 
Critisticuffs doing their thing:
Thanks for the heads up hitmouse, I've not seen this.
a thought...in the Death of the Left podcast smokey posted the authors of that book complain about the supposed lack of focus by "the left" on economics...leaving them aside or the accuracy of that complaint, there is an issue regarding economics which is that it is very complicated and beyond most people.

that cristicuffs thing is written clearly and simply, they've really tried to make it accesible - but its still too much for me to really understand with any certainty, happy though i am to go along with their conclusions. I'm probably a bit above average in terms of trying to understand stuff like this, in that i've tried repeatedly, i've read a few economics books over the years, i read articles on economics etc.

with Marx for example there is no day in my life i am ever going to read Capital. It will never happen - i've had a look and its too hard. I understand the basic principles, and the core necessity to redistribute is obvious and needs no explanation.

my point is that discussing economics with normal (noneconomist) people is really hard and in most cases is two people who both dont really know what they are talking about giving their impressions. the false household budget analogies are a good example of that. i know they are false but i couldnt tell you more about "borrowing" in any meaningful way.

this is a problem with 'the left' making bigger economic arguments - they need to be simplistic (tax justice, redistribution, tobin tax, increase public spending etc), but when they get refuted with other simplicities no magic money tree, cupboard is bare, live within means etc,) those criticisms can sound reasonable to many. its a hard dynamic to break through
 
a thought...in the Death of the Left podcast smokey posted the authors of that book complain about the supposed lack of focus by "the left" on economics...leaving them aside or the accuracy of that complaint, there is an issue regarding economics which is that it is very complicated and beyond most people.

that cristicuffs thing is written clearly and simply, they've really tried to make it accesible - but its still too much for me to really understand with any certainty, happy though i am to go along with their conclusions. I'm probably a bit above average in terms of trying to understand stuff like this, in that i've tried repeatedly, i've read a few economics books over the years, i read articles on economics etc.

with Marx for example there is no day in my life i am ever going to read Capital. It will never happen - i've had a look and its too hard. I understand the basic principles, and the core necessity to redistribute is obvious and needs no explanation.

my point is that discussing economics with normal (noneconomist) people is really hard and in most cases is two people who both dont really know what they are talking about giving their impressions. the false household budget analogies are a good example of that. i know they are false but i couldnt tell you more about "borrowing" in any meaningful way.

this is a problem with 'the left' making bigger economic arguments - they need to be simplistic (tax justice, redistribution, tobin tax, increase public spending etc), but when they get refuted with other simplicities no magic money tree, cupboard is bare, live within means etc,) those criticisms can sound reasonable to many. its a hard dynamic to break through
There’s a reason why working class kids are never taught about how the economy they will have to engage with works.
 
There’s a reason why working class kids are never taught about how the economy they will have to engage with works.
its a good point
never even learned about stuff like pensions
i was struck watching the 7 up series a couple of years back that even aged 7 one of the kids was checking stock prices in the newspaper!! okay probably got that from their parents, but it is two different worlds

was talking about this just the other day, i had no career advice up until the week i was leaving school! had no idea about career paths or any attempt at planning for a future. again by contrast in 7 up those kids aged 7 knew what schools they would go on to and where they would study at university and what subject even! That sounds a bit prescriptive but even so, just talking about these things as possibilities is powerful. I guess parents play a big role in this, but yeah I finished school without the first clue what next.

Back to wage price spirals - IMF did a massive study and found no meaningful correlation:

"The IMF “address these questions by creating an empirical definition of a wage-price spiral and applying this on a cross-economy database of past episodes among advanced economies going back to the 1960s.” So over 60 years and in many countries.

What did the IMF find: “Wage-price spirals, at least defined as a sustained acceleration of prices and wages, are hard to find in the recent historical record. Of the 79 episodes identified with accelerating prices and wages going back to the 1960s, only a minority of them saw further acceleration after eight quarters. Moreover, sustained wage-price acceleration is even harder to find when looking at episodes similar to today, where real wages have significantly fallen. In those cases, nominal wages tended to catch-up to inflation to partially recover real wage losses, and growth rates tended to stabilize at a higher level than before the initial acceleration happened. Wage growth rates were eventually consistent with inflation and labor market tightness observed. This mechanism did not appear to lead to persistent acceleration dynamics that can be characterized as a wage-price spiral.”

And there’s more: “We define a wage-price spiral as an episode where at least three out of four consecutive quarters saw accelerating consumer prices and rising nominal wages.” And the IMF finds that “Perhaps surprisingly, only a small minority of such episodes were followed by sustained acceleration in wages and prices. Instead, inflation and nominal wage growth tended to stabilize, leaving real wage growth broadly unchanged. A decomposition of wage dynamics using a wage Phillips curve suggests that nominal wage growth normally stabilizes at levels that are consistent with observed inflation and labor market tightness. When focusing on episodes that mimic the recent pattern of falling real wages and tightening labor markets, declining inflation and nominal wage growth increases tended to follow – thus allowing real wages to catch up.

What does the IMF conclude? “We conclude that an acceleration of nominal wages should not necessarily be seen as a sign that a wage-price spiral is taking hold.”
 
It makes total sense. Economics isn't what you think it is. It's not the study of economic activity. It's the production of the idea that there is a thing called the economy and that it can be studied and thus policies and behaviours supportive of it should be adopted and encouraged. Even saying economic activity takes on these basic assumptions.
 
The IMF is predicting that the UK will be the only major economy not to grow this year. The media are reporting this through the prism of the Truss budget and Hunt tax rises.


But the causes are actually much longer run. As Adam Tooze has noted ‘for most of the last 60 years when critics have spoken of decline they have tended to exaggerate the extent of the malaise. GDP and per capita income actually continued to increase. In the 1970s they did so quite buoyantly. By contrast, since 2009 there is nothing exaggerated about declinist talk. For a significant part of the British population real incomes actually fell. The shocking novelty lies in the fact that decline and stagnation are not figures of speech, but a literal reality.’

Put another way - in terms of absolute social mobility - over 90% of children born in the 1940s, for example, earned more as adults than their parents did, regardless of whether they moved up any quintiles. As real wages and family incomes increased across the board, almost everybody lived better than their parents. But only about half of those born in 1980 have family incomes greater than their parents, and it’s even worse for those born since then (down to about 40%)

The consequences on household income are clear:




As are the underlying causes, which remain utterly unaddressed in politics and in the media coverage of the collapse of the British economy:

 
Here is the other side of the cost of living crisis. Annual profits for Shell of £32Bn….

I’m sure the Tories and economic editors will be along shortly to explain why this is a little unfortunate when millions are terrified to put the heating on.

Later today the Bank of England will be raising interest rates again. They are likely to increase their base rate from 3.5% to 4% extracting more money from those who can least afford it and despite all of the evidence that the inflation rate is already falling in the UK, US and EU.

The markets hidden hand is working its magic again..

 
Last edited:
some choice quotes from the bbc

"It has heaped pressure on firms to pay windfall taxes" lol

"Despite the government's windfall tax, Shell previously said it did not expect to pay any UK tax this year as it is allowed to offset decommissioning costs and investments in UK projects against any UK profits.
But the BBC understands that it will now say that it has paid some tax in 2022 and expects to pay hundreds of millions in UK tax in 2023" - how public spirited

"Earlier this year, Shell said it would pay tax in the UK for the first time since 2017 as a result of the new windfall tax." seems legit
 
An excellent report from Unite exploring how profiteering, price gouging and corporate greed has fuelled the cost of living crisis. As the report makes clear: “Rampant corporate profiteering has fuelled the cost-of-living crisis. As the pandemic eased in 2021, many companies managed to push up their prices and profits. Corporate profiteering – not workers’ wages – has helped drive inflation “spirals”. And even as the economy now heads towards recession, many companies, in many industries, continue to make high profits”


 


Inflation 10.1%
Food inflation 19% (highest rate for over 50 years)
Certain basic food stuffs (milk, cheese, eggs) 30%

As expected no word from labour on any of it. But where is the trade union/left mass campaign demanding real terms wage rises, price controls on essential items and increased tax on increased profits. Let alone a cogent set of arguments on the need for energy supply and food sourcing restructuring.
 


Inflation 10.1%
Food inflation 19% (highest rate for over 50 years)
Certain basic food stuffs (milk, cheese, eggs) 30%

As expected no word from labour on any of it. But where is the trade union/left mass campaign demanding real terms wage rises, price controls on essential items and increased tax on increased profits. Let alone a cogent set of arguments on the need for energy supply and food sourcing restructuring.

And always worth remembering that low income households always spend a much greater proportion of their income on food/drink than those in higher deciles, so it's 19% inflation on a 20 to 40% chunk of expenditure.
 
Don’t worry everyone, the banks are still making money


Translation of the analysis by the commentating class...

1. The $21.7Bn accumulated by HSBC in the first 6 months of the year is a necessary and brave direct transfer of money from the poorest 90% to the richest 10% who will use the money (paid in the form of salaries, bonuses and shareholder dividends) to boost their offshore wealth or to buy up more property or to support suppliers of luxury commodities. This has no impact on inflation (in the same way that rampant price gouging by multinationals also has no impact on inflation) unlike, say, cleaners on minimum wage asking for a pay rise that increases their wages in line with mysterious enemy, inflation.

2. The sucking out of £50Bn out of the pockets of workers by the banks in the first 6 months will stop the proles overheating the economy by wastefully splurging money on frivolities like food, gas bills, rent/mortgages or supporting local business.

3. We can tentatively hope THE MARKET approves of the effects of the BoE policy. What we now need is a good, deep recession. Should this be delivered we can begin to see victory in the brave fight put up by the Government against inflation.
 
The FT today demonstrating that as far as the ruling classes' economic viewpoint is concerned, the only anti-inflationary lever on the table is more interest rates. Quite impressively crap that they'd publish this meandering propaganda bilge by economics editor Chris Giles under the title:

What can the UK do about its inflation problem?
 
The City is punting for a taste of raids on pension funds, net zero investment planning and insurance sector money as "PPP investment." Usual financial mafia suspects.

City of London calls for public-private partnership to grow sectors​

The UK should set up a public-private partnership to oversee a financial and professional services growth strategy and help secure a potential £225bn boost to the economy, according to the local authority for London’s financial district.

The City of London Corporation on Thursday published a report containing proposals for a government and financial and professional services council to support the local authority’s proposals to expand the sectors.

Other objectives in the report highlighted the need to increase investment, become a digital first economy, focus on sustainable finance and boost exports.

Chris Hayward, policy chair at the City of London Corporation, told the Financial Times that the public private partnership would ensure delivery of the growth strategy.

“The public private partnership . . . will make sure that the strategy is followed through,” he said.

“When I go around the world and look at competitor countries, particularly in Asia, they all have strategies . . . We don’t have an overarching strategy, what we have is piecemeal support.”

Hayward noted the government had set out various reforms to boost the City and wider economy — including plans to overhaul EU era regulation of insurance companies called Solvency II and rules covering financial markets known as Mifid II.

However, Hayward said there was “no plan for implementation” in relation to some of the government’s reforms.

The City of London Corporation report noted the government’s Mansion House compact announced in July, in which ministers set a goal of securing £75bn of investment by pension funds in high growth companies and other businesses.

The local authority said “cultural change” was needed to divert more pension money into areas such as venture capital.

Hayward said: “What we are trying to do is actually make sure we hold politicians’ feet to the fire.”

Analysis by the City of London Corporation and consultants Oliver Wyman estimated the proposals to boost the financial and professional services sectors would unlock £225bn of investment and economic growth into the UK by 2030.

Hayward said the £225bn — which consists of a £100bn boost from the insurance overhaul, £75bn from pension changes and £50bn from net zero investment — would not be achieved “if the reforms aren’t implemented”.

Other recommendations in the City of London Corporation report included promoting better use of data among regulators and developing an online system for company records similar to the US Edgar system.

Eight companies co-authored the report: asset manager Schroders, banks JPMorgan and Barclays, auditors EY and KPMG, insurance market Lloyd’s of London, cyber security company Glasswall and think-tank the Centre for Information Policy Leadership.

Sheila Nicoll, senior public policy adviser at Schroders, said the public-private partnership would “provide a significant opportunity to help us build on our competitive advantages in the sector”.

Chris Woolard, an EY partner, said: “There is momentum for collaboration across high-growth sectors and the recommendations . . . are important, tangible steps to ensure financial services continue to support strong economic growth for the UK long term.”

Hayward said: “We are making the case for a financial and professional services road map that helps drive growth across the UK for the rest of the decade and beyond. We look forward to working with the government and other partners to deliver it.”

As the local authority for the Square Mile, the City of London Corporation provides services and promotes the financial district as a place to work and live.
 
The City is punting for a taste of raids on pension funds, net zero investment planning and insurance sector money as "PPP investment." Usual financial mafia suspects.

City of London calls for public-private partnership to grow sectors​

Of course, they're calling for an acceleration of public money poured into private asset management funds (registered beyond the UK's fiscal jurisdiction). Sounds like they're gearing up for the next New Labour administration.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom