7 thoughts on “Economic liberalisation and the growth agenda: actions speak louder than words”

  1. Posted 17/02/2011 at 19:55 | Permalink

    I agree with Philip Booth about regulations and economic liberalisation.
    But I think we have to upgrade introducing datevaluation as an investment’s substitute. It is about Googledepending and Obamadepending.
    Regards/FilipeAlvesFerreira#4(1942)

  2. Posted 17/02/2011 at 23:05 | Permalink

    Elsewhere in this website there is an article that criticises steady state economic ideas in a shallow and predictable way. This article supports the growth at any costs contention as if it were the only option.

    We live in a finite world and we humans as a species are likely in what ecologists call overshoot. I will define “overshoot” so that I can set the context for the balance of my letter. A species is in overshoot when its population, by consuming non-renewable resources or renewable resources faster than the replacement rate, increases its size beyond the long term carrying capacity of its environment. That definition definitely describes the human species. If you think otherwise you must either be stupid, ignorant or deluded. I don’t mean to be harsh or rude, but there aren’t any other choices.

    So how can growth persist indefinitely? Oil production has not increased since 2006 and is unlikely ever to exceed that years levels again (according to the IEA). Just to demolish any Economics 101 nonsense I want to make it clear that there are no substitutes for oil. If oil production has stopped growing; and certainly it looks that way, global economic growth is finished. Sure, there may be some growth somewhere for the odd month or quarter, but overall globally – growth is finished.

    For the UK the situation is particularly bleak. The country is broke and your free bonanza of North Sea Oil is in terminal decline after being squandered at low prices over the last 40 years. The UK is once again an oil importer and it is no accident that the pound has lost its petrodollar status.

    I also understand that the global credit system cannot work without growth. However I do not understand what structures we need put in place and how we should arrange our economies for us all to live as well as we can in a steady state; or contracting world. This site would do us all a great service if it began to publish some ideas and opinions on this topic. Opening the debate with some serious articles is overdue.

  3. Posted 18/02/2011 at 08:58 | Permalink

    SailDog – you call for opening the debate with some serious articles. I don’t think it helps that the first para of my piece repudiated strongly the growth rhetoric and then you argue that I want growth at any cost. Secondly, simply to call people who disagree with you deluded, ignorant etc is not the basis for any type of rational discussion. I call for liberalisation. I believe that will lead to growth. It might not. There might be factors that, in any era, will lead the economy to shrink but, I would argue (and I cannot go into the details here – but I am not stupid or deluded, I can assure you) a free economy based on the rule of law and well established property rights (including in environmental goods) wil resolve those problems better than any alternative. It will also lead to better environmental protection. Whether a country is producing its own oil or importing is, of course, irrelevant. If the world as a whole were to run out of oil quickly that would certainly be a problem. However, you simply avoid the most serious question – what is the form of economic organisation that allows that problem to be dealt with most effectively? In my view it is a free economy, private property rights and the price mechanism. Simply being rude about people you disagree with and posting a comment that knocks down a straw man gets us nowhere.

  4. Posted 18/02/2011 at 12:05 | Permalink

    Of course liberalisation lead to growth. For me that true is out of discussion. The problem is the number of economic degrees of liberty for our economic action. For me Classic Economy based on
    1. Consumption
    2. Savings
    3. Investment
    is not able to resolve the creation of added value which we need for our research of wellbeing.
    Thats why I’m trusting on the money datevaluation action as the first investment’s subtitute for the folks creation of added value.
    I’m defending datevaluation to get the Universocial Cash Economy on Googledepending basis for internet structure and on Obamadepending basis for regulation on Financial Reform Act.
    Regards/@Filipe27

  5. Posted 18/02/2011 at 16:22 | Permalink

    Dear Prof Booth – good luck with the agenda/campaign (?). Are you going to publish the analysis fully? If so – how? As a ‘briefing document’ or monograph. I hope so either way – some up-to-the-minute concrete proposals for supply-side liberalisation would be most welcome I think. It would focus people’s minds on what could be done rather than the rather depressing thought of thinking about what should be done!

  6. Posted 18/02/2011 at 16:50 | Permalink

    Whig – we plan to produce a big book on cutting public spending. I am afraid that we have no concrete plans on supply side publications (which is one reason why we had the event and ran the blog series). However, individual issues are being taken up in future publications. In a sense almost everything we do is on this!

  7. Posted 18/02/2011 at 20:17 | Permalink

    I agree with Whig. Please propose recipes to arrage our ending Classic Economy.

Comments are closed.