The Economist skewers the JLP Tax plan

[Don1]

LOL!! Whe Chemical Ben deh???? Mi spleen!!!!!

The Economist: Holness' 10-Point Plan Would Not Get IMF Support - Magazine Labels JLP As Populist

Published:Monday | February 22, 2016 | 12:00 AM
The Economist magazine has argued that the Jamaica Labour Party's (JLP) 10-Point Plan would "certainly mean forfeiting the IMF's support".

In an article released in the latest edition of the liberal-leaning magazine, the JLP was cast as a populist opposition and the People's National Party (PNP) as a government of austerity.

The title of the article, 'Let Them Eat Goat', appears to be a play on 'Let them eat cake'; a phrase commonly attributed to Queen Marie Antoinette during the French Revolution. The statement highlights the queen's lack of regard for peasants. The use of goat, presumably, refers to the serving of curry goat, which has been a characteristic feature of elections in Jamaica.

[Mosiah]

Lawd Geezas, a who tun on back di light?!

[Don1]

Lawd Geezas, a who tun on back di light?!

LOL!

[Bricktop]

lol...ity & fancy cat to rhattid...

[Willi]

Babylon release di chain, now dem ah use dem brain...

[Willi]

Jamaica only important to them in as far as dem can use wi fi browbeat Greece!

[Willi]

Another view from the FT. I have met Martin Wolf and had a long discussion with him back in about 2009 or so. We see eye to eye on most matters.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9b3c7...#axzz414mgAABl

[Don1]

Another view from the FT. I have met Martin Wolf and had a long discussion with him back in about 2009 or so. We see eye to eye on most matters.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9b3c7...#axzz414mgAABl

Wolfman might be a noice likkle man...but mi naw pay nuh money fi read fi im views boss

Freeness wi ah defen'

[Willi]

Google is yuh fren!

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/9b3c71f8-d...#ixzz417jQOAMu

T
he world economy is slowing, both structurally and cyclically. How might policy respond? With desperate improvisations, no doubt. Negative interest rates have already moved from the unthinkable to reality (see charts). The next step is likely to include fiscal expansion. Indeed, this is what the OECD, long an enthusiast for fiscal austerity, recommends in its Interim Economic Outlook. But that is unlikely to be the end. With fiscal expansion might go direct monetary support, including the most radical policy of all: the “helicopter drops” of money recommended by the late Milton Friedman.
More recently, this is the policy foreseen by Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater, a hedge fund. The world economy is not just slowing, he argues, but “monetary policy 1” — lower interest rates — and “monetary policy 2” — quantitative easing — are largely exhausted. Thus, he says, the world will need a “monetary policy 3” directly targeted at encouraging spending. That we might need such a policy is also the recommendation of Adair Turner, former chairman of the Financial Services Authority, in his book Between Debt and the Devil .
More
ON THIS TOPIC
James Kynge The tides of gloom
Gavyn Davies Global growth fraying at the edges
Martin Wolf Elites must draw closer to public
FT City Network Is the outlook all doom?
MARTIN WOLF
Universities as businesses
Banks still the weak links
The battle over Brexit
Wise to prepare for the next recession
Sign up now

firstFT
FirstFT is our new essential daily email briefing of the best stories from across the web
Why might the world be driven to such expedients? The short answer is that the global economy is slowing durably. The OECD now forecasts growth of global output in 2016 “to be no higher than in 2015, itself the slowest pace in the past five years”. Behind this is a simple reality: the global savings glut — the tendency for desired savings to rise more than desired investment — is growing and so the “chronic demand deficiency syndrome” is worsening.
This stage of demand weakness must be seen in its historical context. The long-term real interest rate on safe securities has been declining for at least two decades. It has been near zero since the financial crisis of 2007-09. Before then, an unsustainable western credit boom offset the weakness of demand. Afterwards, fiscal deficits, zero interest rates and expansions of central bank balance sheets stabilised demand in the west, while a credit expansion funded massive investment in China. Loose western monetary policies and loose Chinese credit policies also drove the post-crisis commodity boom, though China’s exceptional growth was the most important single factor.
The end of these credit booms is an important cause of today’s weak demand. But demand is also weak relative to a slowing growth of supply. At the world level, growth of labour supply and labour productivity have fallen sharply since the middle of the last decade. Lower growth of potential output itself weakens demand, because it lowers investment, always a crucial driver of spending in a capitalist economy.
It is this background — slowing growth of supply, rising imbalances between desired savings and investment, the end of unsustainable credit booms and, not least, a legacy of huge debt overhangs and weakened financial systems — that explains the current predicament. It explains, too, why economies that cannot generate adequate demand at home are compelled towards beggar-my-neighbour, export-led growth via weakening exchange rates. Japan and the eurozone are in that club. So, too, are the emerging economies with collapsed exchange rates. China is resisting, but for how long? A weaker renminbi seems almost inevitable, whatever the authorities say.
Charts: Martin Wolf column data
No simple solutions for the global economic imbalances of today exist, only palliatives. The current favourite flavour in monetary policy is negative interest rates. Mr Dalio argues that: “While negative interest rates will make cash a bit less attractive (but not much), it won’t drive . . . savers to buy the sort of assets that will finance spending.” I agree. I cannot imagine that businesses will rush to invest as a result. The same is true of conventional quantitative easing. The biggest effect of these policies is likely to be via exchange rates. In effect, other countries will be seeking export-led growth vis-à-vis over-borrowed US consumers. That is bound to blow up.
One alternative then is fiscal policy. The OECD argues, persuasively, that co-ordinated expansion of public investment, combined with appropriate structural reforms, could expand output and even lower the ratio of public debt to gross domestic product. This is particularly plausible nowadays, because the major governments are able to borrow at zero or even negative real interest rates, long term. The austerity obsession, even when borrowing costs are so low, is lunatic (see chart).
If the fiscal authorities are unwilling to behave so sensibly — and the signs, alas, are that they are not — central banks are the only players. They could be given the power to send money, ideally in electronic form, to every adult citizen. Would this add to demand? Absolutely. Under existing monetary arrangements, it would also generate a permanent rise in the reserves of commercial banks at the central bank. The easy way to contain any long-term monetary effects would be to raise reserve requirements. These could then become a desirable feature of our unstable banking systems.
The main point is this. The economic forces that have brought the world economy to zero real interest rates and, increasingly, negative central bank rates are, if anything, now strengthening. This is what the world economy is showing. This is what monetary policy is indicating. Increasingly, this is what asset prices are demonstrating.
Policymakers must prepare for a new “new normal” in which policy becomes more uncomfortable, more unconventional, or both. Can the world escape from the chronic demand weakness? Absolutely, yes. Will it? That demands greater boldness. When one has exhausted the just about possible, what remains, however improbable, must be the answer.
martin.wolf@ft.com

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/9b3c7...#axzz417jMRFTy