Your editorial on the healthcheck given to the
British economy by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) was a trifle selective and optimistic.(Independent,25/02/15) Should
Britain really be feeling "pretty smug about economic life", when there are so
many people working on zero hour contracts, when so many companies are failing
to pay the minimum wage, let alone a living wage, and when pay is so low for so
many an extra £900m had to be found recently for the extra benefits needed to
enable them to survive. The "collapse in
inflation" has indeed led to increased spending power, thereby helping to
sustain some growth in the economy, but back in 2010, didn`t the government
insist wage freezes were the answer? The same government described tax avoidance
as "morally repugnant", but proceeded to cut staffing at HMRC by
20%!
You recommend a "more imaginative approach to
paying" for infrastructure, but ignore the possibility of government borrowing
at what are in effect today, zero real interest rates, to pay for the huge
amount of houses now needed, so that supply can catch up with the increased
demand brought about the "Help to Buy" scheme.
Even more surprising is your failure to
mention the OECD`s warning about rising inequality, and the damaging effect it
has on economic growth. Angel Gurria, who presented the report, actually said
that had inequality not increased since the time of Thatcher`s government, the
economy could be as much as 9% bigger today. Osborne, of course, is keen to view
the report as praise for his "long-term economic plan", but that began with
legislation to cut taxes paid by the rich; it does not need an expert economist
to realise the effect that would have on inequality!
No comments:
Post a Comment