Notes on the Front

Commentary on Irish Political Economy by Michael Taft, researcher for SIPTU

March 16th Afternoon: The Recession Diaries

Recession 144 Mark Conroy, who kindly posted my essay ‘Towards a New Economic Narrative’ on Indymedia, noted my comment that it was growing quickly out-of-date and asked:

'In what way is it "out of date", and what would an updated version of it look like?'

Fair question. With new projections from Ulster Bank suggesting we are entering into a depression (or, if you don’t like that phrase, then ‘a really, really recessing recession’) the game is definitely changing. For the worse. No one, not even the most pessimistic commentator, was projecting this collapse, not back in November when I wrote the essay, not even last month – with, maybe, the exception of Professor Morgan ‘Apocalypse Now’ Kelly.

There are a number of ways the landscaped has changed. The first, as I said, is the pace and depth of the meltdown. Secondly, we now effectively have ‘dead banks walking’. Okay, we did back then but we didn’t know they were dead, we just thought they were very, very ill. Third, the pace of the decimation of our export and traded-sectors base was not as pronounced. It is now.

That any commentator of whatever ideological stripe has repositioned her or himself is not surprising, such is the economic tsunami that has washed over us. Don’t forget, back in November we were still discussing a small downturn with the most current ESRI projections stating the economy would contract by less than 1 percent. Now, projections over the three year period are ten times that amount.

So let me ‘reposition’ myself on some crucial issues – to answer Mark’s question. If I were rewriting Towards a New Economic Narrative, I would revisit the following.

Public Ownership of Banks

Back in November, while the bank guarantee had alerted us to the fragile state of the Irish banking system, no one could imagine what was laying in wait for us: collapse, fraud, and irresponsibility on a frightening scale. The issue is now not whether the banks should be taken into public ownership; that’s a given. The debate is now what we do with the banks.

I would suggest a radical refiguring of the banking landscape following a flushing out of the bad assets (either through a ‘bad’ bank or ‘good’ bank process) with the creation of:

  • An infrastructural and long-term bank
  • A venture / seed development capital bank
  • Banks dedicated to ofering new credit lines for small and medium enterprises
  • A public enterprise retail bank

Money is utility, banks are instruments: they are (or should be) servants of the real economy. Nationalise them immediately and start making that service happen.

Borrowing

Quaintly, I had thought that increasing borrowing to 55 percent of the GDP would provide considerable resources for a stimulus programme. Our public finances, however, have deteriorated to such a point that 55 percent of GDP would now imply massive cutbacks. So let’s no get hung up on percentages, etc. (even now, we are still well below the Euorzone average).

Since November, we have now discovered that the National Treasury Management Agency has accumulated a cash balance of €20 billion. Let’s not hoard it – use it: start getting people back to work, increasing economic activity, investing and lending and spending.  This is the seed-capital, if you will, for a medium-term stimulus programme.

Fiscal Deficit and Unemployment

Again, such has been the deterioration of our public finances that the orthodoxy has been able to confine the national debate to fiscal measures. They never ask the more fundamental question: why is tax revenue collapsing, why is government expenditure (i.e. social welfare costs) rising? Unemployment is the answer they never come up with. To solve the fiscal crisis is to first solve the unemployment crisis. And to do that requires a stimulus – an expansion of government expenditure, both current and capital.

Save Jobs – Subsidise Businesses

The rate of job losses was not as pronounced in November. Now it’s an avalanche. We should subsidise businesses to stay in business – especially in critical traded sectors. Germany has recently launched a €100 billion enterprise aid package; pro-rata, that would be equivalent to €7 billion here. This aid package would include a range of measures: underwriting loans/overdrafts, temporary sterling stabilisation scheme, avoidance redundancy schemes (e.g. topping up short-timed workers’ pay to avoid redundancies), etc. Of course, this must come with strings attached –enterprises must become high-road companies, granting their workforce the right to collectively bargain being just one of many labour-inclusive strategies at the local level. But, yes, subsidise firms to stay in business. At the end of the day, it will cost less than letting firms go to the wall.

Save Businesses – 'Nationalise' Them

Public enterprise – something I will be exploring in later posts – is one of the great weapons in our enterprise arsenal. The last thing we should let happen is to watch firms with key skill-sets and global brands in key economic sectors go down the tubes. In the last instance, they should be brought into public enterprise. This could mean public sector equity, public-private partnerships; public enterprise companies are only one aspect of bringing key companies into the public realm. The modern Irish economy owes much to public enterprise – energy, transport, banking, insurance and finance, natural resources; it is now time to employ this strategy to current economic and social needs.  Better than to let 'the free interplay of market forces' destroy our economic base.

Bring Back Telesis

In the early 1980s Telesis caused a storm with its proposal that the state should actively ‘select’ 75 to 100 indigenous companies to become national champions – giving them every aid and support to break into export markets. It was attacked for being ‘statist’ and ‘anti-market’ (even though Telesis was a US consultancy firm). But it was correct.

So use Enterprise Ireland as the vehicle for creating economic champions in our traded sectors. If we don’t have potential champions in key sectors – create them through public enterprise. Whatever, get business up and moving. Export markets may be difficult now but we need to urgently start building the foundations for new state-sponsored and state-driven high-road enterprises whether in the formal private or public sector; to be in a position to take advantage of any recovery in international demand.

* * *

As I look out at the wreckage that the Irish economy has become since last November when I penned that essay, I only see one solution: more and more social democracy, more public realm, more inter-penetration of the private and public spheres to the point that the distinction between the two becomes ever more blurred. To understand that all our economic assets are, first and foremost, social assets is to prepare the ideological ground for creative strategies of growth and expansion. And democracy.

For there is no going back to normal. Normal is dead and gone. This recession must give way to a new order – a progressive order; one that reconciles abilities and needs, economy and society, where profit is instrumental and prosperity for all is no longer an aspiration but an economic and political necessity.

And, if in a few months, if I have to rewrite this again, so be it. But better still, let’s get ahead of the curve rather than trying to catch up.

8 responses to “March 16th Afternoon: The Recession Diaries”

  1. Fergal Avatar

    Hi Michael,
    As you state “normal is dead and gone”.Something tells me that nationalising the banks won’t be enough,that if we really want banking reform the world’s tax/fiscal havens will have to go e.g. Jersey,Cayman Islands,London,Holland,Luxemburg and the IFSC.Will this happen?Nationalising the banks sounds far better than the bank bailout/guarantee which looks like a massive gift to bank shareholders…on the backs of the ordinary taxpeyer.Are the bad debts so bad that they contaminate everything else?A kind of “mad cow” scenario,impossible to locate the contaminated debt so the whole “herd”(of debt)has to go!To add to your ideas…could we introduce a 32 hour working week to share and save jobs?Could we bring in a 80% tax rate for the super rich as President Roosevelt did in the 1930s?Just a few ideas…

    Like

  2. barratree Avatar
    barratree

    Micheal,
    National champions? State-capitalism would be the nail in European cooperation’s coffin. The long run implication is inevitably a subsidy auction with all loosing.

    Like

  3. CMK Avatar

    Barratree, in the long term we’re all dead – as Keynes argued. Can state capitalism be any worse than what Michael and others are forecasting? The onus is on those, such as yourself, to demonstrate in clear terms how it would be worse. For instance would workers lose more from a subsidy auction for national champions, than they are loosing from current arrangements? For some ideologues mass starvation would be preferable to state capitalism. I’m not saying you’re making that argument. But it seems to me that ideological hang-ups have to be discarded and quibbling national champions is such a hang-up, with respect. My own view, having always been skeptical about FDI as our path to economic growth, is that a select number of state supported companies(with the state perhaps holding a 50%+ stake) is the ONLY way Ireland can develop in an economically stable manner. It won’t be the path to riches and second homes in Spain for everyone, but, at this point do we have much to loose by following this road. Certainly, our third-level sector may soon reach a critical mass in terms of creating viable products and there won’t be any companies ready to market and manufacture these ideas. Foreign companies my do so to an extent, but not to the degree that we will get a return on our investment in 3rd level research.
    Also, at this point failing to subsidise indigenous businesses who are in difficulty but who, with support, could survive and thrive later, is criminal negligence. Better throw state cash at these than at the banks.
    Anyway, interesting times.

    Like

  4. Alec Avatar

    Great artivle again Michael, but how many of your fellow social democratic economists would agree on the extra steps you have added since November?

    Like

  5. Harass! Avatar

    Some article or other that I read explained that ‘champions of europe’ were on the cards in an earlier protectionist version of europe and that lobbying from US industrial lobbyists led to a free market/ competition is king policy that we here took up like a mantra. So what about bottom up protectionism of economies in EU alligned with a progressive and enabling trade relationship with developing countries. The arguments about costs of such a worst off first policy can be countered with the cost to economies of social welfare and underemployment. Micro banking and the support of small start up businesses along with the type of German schemes such as subsidised short time- reciprocal long time could mean that at whatever poniy international markets start to recover we could meet them in better shape than the unequal tiger years.Thought provoking article!!

    Like

  6. Michael Taft Avatar

    Fergal – the problem with bank debts is that we don’t know. Are they manageable? Will they sink us? Nationalising the banks is the best route to bring everything under control, making them accountable and transparent, and setting up the opportunity to transform the banking landscape to make it work for the economy. But, yes, it is a risk whichever way we turn.
    As to (a) reducing work hours. The problem here is that people would have to take a pay cut equal to the hours cut. It is doubtful that employers could absorb the full costs of adding more people on to the payroll at continuing pay. However, the German programme which tops-up pay for those companies that short-time rather than lay people off is an example of your suggestion. Over 350,000 German workers are on short-time, top-up pay. It’s a stop-gap measure to maintain employment during the recession. Any long-term move to shorten the working week (which I fully support – after all, it was one of the first demands of the trade union movement in the 19th century) will depend on greater productivity and socialisation of workplaces.
    But (b), yes – I’ve been reading a lot about what the New Deal did in the 1930s and they seem to have broken every rule in the conservative rule-book. They drove up wages – especially among the low-wage, low-skill (and during a period of labour surplus!) while at the same time imposing penal tax rates on higher income groups (which should have limited investment). And it all worked. Such high tax rates would not work so well here (the US was a self-contained economy with little capital mobility). But taxes on unearned income, unproductive capital and high income groups are viable options. There’s the claim that this will disincentivise the wealthy? I don’t rate this much, given the wealthy mostly sent capital out of the country in the last ten years anyway.
    Barratree – the debate over ‘national’ or ‘economic’ or ‘industrial’ champions rages in the literature to such an extent that the arguments become quite abstract and revolve around terminology. Let me put forward something less ambitious. The ESB should be a leading Irish-owned multi-national. The Government is hobbling it, preventing it from competing in both national and international markets. Were the Government to (a) free the ESB commercially and (b) organise sectoral actors in a range of related activities (ocean, off-shore wind, geothermal, etc.) to work with the ESB in R&D, pilot-projects and commercialisation – if this were done, we would actually be enabling a range of enterprises, mostly private, around an ‘economic champion’. This is not so much ‘state capitalism’ as it is growth strategies. We could go through a list of setors to achieve the same thing – and it need not be led by public enterprise, just organised into networks of cooperation to share costs and make up for lack of scale.
    In that spirit, CMK, I whole-heartedly agree with you. In many respects we have to do everything possible to keep enterprises going and people in work. If people want to label it ‘this’ or ‘that’ I’ll live with it. The last thing we need is the decimation of our wealth-generating base combined with mass unemployment. If we have that, we won’t have to worry about labels.
    Alec – why wouldn’t they agree? They do agree – in some respects (even right-wing economists here, in the UK and abroad believe we have to nationalise the banks). Just so not to confuse – I’m old school. Social democracy is the political organisation of democratic socialism. Originally, social democracy and socialism were inter-changeable. I must read up on where the divergence started to happen. So social democratic / socialist economists should have no problem with the principles of Keynesianism, state intervention, unemployment avoidance, etc. Indeed, Cumann na nGaedhael set up state enterprises (ESB). If they can do it, why can’t we?
    Harass! – yes, the arguments against ‘champions’ were led by neo-liberalism. We need to find alternative strategies. Your suggestions regarding small enterprise / small-scale economic activity can make a contribution but we have to get out of the mind-set that we take a hands-off approach to the economy and just ‘let it happen’. It can only happen by layers of cooperation and support, with the state being a strong enabling force.
    Regarding your comments on international trade: there’s a word for industrialised countries who rose to an advanced level through historical protectionism, demanding that developing countries opening up their entire economies to the full-force of ‘free trade’. The word is hypocrisy. We need a new trade dynamic that is equitable, taking into account where some countries are at developmentally. If not, world trade will continue to be controlled by a handful of companies situated in the wealthy ‘north’.

    Like

  7. Sam Avatar

    Michael,
    You write very well and set out a clear case for the way forward to get us out of this mess. You advocate a stimilus package of money into the economy to stimilulate it rather than the current slash and burn policy of taking money out. But there is a major obstacle to this which is not found in other economies which are taking this route.Who would trust Fianna Fail with billions of euros? Would they spend it wisely in the areas where it would reap the most benefit? Or would they use it as they have always done to enrich their friends and supporters? Under the guise of useful programmes but these always turn out to be a multiple of the cost of similar programmes in other countries. A good example of this is to compare the cost per kilometre of the proposed Metro with the cost in Madrid. Crony Captilism can make as much money for its adherents in a Social Democratic context as in a Neo Liberal context.

    Like

  8. Harass! Avatar

    Hi Michael,
    I agree totally on the less developed economies- I was just concerned that new protectionism in Europe would further undermine such countries. In response to demands from us many have opened their economies to allow EU based companies to compete and damaged indigenous industry- if we resorted to protectionism without taking this into account it could wreak havok- the ability to export primary goods to EU/US and increasingly China is all that some of these countries are surviving on at the moment-and despite the fact that northern countries engineered this, closing our borders to these goods could be catastropic.
    Here any supports of micro and middle income schemes would require huge borrowing and I’m not sure that (a) we would be able to borrow such amounts and (b) that I trust the government(sic) to mortgage the next 10- 15 years and invest widely.They have to go – i’m sure of that! We need an idiots guide to taking back control of our political sphere…you should write it:-)

    Like

Leave a reply to Alec Cancel reply

Navigation

About

Commentary on Irish Political Economy by Michael Taft, researcher for SIPTU