Economics for Dummies 2: Unveiling the Illusions Behind GDP and Growth

 ChatGPT

Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the bedrock of economic assessment, is often brandished by governments to demonstrate their economic prowess and development efforts. Yet, the story beneath the numbers can be more intricate than the narrative presented. This essay delves into the nuances of GDP growth and per capita GDP, exposing the potential deception in government claims, and offers real-world examples to elucidate the distinction between statistical expansion and genuine prosperity.

The GDP Mirage: Governments frequently tout increases in total GDP as evidence of economic advancement, but this can mask underlying issues. GDP measures the value of all goods and services produced within a country's borders, making it an essential indicator of a nation's economic health. However, focusing solely on GDP growth without scrutinizing its composition and distribution can lead to a deceptive portrayal of economic well-being.

Example 1: Industrialization Consider a developing nation that prioritizes industrial expansion, leading to a surge in manufacturing output. While this may boost total GDP, it might neglect crucial sectors like healthcare, education, and social welfare. The GDP increase might not translate to improved living standards or reduced inequality, as wealth could be concentrated in a few hands.

Example 2: Environmental Impact Another scenario involves unchecked natural resource extraction, which may inflate GDP due to increased production. However, this comes at the cost of environmental degradation and resource depletion, potentially compromising long-term sustainability and quality of life.

The Per Capita GDP Illusion: Per capita GDP, calculated by dividing the total GDP by the population, is often used to gauge average economic well-being. Governments may herald rising per capita GDP as a sign of improved living standards, yet this figure can be misleading without considering factors like income distribution, inflation, and social services.

Example 1: Uneven Distribution A country experiencing a surge in per capita GDP might conceal stark inequality. A significant portion of the population could still struggle with poverty and lack access to basic amenities, despite the statistical average suggesting overall prosperity.

Example 2: Inflation Impact Rapid inflation can erode the purchasing power of individuals, even if per capita GDP appears to be rising. A higher per capita GDP might not equate to increased real income if the cost of living rises at a faster pace.

Deconstructing Government Claims: Governments may emphasize GDP growth and per capita GDP to showcase economic progress and attract investments. However, these claims warrant careful analysis. An increase in GDP or per capita GDP does not guarantee equitable development or improved well-being for all citizens.

Example 1: Economic Growth vs. Welfare A nation boasting impressive GDP growth may mask disparities in social indicators. While the economy expands, certain segments of the population might still lack access to quality education, healthcare, and basic infrastructure.

Example 2: Dependency on External Factors Governments may celebrate GDP growth driven by foreign investments or a temporary boost in commodity prices. This growth might prove fleeting, leaving the economy vulnerable to external shocks.

GDP growth and per capita GDP, while important metrics, should be scrutinized with a discerning eye. Government claims of economic success should be analyzed in conjunction with broader socio-economic indicators, income distribution, and the sustainability of growth. True progress lies not merely in the expansion of figures but in the improvement of the lives of all citizens, ensuring that economic growth translates into inclusive prosperity and well-being.

---Another Essay

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) serves as a crucial indicator of a nation's economic health, measuring the total value of goods and services produced within its borders. Governments often boast about their achievements in increasing GDP, both in total and per capita terms. However, a closer examination reveals a more intricate reality. This essay delves into the nuances of GDP growth claims, exposes the potential deception in government narratives, and provides real-world examples to illuminate the distinction between GDP figures and actual economic well-being.

The Mirage of GDP Growth: When governments proudly proclaim substantial GDP growth, it does not necessarily imply a proportional improvement in the economic welfare of its citizens. GDP figures, while informative, need to be carefully scrutinized to understand their implications on the ground. A mere increase in GDP does not guarantee better living standards or increased prosperity for everyone.

Unraveling the Facade: To grasp the intricacies, let's consider the hypothetical case of Country A, where the government touts a 5% increase in total GDP over a year. However, beneath the surface, this growth could be driven by specific sectors or industries, benefiting only a small portion of the population. The per capita GDP may remain stagnant or even decrease, indicating that the average individual's economic situation has not improved.

Example 1: The Resource Boom: Country B is heavily reliant on natural resource exports. A surge in global demand for these resources leads to a significant boost in total GDP. The government proudly announces a 7% increase in GDP growth. However, this growth is skewed towards resource extraction, while other sectors like manufacturing or services remain stagnant. The average citizen might not experience tangible benefits, as job opportunities and wage growth in the resource sector do not automatically translate into improved living standards for all.

Example 2: Income Inequality: In Country C, a booming technology sector drives up GDP by 8%. The government showcases this as a remarkable achievement, highlighting the nation's competitiveness. Yet, this growth predominantly benefits high-skilled workers and shareholders of tech companies, exacerbating income inequality. The average worker's wages remain stagnant, and essential services like healthcare and education become more unaffordable for many citizens.

Deconstructing Government Claims: Governments often use GDP growth as a metric to showcase their economic management and policy success. However, this can lead to misconceptions among the public. People might assume that a higher GDP directly translates to an improved quality of life for everyone, which is not always the case. In both examples, while total GDP increased, the overall well-being of citizens did not experience a parallel enhancement.

Distinguishing between government claims of GDP growth and its actual impact on citizens' lives is essential for understanding the true state of an economy. A focus solely on higher GDP figures can mask disparities in income distribution, employment opportunities, and overall quality of life. Citizens should critically analyze the economic landscape and recognize that true prosperity stems from equitable growth that benefits all segments of society. By doing so, individuals can make informed decisions, advocate for inclusive policies, and contribute to shaping a more balanced and just economic future.

---Another essay

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) serves as a barometer of a nation's economic health, but its interpretation can be far from straightforward. Governments often celebrate increases in total GDP and per capita GDP as signs of prosperity and progress. However, a closer examination reveals a more nuanced reality. This essay delves into the intricacies of GDP growth claims, exposes the potential deception behind these figures, and illustrates the difference between economic growth on paper and its real-world implications.

GDP Growth Claims: The Mirage: Governments frequently trumpet their success in achieving high GDP growth rates, portraying them as indicators of robust economic advancement. However, an important distinction must be made between the growth in GDP and the actual well-being of the populace. Just as a tall tree does not guarantee a bountiful harvest, impressive GDP growth figures may not always translate into improved living standards for citizens.

Understanding GDP Growth: To elucidate this point, let's consider a hypothetical scenario involving two countries: Country A and Country B. Both countries experienced a 5% increase in GDP over a year.

Country A's GDP: Year 1 GDP = $1 trillion Year 2 GDP = $1.05 trillion GDP growth = ($1.05 trillion - $1 trillion) / $1 trillion * 100% = 5%

Country B's GDP: Year 1 GDP = $100 billion Year 2 GDP = $105 billion GDP growth = ($105 billion - $100 billion) / $100 billion * 100% = 5%

While both countries achieved the same GDP growth rate, the absolute size of their economies differs significantly. Country A's economy is ten times larger than that of Country B, yet the GDP growth percentage is identical. This example illustrates how GDP growth rates alone can be deceptive, as they do not account for the disparities in economic scale.

Per Capita GDP: The Illusion of Prosperity: Governments often boast about increasing per capita GDP, emphasizing higher income levels for citizens. However, per capita GDP can mask inequalities and fail to capture the distribution of wealth within a country.

Consider two cities within the same country: City X and City Y.

City X: Population = 1 million GDP = $500 million Per Capita GDP = $500 million / 1 million = $500

City Y: Population = 100,000 GDP = $150 million Per Capita GDP = $150 million / 100,000 = $1,500

While City Y boasts a higher per capita GDP, indicating greater prosperity on the surface, it may still harbor pockets of poverty and income inequality that the average figure fails to capture.

Real-World Examples:

1. China's Economic Growth: China's remarkable GDP growth over the past few decades has been celebrated globally. However, this growth has come at the cost of environmental degradation and widening income inequality, challenging the notion of unqualified success.

2. Middle East Oil Economies: Countries heavily reliant on oil exports may experience significant GDP growth during periods of high oil prices. However, this growth can be unsustainable and vulnerable to fluctuations in global oil markets.

Governments' emphasis on GDP growth and per capita GDP as measures of success can be misleading without considering the broader context. While these figures offer insights into economic activity, they do not necessarily reflect the well-being and quality of life of citizens. The real impact of economic growth lies in its ability to translate into tangible benefits for the entire population, addressing inequalities, providing meaningful employment, and ensuring sustainable development. As informed citizens, it is crucial to look beyond the surface numbers and critically assess the true implications of government claims on economic growth.

Why are the rich world’s politicians giving up on economic growth?

 Even when they say they want more prosperity, they act as if they don’t writes The Economist

Dec 14th 2022

The prospect of recession might loom over the global economy today, but the rich world’s difficulties over growth are graver still. The long-run rate of growth has dwindled alarmingly, contributing to problems including stagnant living standards and fulminating populists. Between 1980 and 2000, gdp per person grew at an annual rate of 2.25% on average. Since then the pace of growth has sunk to about 1.1%.

Although much of the slowdown reflects immutable forces such as ageing, some of it can be reversed. The problem is that reviving growth has slid perilously down politicians’ to-do lists. Their election manifestos are less focused on growth than before, and their appetite for reform has vanished.

The latter half of the 20th century was a golden age for growth. After the second world war a baby boom produced a cohort of workers who were better educated than any previous generation and who boosted average productivity as they gained experience. In the 1970s and 1980s women in many rich countries flocked into the workforce. 

The lowering of trade barriers and the integration of Asia into the world economy later led to much more efficient production. Life got better. In 1950 nearly a third of American households were without flush toilets. By 2000 most had at least two cars.

Many of those growth-boosting trends have since stalled or gone into reverse. The skills of the labour force have stopped improving as fast. Ever more workers are retiring, women’s labour-force participation has flattened off and little more is to be gained by expanding basic education. As consumers have become richer, they have spent more of their income on services, for which productivity gains are harder to come by. Sectors like transport, education and construction look much as they did two decades ago. Others, such as university education, housing and health care, are lumbered with red tape and rent-seeking.

Ageing has not just hurt growth directly, it has also made electorates less bothered about gdp. Growth most benefits workers with a career ahead of them, not pensioners on fixed incomes. Our analysis of political manifestos shows that the anti-growth sentiment they contain has surged by about 60% since the 1980s. Welfare states have become focused on providing the elderly with pensions and health care rather than investing in growth-boosting infrastructure or the development of young children. Support for growth-enhancing reforms has withered.

Moreover, even when politicians say they want growth, they act as if they don’t. The twin problems of structural change and political decay are especially apparent in Britain, which since 2007 has managed annual growth in gdp per person averaging just 0.4%. Its failure to build enough houses in its prosperous south-east has hampered productivity, and its exit from the European Union has damaged trade and scared off investment. In September Liz Truss became prime minister by promising to boost growth with deficit-financed tax cuts, but succeeded only in sparking a financial crisis.

Ms Truss fits a broader pattern of failure. President Donald Trump promised 4% annual growth but hindered long-term prosperity by undermining the global trading system. America’s government introduced 12,000 new regulations last year alone. Today’s leaders are the most statist in many decades, and seem to believe that industrial policy, protectionism and bail-outs are the route to economic success. That is partly because of a misguided belief that liberal capitalism or free trade is to blame for the growth slowdown. Sometimes this belief is exacerbated by the fallacy that growth cannot be green.

In fact, demographic decline means that liberal, growth-boosting reforms are more vital than ever. These will not restore the heady rates of the late 20th century. But embracing free trade, loosening building rules, reforming immigration regimes and making tax systems friendly to business investment may add half a percentage point or so to annual per-person growth. That will not put voters in raptures, but today’s growth is so low that every bit of progress matters—and in time will add up to much greater economic strength.

For the time being the West is being made to look good by autocratic China and Russia, which have both inflicted deep economic wounds on themselves. Yet unless they embrace growth, rich democracies will see their economic vitality ebb away and will become weaker on the world stage. Once you start thinking about growth, wrote Robert Lucas, a Nobel-prizewinning economist, “it is hard to think about anything else”. If only governments would take that first step.

Welcome to the era of the bossy state

The relationship between governments and businesses is always changing. After 1945, many countries sought to rebuild society using firms that were state-owned and -managed. By the 1980s, faced with sclerosis in the West, the state retreated to become an umpire overseeing the rules for private firms to compete in a global market—a lesson learned, in a fashion, by the communist bloc. Now a new and turbulent phase is under way, as citizens demand action on problems, from social justice to the climate. In response, governments are directing firms to make society safer and fairer, but without controlling their shares or their boards. Instead of being the owner or umpire, the state has become the backseat driver. This bossy business interventionism is well-intentioned. But, ultimately, it is a mistake.
 
Signs of this approach are everywhere, as our special report explains. President Joe Biden is pursuing an agenda of soft protectionism, industrial subsidies and righteous regulation, aimed at making the home of free markets safe for the middle classes. In China Xi Jinping’s “Common Prosperity” crackdown is designed to curb the excesses of its freewheeling boom, and create a business scene that is more self-sufficient, tame and obedient. The European Union is drifting away from free markets to embrace industrial policy and “strategic autonomy”. As the biggest economies pivot, so do medium-sized ones such as Britain, India and Mexico. Crucially, in most democracies, the lure of intervention is bipartisan. Few politicians fancy fighting an election on a platform of open borders and free markets.

That is because many citizens fear that markets and their umpires are not up to the job. The financial crisis and slow recovery amplified anger about inequality. Other concerns are more recent. The world’s ten biggest tech companies are over twice as big as they were five years ago and sometimes seem to behave as if they are above the law. The geopolitical backdrop is a far cry from the 1990s, when the expansion of trade and democracy promised to go hand in hand, and from the cold war when the West and the Soviet Union had few business links. Now the West and totalitarian China are rivals but economically intertwined. Gummed-up supply chains are causing inflation, reinforcing the perception that globalisation is overextended. And climate change is an ever more pressing threat.

Governments are redesigning global capitalism to deal with these fears. But few politicians or voters want to go back to full-scale nationalisation. Not even Mr Xi is keen to reconstruct an empire of iron and steel plants run by chain-smoking commissars, while Mr Biden, despite his nostalgia for the 1960s, need only walk through America’s clogged West Coast ports to recall that public ownership can be shambolic. At the same time the pandemic has seen governments experiment with new policies that were unimaginable in December 2019, from perhaps $5trn or more of handouts and guarantees for firms to indicative guidance on optimal spacing of customers in shopping aisles.

This opening of the interventionist mind is coalescing around policies that fall short of ownership. One set of measures claims to enhance security, broadly defined. The class of industries in which government direction is legitimate on security grounds has expanded beyond defence to include energy and technology. In these areas governments are acting as de facto central planners, with research and development (r&d) spending to foster indigenous innovation and subsidies to redirect capital spending. In semiconductors America has proposed a $52bn subsidy scheme, one reason why Intel’s investment is forecast to double compared with five years ago. China is seeking self-sufficiency in semiconductors and Europe in batteries.

The definition of what is seen as strategic may well expand further to include vaccines, medical ingredients and minerals, for example. In the name of security, most big countries have tightened rules that screen incoming foreign investment. America’s mesh of punitive sanctions and technology export controls encompasses thousands of foreign individuals and firms.

The other set of measures aims to enhance stakeholderism. Shareholders and consumers no longer have uncontested primacy in the hierarchy of groups that firms serve. Managers must weigh the welfare of other constituents more heavily, including staff, suppliers and even competitors. The most visible part of this is voluntary, in the form of “esg” investing codes that score firms for, say, protecting biodiversity, local people or their own workers. But these wider obligations may become harder for firms to avoid. In China Alibaba has pledged a $15bn “donation” to the Common Prosperity cause. In the West stakeholderism may be enforced through the bureaucracy. Central banks and public pension funds may shun the securities of firms judged to be anti-social. America’s antitrust agency, which once safeguarded consumers alone, is mulling other aims such as helping small firms.

The ambition to confront economic and social problems is admirable. And so far, outside China at least, bossier government has not hurt business confidence. America’s main stockmarket index is over 40% higher than it was before the pandemic, while capital spending by the world’s largest 500-odd listed firms is up by 11%. Yet, in the longer term, three dangers loom.
High stakes

The first is that the state and business, faced by conflicting aims, will fail to find the best trade-offs. A fossil-fuel firm obliged to preserve good labour relations and jobs may be reluctant to shrink, hurting the climate. An antitrust policy that helps hundreds of thousands of small suppliers will hurt tens of millions of consumers who will end up paying higher prices. Boycotting China for its human-rights abuses might deprive the West of cheap supplies of solar technologies. Businesses and regulators focused on a single sector are often ill-equipped to cope with these dilemmas, and lack the democratic legitimacy to do so.

Diminished efficiency and innovation is the second danger. Duplicating global supply chains is extraordinarily expensive: multinational firms have $41trn of cross-border investments. More pernicious in the long run is a weakening of competition. Firms that gorge on subsidies become flabby, whereas those that are protected from foreign competition are more likely to treat customers shabbily. If you want to rein in Facebook, the most credible challenger is TikTok, from China. An economy in which politicians and big business manage the flow of subsidies according to orthodox thinking is not one in which entrepreneurs flourish.

The last problem is cronyism, which ends up contaminating business and politics alike. Firms seek advantage by attempting to manipulate government: already in America the boundary is blurred, with more corporate meddling in the electoral process. Meanwhile politicians and officials end up favouring particular firms, having sunk money and their hopes into them. The urge to intervene to soften every shock is habit-forming. In the past six weeks Britain, Germany and India have spent $7bn propping up two energy firms and a telecoms operator whose problems have nothing to do with the pandemic.

This newspaper believes that the state should intervene to make markets work better, through, for example, carbon taxes to shift capital towards climate-friendly technologies; r&d to fund science that firms will not; and a benefits system that protects workers and the poor. But the new style of bossy government goes far beyond this. Its adherents hope for prosperity, fairness and security. They are more likely to end up with inefficiency, vested interests and insularity.

Defining productivity in a pandemic may teach us a lesson

How should we measure the contribution of a teacher or a health worker during this crisis asks  DIANE COYLE in The FT 

One “P” word has been dominating economic policy discussions for some time now: not “pandemic”, but “productivity”. Now that coronavirus has dealt an unprecedented blow to economies everywhere, policymakers are asking how it will affect productivity at a national level. 

The long-term effects of Covid-19 are unknown — they depend on the length of time for which economic activity will have to be suspended. The longer lockdowns last, the greater the hit to output growth and increasing unemployment. 

Productivity — the output the economy gains for the resources and effort it expends — matters because it is what drives improvements in living standards: better health; longer lives; greater comfort. Investment, innovation and skills are the key ingredients, though the recipe is still a mystery.  

In the UK, the pandemic will certainly cause a short-term fall in private-sector productivity. This is not only because many people are unwell or struggling to work at home around children and pets, but also because of a sharp decline in output. Employment is falling too, but many businesses are keeping workers on their books so labour input will not decline by as much. In general, productivity falls when output falls. 

In the public sector, measuring productivity is hard. For services such as health and education, the Office for National Statistics looks at both activity and quality — such as the number of pupils and their exam grades, or the number of operations and health outcomes. But, at the best of times, these measures depend on other factors. 

How should we think of the productivity of a teacher preparing lessons for online delivery, with all the challenges that involves, and what will be the effect on pupils’ attainment? It is easy to think of new measures, such as the number of online lessons delivered, but hard to imagine pupil outcomes not suffering. 

As for medical staff, who would argue their productivity has not rocketed in recent weeks? But for many patients the outcomes that are measured will sadly be tragic. The biggest “productivity” boost may come from a new vaccine. 

Public investment in infrastructure or green technologies will ultimately help productivity, but financial pain may force businesses to retrench. Business investment in the UK has been sluggish anyway, falling in 2018 and rising just 0.6 per cent in 2019. It is hard to foresee anything other than a big fall from the £50m-or-so-a-quarter last year. 

Will supply chains unravel? The division of labour and specialisation that comes with outsourcing has driven gains in manufacturing productivity since the 1980s, but it depends on frictionless logistics and freight. Keeping that system going through lockdowns will take significant international co-ordination, which seems unlikely. 

Some recent work suggests that even quite small shocks can cause networks to fall apart. This one will reverberate as waves of contagion hit countries at varying times. One res­ponse would be for importing companies to diversify supply chains. A less benign one — in productivity terms — would be a shift to reshoring production at home. 

The pandemic and its aftermath will raise profound questions. Productivity involves a more-for-less (or, at least, more-for-the-same) mindset — hence the just-in-time systems and tight logistics operations. Companies may rethink the need for buffers as economic insurance. Inventories could rise, increasing business costs. Suppliers closer to home could be found, again at higher cost. 

Perhaps the definition of economic wellbeing will also change. Conventional economic output matters, as people now losing their incomes know all too well. But so do social support networks and fair access to services. Without them, everyone is more vulnerable. Prosperity is more than productivity.

UK GDP - The measurement that holds economic statistics back from reality

Diane Coyle in The FT


It is faintly surprising that one of the liveliest areas of economics these days is the question of measurement, and what relation published statistics bear to what is happening in the economy. Statistics do not usually inspire excitement. 

This attention reflects the convergence of two strands of scepticism about the existing statistics, and in particular gross domestic product. One is the “productivity puzzle” and to what extent the mis-measurement of digital phenomena helps explain the slow rate of productivity growth. The other is the longstanding critique of GDP as a meaningful measure of progress, for reasons of environmental sustainability or other contributors to society’s wellbeing. 

The two converge on the distinction between the aggregate amount of marketed economic activity and total economic welfare. The conventional statement about GDP is that it is only meant to count the former, not the latter. GDP does not capture environmental factors or consider income distribution. But as long as that gap has been roughly constant, GDP growth has been a good enough measure of improvement in economic welfare. 

Perhaps the wedge between total marketed economic activity and welfare is increasing because of the pace of technological change, but statistics have never captured the human gains from advances in periods of innovation, whether in medicines or the internet. 

This case for the defence of GDP is fundamentally weak, however. It in fact includes many non-marketed activities, yet excludes other productive activity. Business and government count as “the economy” but voluntary and household activities do not. 

Postwar social changes — a rising proportion of women working outside the home, and the increased purchases of prepared foods, professional childcare, domestic appliances and so on — have flattered the official productivity statistics for decades. 

More subtly, the statistics blur the distinction between marketed economic activity and increases in economic welfare that cannot be priced by converting nominal GDP into “real” terms. 

Economists and statisticians are beginning to accept that our framework for economic statistics needs to change. Some argue for developing better “satellite” accounts, where all the interesting data about the environment or the household are collated. But why should all the pressing questions be satellites? 

GDP could certainly be improved. In one of the joint winners of the Indigo Prize essay competition, a team led by Carol Corrado and Jonathan Haskel, proposed better measurement of services and intangibles, and direct measurement of the economic welfare being created by digital goods. The other winning essay — which I co-authored with Benjamin Mitra-Kahn — proposed similar incremental changes as an interim step. 

We opted for better measurement of intangibles, adjusting for the distribution of income, and removing unproductive financial activity. The long-term recommendation was more radical: ditching GDP as the metric of progress in favour of measures of access to different kinds of assets, including financial wealth but also natural capital, intangible assets, infrastructure and human and social capital. 

This was inspired by Amartya Sen’s idea that prosperity consists in people having the capabilities needed to lead the life they would find meaningful; and by the need to get away from measuring economic progress only through the short-term flow of activity. There is no sustainability without a balance sheet. 

Perhaps neither the incremental nor the radical is the right approach. Reform will take time because there needs to be consensus about how to change; statistical standards are like technical standards. But I am now confident that in another 10 or 20 years GDP will have been dethroned.

There is a plan: Brexit means good riddance to austerity

John Redwood in The Guardian

As we leave the EU, the UK can turn its back on the austerity policies that have been the hallmark of the euro area. My main argument against staying in the EU has been the poor economic record of the EU as a whole, and the eurozone in particular. The performance has got worse the more the EU has developed joint policies and central controls.

Housing gets £4bn boost to increase number of new homes


The UK public warmed to the idea of spending our own money on our own priorities in the referendum campaign. The main issue between leave and remain was the money. Remain tried to dismiss its importance by claiming there was in practice little money at stake, and disagreed strongly with any reference to the gross figure for UK contributions.

The public did not take away one particular figure from the debate, but did believe that we contributed substantial money that it would be useful to spend at home. Cancelling the contributions would also make an important reduction in our large balance of payments deficit, as every penny we send and do not get back swells the deficit, just as surely as if we bought another import.

During the campaign I released a draft post-Brexit budget, showing how we could scrap VAT on domestic fuel, tampons and green products, and boost spending substantially on the NHS.

The government will be able to choose what to do once we have stopped the payments. The autumn statement showed a saving of a net contribution of £11.6bn in 2019-20 once we are out of the EU, as well as additional domestic spending in place of spending in the UK by the EU currently.

I am glad the chancellor has also adopted more flexible rules for the budget deficit. There is no need to genuflect to the Maastricht debt and deficit criteria once we leave, nor to pretend that we are about to get our overall debt down to 60% of GDP, as is required by those rules. The UK economy needs further stimulus, as the autumn statement acknowledged. There are roads and railway lines to be built, new power stations to be added, more water storage, schools and hospitals to cater for the rising population.

The government is right to say the UK needs to invest more. We need to make new provision for all the additional people who have joined the country in recent years, and to improve the efficiency of our infrastructure. The country is well behind in meeting demand for train and road capacity, and in energy provision.

The UK also needs to make, grow and provide more for its own needs. Leaving the EU will enable the UK to undertake a major campaign for import substitution. When we have our own fishing policy we could move back to being net exporters, instead of being importers. The common fisheries policy means too much of our fish is taken by other member states, leaving us short for our own needs. Designing our own agriculture policy will mean we can put behind us the quotas and regulations that have held back UK output during our years in the EU. We can change our procurement rules, so that the government when spending taxpayers’ money can ensure more is bought from home suppliers.


Why do we have a balance of payments surplus with the rest of the world but a deficit with our EU neighbours?

The UK is embarking on a substantial expansion of housebuilding. Too many materials and components for our new homes are imported. The lower level of sterling provides an opportunity for the UK to put in more brick, block and tile capacity, to prefabricate and manufacture more of the components and systems a new home needs. If more of the home is fabricated off-site – as happens in Germany and Scandinavia – we reduce the impact of bad weather, of labour shortages and other inefficiencies on the building site. Industry by industry there are opportunities for suitable investment and entrepreneurial activity, to meet more of the UK’s own demands. This will be good for jobs, and better for the environment, when more is produced close to the place of consumption.

One of the great unanswered questions of our time in the EU is: why do we run a balance of payments surplus with the rest of the world but a deficit with our EU neighbours? Why has it been so large and so persistent? Part of the reason rests in the way the EU rules were organised.

Early liberalisation was designed to help the sectors the continent was best at, rather than the sectors where the UK had a relative advantage. The continental competitors soon outpaced us in their better areas, leading to UK factory closures and job losses in areas like shipbuilding steel production and cars in the early years of membership. The special designs of the common agricultural and fishing policies also led to larger import bills for us.

Leaving the EU has coincided, so far, with a fall in the value of the pound. The UK should now be very competitive. It is time for business to respond to the favourable levels of domestic demand, and to work with government to put in the extra capacity we need to meet more of our own requirements. Prosperity, not austerity, should be the watchword.