Coppola Comment

At the Battle of Ideas last Saturday, a panel on "populism" spent an hour and a half discussing everything except economics. Sherelle Jacobs of the Telegraph called for the Tory party to replace what she called a "twisted morality of sacrifice and dependency" with the "Judaeo-Christian" values of thrift and personal responsibility. And when a brave audience member asked "shouldn't we be discussing economics?" Tom Slater of Spiked brushed him off and carried on talking about cultural issues. Economics be damned, populism is all about morality and culture.  But important though morality and culture are, it is economics that really matters. Rudiger Dornbusch's work on macroeconomic populism shows that populism eventually fails because the economics don't work. And when it does, the people who suffer most are those the populists intended to help.  In this study (pdf), Dornbusch and Sebastian Edwards define macroeconomic populism thus: Ma...

No , says  The Times ' David Smith . He says that the notion that there was a pause in austerity is an "austerity myth". He points to this chart  from the Office for Budget Responsibility  that shows fiscal consolidation as a percentage of GDP (relative to the 2008 Budget) continuing on   throughout 2013 and 2014 and 2015: But the OBR's chart doesn't actually show what I would define as austerity. It shows the size of the government budget as a percentage of GDP relative to previous budgets. That's a good deal of moving parts. And that creates a good deal of ambiguity. Under such a definition, if the economy grows and government spending stays constant, there has been fiscal consolidation. In fact, if the size of the budget  grows  but the economy grows more, there has still been "fiscal consolidation".  What I am referring to when I claim that Osborne paused austerity in 2013 is the pause in the slashing back of government spending. Simp...