Economics Explained: Assumptions and Economic Models

An assumption, in the context of economic models, refers to a simplifying belief or proposition about the behaviour of individuals, firms, or the overall economic system. These assumptions are necessary because economic models attempt to capture the complexity of real-world phenomena and make them more understandable and analysable.

Assumptions serve as building blocks for economic models, providing a foundation upon which the analysis can be conducted. They help economists create a framework that abstracts away unnecessary details and focuses on key variables and relationships of interest. By making assumptions, economists can isolate specific factors and explore their impact on economic outcomes.

For example, when constructing a model to analyse consumer behaviour, economists may assume that individuals are rational decision-makers who seek to maximise their personal satisfaction or utility. While this assumption may not accurately capture every aspect of real-world consumer behaviour, it simplifies the decision-making process and allows economists to predict how individuals might respond to changes in prices, incomes, or other factors.

Similarly, in the study of market dynamics, economists often assume perfect competition, which assumes a large number of buyers and sellers, identical products, and perfect information. Although perfect competition is rarely found in reality, this assumption enables economists to study market equilibrium, price determination, and the effects of various policy interventions in a more manageable way.

Assumptions in economic models also often employ the ceteris paribus principle, which means "all else equal." This principle assumes that while analysing the relationship between two variables, all other factors remain constant. This allows economists to focus on the specific relationship of interest without getting entangled in the complexities of simultaneous changes in multiple factors.

It is important to note that assumptions are simplifications and abstractions, and they may not always perfectly reflect reality. However, they serve a crucial role in economic modelling by making the analysis feasible, highlighting key relationships, and providing initial insights into economic behaviour and outcomes. While assumptions are necessary, it is also important for economists to continuously test and refine them based on empirical evidence to improve the accuracy and reliability of economic models.

Assumptions and simplifications in mathematical economic models can introduce potential biases and limitations in several ways:

1. Inaccurate representation of reality: Economic models are abstractions that aim to simplify the complex real world. However, by making assumptions and simplifications, models may fail to capture the full complexity and nuances of economic phenomena. These simplifications can lead to a mismatch between the model's assumptions and the actual behaviour of individuals, firms, or markets, potentially introducing biases in the model's predictions.

2. Omission of relevant variables: Economic models often involve simplifications that exclude certain variables or factors that may be important in real-world situations. This exclusion can limit the model's ability to provide a comprehensive understanding of the economic system under study. The omission of relevant variables can result in biased or incomplete analysis, as important drivers of economic behaviour or outcomes may be neglected.

3. Assumptions about individual behaviour: Many economic models rely on assumptions about the behaviour of individuals, such as the assumption of rationality or self-interest. However, these assumptions may not always hold true in reality. Individuals may exhibit bounded rationality, have imperfect information, or behave altruistically, which can deviate from the assumptions made in economic models. Such deviations can lead to biased predictions or inaccurate representations of real-world phenomena.

4. Simplified market structures: Economic models often assume simplified market structures, such as perfect competition, monopoly, or oligopoly. While these assumptions provide a useful framework for analysis, they may not reflect the complexities of actual markets. Real-world markets can exhibit various degrees of competition, market power, and imperfect information, which can introduce biases when using simplified market structures in economic models.

5. Linear relationships: Many economic models assume linear relationships between variables for simplicity and tractability. However, in reality, relationships between variables may be nonlinear or exhibit diminishing returns. Assuming linearity can introduce biases in predictions or policy recommendations, as it may not accurately capture the actual dynamics and interactions among variables.

6. Limited scope of analysis: Economic models often focus on specific aspects or sectors of the economy, neglecting interdependencies and feedback effects. This limited scope can introduce biases by overlooking broader systemic effects or failing to capture the full consequences of policy interventions. It is important to recognise that economic systems are complex and interconnected, and simplifications in models can restrict the understanding of these interconnections.

To mitigate these limitations and biases, economists employ various techniques, such as sensitivity analysis, robustness checks, and empirical validation, to test the assumptions and evaluate the robustness of model predictions. Additionally, economists strive to develop more realistic and nuanced models by incorporating more accurate assumptions, relaxing unrealistic assumptions, or adopting alternative modelling approaches to address the limitations and biases introduced by simplifications.

Principles of Economics Translated by Yoram Bauman

Economics Explained: Budget Deficits, Internal and External Debt

 Budget deficits, internal debt, and external debt are interconnected concepts that reflect the financial situation of a country. Here's an explanation of their links:

1. Budget Deficits: A budget deficit occurs when a government's spending exceeds its revenue in a given period, typically a fiscal year. The deficit represents the amount of money the government needs to borrow to cover its expenses. It can arise due to various factors such as increased government spending, decreased tax revenue, or economic downturns.

2. Internal Debt: Internal debt refers to the government's debt owed to its own citizens, institutions, and organisations within the country. It is also known as domestic debt. Governments issue bonds, treasury bills, and other securities to borrow money from domestic sources, including individuals, banks, pension funds, and other financial institutions. The funds borrowed through internal debt are used to finance budget deficits or other government expenditures.

The link between budget deficits and internal debt is that when a government runs a budget deficit, it needs to borrow money to cover the shortfall. This borrowing can be from domestic sources through the issuance of government securities, thus increasing the internal debt.

3. External Debt: External debt, also known as foreign debt, is the debt owed by a country to foreign creditors or entities outside its borders. It arises when a government borrows funds from foreign governments, international organisations, banks, or private investors. External debt can be in the form of loans, bonds, or other financial instruments denominated in foreign currencies.

The link between budget deficits and external debt is that if a government cannot cover its budget deficit with domestic borrowing alone, it may resort to borrowing from external sources to finance the shortfall. This can lead to an increase in the country's external debt.

Furthermore, budget deficits can impact both internal and external debt in the following ways:

a) Increased Borrowing: A persistent budget deficit requires the government to borrow continuously to cover its expenses. This leads to an accumulation of both internal and external debt over time.

b) Debt Servicing: As the government incurs more debt, it must allocate a portion of its future budget to service the interest payments and principal repayments on that debt. This diverts funds away from other important expenditures, such as public services or infrastructure development.

c) Investor Confidence: Large budget deficits and growing debt levels can raise concerns among investors, both domestic and foreign. If investors become worried about a government's ability to repay its debts, they may demand higher interest rates on loans or refuse to lend altogether. This can further exacerbate the debt burden and strain the country's finances.

In summary, budget deficits contribute to the accumulation of both internal and external debt as governments borrow to cover their spending gaps. Managing these debts is crucial to maintain fiscal stability, as excessive debt levels can lead to financial challenges and affect a country's economic prospects.

---

Large budget deficits refer to substantial gaps between a government's expenditures and its revenue. It implies that the government is spending significantly more than it is earning. The magnitude of a budget deficit is typically measured as a percentage of a country's gross domestic product (GDP). For example, if a government's expenditures exceed its revenue by 5% of GDP, it would be considered a large budget deficit.

Growing debt levels, in this context, refer to the increase in the total amount of debt owed by a government over time. It indicates that the government's borrowing is outpacing its ability to repay or manage its existing debt obligations. The growth of debt can be measured in absolute terms, such as the total debt amount, or as a percentage of GDP, known as the debt-to-GDP ratio.

The determination of budget deficits and debt levels is typically done by the respective country's government and its fiscal authorities. Governments formulate budgets that outline their planned expenditures and revenue sources for a given period, usually a fiscal year. Actual deficits arise when the realised expenditures exceed the realised revenue.

Governments often publish fiscal reports and financial statements that provide information on their budget deficits and debt levels. These reports are prepared by national statistical agencies, finance ministries, central banks, or other relevant institutions. International organisations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and rating agencies also assess and monitor the fiscal situations of countries.

It's important to note that the implications of budget deficits and debt levels can vary across countries. Different countries have varying economic conditions, fiscal policies, and borrowing capacities, which influence their ability to manage deficits and debts. Countries with strong economies, diversified revenue sources, and well-managed fiscal policies may be able to sustain larger deficits and higher debt levels without significant negative consequences. However, for countries with weaker economic fundamentals or structural imbalances, large deficits and growing debt levels can pose significant challenges and risks to their financial stability, economic growth, and investor confidence.

---

Let's define and explain the terms "strong economies," "diversified revenue sources," "well-managed fiscal policies," and how they relate to sustaining larger deficits and high debt:

1. Strong economies: A strong economy generally refers to a country's ability to generate sustained and robust economic growth. Indicators of a strong economy include factors like high GDP growth rates, low unemployment rates, stable inflation, productive industries, and a well-functioning financial system. A strong economy implies that the country has the capacity to generate sufficient income and resources to support its spending commitments, including the servicing of its debt.

2. Diversified revenue sources: Diversified revenue sources mean that a country's income streams come from a wide range of sectors and activities, reducing reliance on a single source. A diversified revenue base makes a country less vulnerable to economic shocks or fluctuations in specific industries. It can include various sources such as taxes (e.g., income tax, corporate tax), tariffs, natural resource revenues, fees, and other forms of income generation. A diverse revenue base enhances a government's ability to generate revenue even during challenging economic conditions.

3. Well-managed fiscal policies: Well-managed fiscal policies refer to prudent and effective management of a country's public finances. It involves adopting appropriate strategies for revenue collection, expenditure allocation, and debt management. Key elements of well-managed fiscal policies include:

   a) Revenue management: Implementing efficient and fair tax systems, minimising tax evasion, broadening the tax base, and optimising revenue collection.

   b) Expenditure management: Prioritising spending on essential public services, infrastructure, education, healthcare, and social welfare, while ensuring efficiency, transparency, and accountability in expenditure allocation.

   c) Debt management: Developing and implementing a sound debt management strategy, including assessing borrowing needs, monitoring debt levels, managing interest rate risks, diversifying sources of borrowing, and ensuring timely debt repayments.

Sustaining larger deficits and high debt levels with well-managed fiscal policies is possible in certain situations. When countries with strong economies and diversified revenue sources implement effective fiscal policies, they can create a favourable environment to manage higher levels of debt. Here's how it can work:

a) Economic Growth and Debt Sustainability: Strong economies often have higher growth rates, which can generate increased tax revenues and expand the overall revenue base. This revenue growth, coupled with effective fiscal management, can help countries sustain larger deficits and manage higher debt levels without jeopardising debt sustainability.

b) Investor Confidence: Well-managed fiscal policies enhance investor confidence by demonstrating a government's commitment to responsible financial management. This confidence can result in lower borrowing costs, as investors perceive the country as less risky. Lower borrowing costs can offset the impact of higher debt levels and make it more manageable for countries to service their debts.

c) Structural Factors: Some countries, especially those with structural trade imbalances or external surpluses, may have the capacity to accumulate higher levels of external debt without facing immediate financial strains. These countries can utilise their external surpluses or trade positions to finance deficits and service debt obligations.

It's important to note that sustaining larger deficits and high debt levels requires a delicate balance. Even for countries with strong economies and well-managed fiscal policies, there are limits to debt sustainability. Oversized deficits and rapidly increasing debt levels can undermine economic stability, increase borrowing costs, and limit the government's ability to respond to future challenges. Prudent fiscal management involves striking a balance between necessary borrowing to support economic growth and avoiding excessive debt burdens that can pose long-term risks.

---

Quantifying the explanation of sustaining larger deficits and high debt levels with well-managed fiscal policies is complex and can vary based on country-specific factors. However, I can provide some general principles and benchmarks:

1. Debt-to-GDP Ratio: The debt-to-GDP ratio is a commonly used indicator to assess a country's debt sustainability. It measures the total debt (both internal and external) as a percentage of the country's GDP. While there is no universally agreed-upon threshold, many economists suggest that a debt-to-GDP ratio above 60-80% can raise concerns about long-term sustainability. However, countries with strong economies and sound fiscal policies may be able to sustain higher debt-to-GDP ratios without significant negative consequences. For example, Japan and some European countries have had debt-to-GDP ratios well above 100% for an extended period.

2. Primary Surplus/Deficit: Another aspect to consider is the primary surplus or deficit, which reflects the government's budget balance excluding interest payments on debt. Sustaining high debt levels generally requires maintaining a primary surplus (revenue exceeds non-interest expenditure) or a small primary deficit. This ensures that the government is generating enough revenue to cover its non-interest expenses and reduces reliance on additional borrowing to service existing debt.

3. Debt Service Costs: The affordability of debt service costs is crucial in assessing sustainability. It involves evaluating the percentage of government revenue allocated to servicing interest payments on the debt. Sustainable debt levels should allow governments to manage debt service costs without significantly compromising other essential expenditures. Generally, a threshold of around 15-20% of government revenue allocated to debt service is considered manageable, but this can vary depending on the country's circumstances.

4. Market Perception and Investor Confidence: The perception of investors and the market plays a vital role in sustaining high debt levels. If a country with well-managed fiscal policies maintains a favourable credit rating and enjoys market confidence, it can continue borrowing at relatively low interest rates. Lower borrowing costs mitigate the burden of servicing higher debt levels and provide some leeway for sustaining larger deficits.

It's important to note that these benchmarks are not fixed rules, and each country's situation is unique. Debt sustainability depends on a variety of factors, including economic growth prospects, fiscal discipline, demographic trends, external shocks, and market conditions. Therefore, it is crucial for governments to continually assess and adapt their fiscal policies to maintain a balance between debt sustainability and economic stability.

---

Governments across the political spectrum, whether conservative or progressive, may resort to borrowing to manage budget deficits. The approach to borrowing may vary based on the ideology and economic policies of a government, but the need to bridge the deficit remains a practical necessity.

While borrowing is a common avenue, governments have a few other options to finance their deficits:

1. Taxation: Governments can increase tax rates or broaden the tax base to generate additional revenue. However, significantly raising taxes can have economic implications and may not be politically feasible in certain situations.

2. Asset Sales: Governments can sell state-owned assets or enterprises to generate revenue. However, this option may have long-term implications and requires careful evaluation of the asset's value and potential impact on the economy.

3. Reserves and Surpluses: Governments can utilise accumulated reserves or budget surpluses from previous years to cover deficits. However, these reserves may be limited or earmarked for specific purposes, and relying solely on them may not be sustainable in the long run.

4. Money Creation: In certain cases, governments may resort to monetary measures, such as the central bank creating new money or conducting quantitative easing. However, these actions can have inflationary consequences and should be used judiciously.

It's important to strike a balance between borrowing and other avenues to ensure fiscal sustainability, economic stability, and prudent debt management. The choice of financing options depends on various factors, including economic conditions, policy priorities, and the government's capacity to repay debt in the future.

---

Money creation, also known as monetary financing or direct monetization of deficits, is a practice where a government or central bank creates new money to directly finance government spending or cover budget deficits. While it may appear as an attractive option for addressing budget deficits without relying on borrowing, there are several reasons why governments do not use it frequently or as a primary tool:

1. Inflationary Pressures: The primary concern with excessive money creation is its potential to lead to inflation. When the money supply increases rapidly without a corresponding increase in the production of goods and services, it can result in too much money chasing too few goods, driving up prices. Governments need to balance their spending with the productive capacity of the economy to avoid destabilizing inflationary pressures.

2. Loss of Central Bank Independence: Direct monetization blurs the lines between fiscal and monetary policy, potentially compromising the independence of the central bank. Central banks are typically tasked with maintaining price stability and pursuing monetary policy objectives, such as controlling inflation. Engaging in direct money creation can undermine their ability to fulfill these objectives and may erode market confidence in the central bank's credibility.

3. Market Confidence and Investor Perception: Reliance on money creation to finance deficits can raise concerns among investors and market participants about a government's commitment to fiscal discipline and its ability to manage inflationary risks. This can lead to higher borrowing costs, capital flight, currency depreciation, and diminished investor confidence, which can further exacerbate fiscal challenges.

4. Long-term Sustainability: While money creation can provide short-term relief, it does not address the underlying structural issues causing budget deficits. It can create a cycle of dependence on money creation to finance deficits, which can lead to a deteriorating fiscal situation and potential long-term economic instability.

5. Distortion of Resource Allocation: Money creation to finance deficits can lead to misallocation of resources. The injection of newly created money into the economy can distort price signals and incentivize unproductive investments or speculative activities, potentially hindering sustainable economic growth.

6. International Factors: The use of direct monetization can have implications for a country's international standing. Excessive money creation can erode the value of the currency, leading to exchange rate volatility and reduced credibility in global financial markets.

While money creation can be a tool in exceptional circumstances, such as in response to crises or during wartime, its regular use as a primary means of financing deficits is generally not considered prudent. Governments often rely on a combination of borrowing, taxation, and expenditure management to address budget deficits while maintaining fiscal discipline and long-term sustainability.

Economics Explained: Why do 'smart and educated' people display harming behaviour?

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Explain with examples this quote.

The quote mentioned is attributed to Upton Sinclair, an American writer and social reformer. It highlights the idea that people may be resistant to accepting certain truths or realities when it conflicts with their personal interests, particularly when it comes to their financial well-being.

Here are a few examples to help illustrate this concept:

Climate Change and Fossil Fuel Industry: The fossil fuel industry has a significant influence on the global economy, employing millions of people and generating substantial profits. However, the burning of fossil fuels is a major contributor to climate change. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence linking human activities to climate change, some individuals within the industry may deny or downplay the issue. Their salary and livelihood depend on the continued production and consumption of fossil fuels, so acknowledging the environmental consequences could jeopardize their financial interests.

Tobacco Industry and Health Risks: For decades, the tobacco industry engaged in efforts to downplay the health risks associated with smoking. Studies have consistently shown that smoking causes severe health problems, including cancer, heart disease, and respiratory issues. However, the tobacco industry funded research and disseminated misinformation to create doubt and prevent public awareness. Executives within the industry, whose salaries were tied to tobacco sales, had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo despite the harmful effects on public health.

Corporate Lobbying and Regulation: Various industries engage in lobbying activities to influence government policies and regulations that could impact their business operations. In some cases, this lobbying can lead to the blocking or dilution of regulations that would protect public health, safety, or the environment. Those employed by these industries often participate in lobbying efforts to protect their company's profits and job security, even if it means disregarding the potential negative consequences for society at large.

Conflict of Interest in Research: Researchers who receive funding from certain industries or organisations may face conflicts of interest that can bias their findings or interpretations. Pharmaceutical companies, for instance, may financially support clinical trials for their own drugs. In such cases, there is a risk that researchers may have a bias toward positive outcomes or downplay any adverse effects, as their salary or future research funding could be tied to the success of those drugs.

These examples demonstrate how financial incentives can create a cognitive bias that hinders individuals from fully understanding or accepting certain realities. When people's salaries or economic interests are directly linked to a particular outcome, they may be inclined to ignore or dismiss information that challenges their existing beliefs or threatens their financial stability.

---

In the context of the quote, "not understanding" does not imply a lack of intelligence or education. Rather, it refers to the act of consciously or subconsciously refusing to accept or acknowledge certain truths or realities due to personal interests or biases.

While individuals who fall into this category may indeed be highly educated and rational, their understanding may be clouded or biased by their financial dependence on a particular outcome. The quote suggests that people may be resistant to accepting information or evidence that contradicts their existing beliefs or challenges their financial interests, even if they possess the intellectual capacity to comprehend it.

In many cases, these individuals may be aware of the information or facts being presented to them, but their motivations or incentives prevent them from fully embracing or acknowledging the implications of that information. This can manifest as denial, scepticism, or selective interpretation of evidence to protect their financial interests or maintain the status quo.

It is important to note that the quote does not imply that every person in such a situation will exhibit this behaviour, nor does it suggest that all individuals with financial interests are incapable of understanding or accepting opposing viewpoints. Rather, it highlights a common tendency for some individuals to resist or downplay information that may threaten their financial well-being, regardless of their level of education or rationality.

---

Brand loyalty and religious beliefs can also fall into the category described in the quote. While they may not be directly tied to salaries, they can still involve deeply ingrained personal interests and biases that affect one's ability to understand or accept certain information.

Brand Loyalty: Brand loyalty refers to the tendency of consumers to consistently choose and support a particular brand over others. When individuals develop strong brand loyalty, they may become resistant to accepting or considering information that challenges their perception of the brand's superiority. This loyalty can be driven by emotional connections, personal experiences, or even social identity. Even when presented with evidence or information about better alternatives, individuals may continue to support their preferred brand due to the sense of identity, familiarity, or other psychological factors associated with it.

Religious Beliefs: Religious beliefs often form a significant part of a person's identity and worldview. People's religious beliefs can provide them with a sense of purpose, meaning, and moral framework. When faced with information or evidence that contradicts their religious beliefs, individuals may experience cognitive dissonance or resistance to accepting alternative perspectives. This can be particularly true when the information challenges core tenets or fundamental beliefs that are integral to their religious identity. As a result, individuals may be inclined to dismiss or rationalize conflicting information in order to maintain the coherence of their religious worldview.

In both cases, brand loyalty and religious beliefs can create cognitive biases that hinder individuals from fully understanding or accepting alternative viewpoints. The emotional, psychological, and social dimensions associated with these beliefs can strongly influence how individuals process and interpret information, leading to a resistance to accepting conflicting evidence or perspectives.

It is important to note that not all brand loyalists or religious individuals exhibit this behavior, and there are individuals who are open-minded and receptive to alternative viewpoints. However, for some individuals, brand loyalty and religious beliefs can become factors that influence their ability to objectively assess information or consider perspectives that contradict their established loyalties or deeply held beliefs.

There is nothing Constant in Common Sense - After Feudalism & Slavery, Minority Capitalism may be on its Last Legs

 

Britain is the Dorian Gray economy, hiding its ugly truths from the world. Now they are exposed

From Tony Blair to George Osborne, our rulers painted false pictures of success while real wealth and wages withered away writes Aditya Chakrabortty in The Guardian 

You know the central conceit of Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray, of course you do. A lad of sun-kissed beauty is presented with a stunning likeness of himself. Disturbed at the notion that he will grow old while the painting doesn’t, he locks it away – where it is the portrait that ages and uglifies while Dorian stays boyish and beautiful. But perhaps you’ve forgotten what happens next.

The story has come to my mind many times, as the foulness of British politics becomes ever harder to ignore. Genteel liberals wonder how their land of cricket whites and orderly queues could be ruled by a grasping liar such as Boris Johnson and I hear a whisper on the wind: Dorian Gray. The New York Times and Der Spiegel report in bewilderment on a country with pockets of deep poverty and unslaked anger, and again rasps that hoarse voice: the horror was hidden here all along.

Now it’s all out in the open. In one of the richest societies in human history, inhabitants are starting to twig that by 2030 or thereabouts they will earn less per head than the Poles they so recently patronised. Whatever the politicians and pundits may argue, this debacle owes nothing to Jeremy Corbyn or Brexit or any supposedly un-British “populism”. It is homegrown and has deep roots.

Like Dorian Gray, Britain has for too long presented one face to the world while concealing the awful truth. The author of that novel, Oscar Wilde, was the son of an Irish nationalist and a graduate of Oxford, where he became a fine student of the British upper classes and their mellifluous hypocrisy. He would have recognised much of the mess we’re in, because it grew among shadows and cover-ups. From Tony Blair’s Cool Britannia through to George Osborne’s “march of the makers”, our rulers have trumpeted every false success, while ugly facts have been waved away as anomalies: from the former manufacturing suburbs and towns turned into giant warehouses of surplus people, to the fact that 15% of adults in England are on antidepressants. We’re winning the global race, claimed David Cameron, even as the population’s life expectancy fell far behind other rich countries. We shan’t stunt future generations with debt, he boasted, as our five-year-olds became the shortest in Europe.

Or take the housing bubble that politicians pretended was true prosperity – until this week, as the Bank of England hiked rates for the 13th time in a row and the prospect of it bursting began to terrify them. Yet the Westminster classes blew their hardest into that bubble. As soon as estate agents were out of lockdown, Rishi Sunak gave up £6bn of taxpayers’ money for a stamp duty holiday – an act as prudent as pouring petrol on a fire. Many of those he lured up the property ladder will be hardest hit by rising mortgage rates. Analysis done for me by UK Finance suggests that 465,000 house purchases during that tax break were financed with two- or three-year fixed rate mortgages – the very ones running out right now. In other words, nearly half a million households took the chancellor’s inducement; many will plunge into dangerous financial straits; some face losing their homes. They were mis-sold a dream by Sunak. Still, at least the Tories enjoyed a bounce in the polls.

Helmut Berger stars in the 1970 film adaptation of The Picture of Dorian Gray. Photograph: Sargon/Kobal/Rex/Shutterstock


“Sin is a thing that writes itself across a man’s face,” Dorian is told by his portraitist Basil Hallward. “If a wretched man has a vice, it shows itself in the lines of his mouth, the droop of his eyelids, the moulding of his hands even … But you, Dorian, with your pure, bright, innocent face and your marvellous untroubled youth – I can’t believe anything against you.” The picture of Dorian, which would have revealed the grotesque truth, is hidden away. So, too, has the UK avoided admitting its ills. Even now, in a country where patently so little works for people who rely on work for their income, commentators and frontbenchers still blame supposedly all-powerful interlopers: Boris, Nigel, Jeremy. And from Sunak to Starmer, all push growth and jobs as the remedy for what ails us.

Yet growth in this country is falling and not because of Ukraine or Covid or Brexit. Since the 1950s, the growth rate adjusted for inflation has been on a gentle but insistent downward slide. Our economy has become ever more stagnant and dependent on debt. It is fatuous to pretend this is going to turn around through magicking Britain into an AI free-for-all or a jolly green industrial giant. Employment? One in four employees are on low weekly wages – either because the pay is too low or the hours aren’t enough – while the average real wage has flatlined for many years.

Much of this analysis comes from a new book, When Nothing Works, written by a team of scholars. Although specialising in economics and accountancy, what they have produced is an essential text for understanding British government: the polarised politics of a highly unequal and increasingly stagnant society.

Take the issue at the top of today’s agenda: wages. Why can’t you and I take home more money? Because of a lack of productivity, politicians will say. Yet the researchers point to how labour has got a smaller and smaller share of economic output since the 1970s.

If the same share of GDP was paid out in wages today as in 1976, the average working-age household would have an extra £9,744 a year. We haven’t lost that 10 grand a year through laziness at work but because politicians from Thatcher onwards smashed up trade unions, undermined labour rights, and crowed over the result as a “flexible labour market”. What they really created was a low-wage workforce, in a low-growth country ruled by politicians with low ambitions for everyone bar themselves.

“The prayer of your pride has been answered,” Basil counsels Dorian, when he finally sees the portrait and its horrific truth. “The prayer of your repentance will be answered also.” When Nothing Works will inevitably be termed pessimistic, but it is no such thing. Realism comes from facing who we are and dropping the pretence that a growth miracle is just around the corner. Instead of trying to boost “the economy”, it is high time to boost our people: to ensure they have the basics they need to live a life free from indignity and free to flourish. This will come from redistribution rather than growth, from replacing extractive businesses with fair ones. Such ideas will not go down well in SW1, where both Tory and Labour are increasingly hostile to pluralism and brittle in their dogmatism. Self-knowledge is the hardest knowledge, as one of the book’s authors, Karel Williams, says. And self-delusion leads eventually to disaster.

Unable to face his loathsome self-image, Dorian slashes that portrait. He is found by servants. “Lying on the floor was a dead man, in evening dress, with a knife in his heart. He was withered, wrinkled and loathsome of visage. It was not till they examined the rings that they recognised who it was.”

Imran Khan Interview