X Close

The Bank of England is sacrificing workers Have Britain's political elites engineered a recession?

Andrew Bailey: Governor of Greed (Yui Mok-WPA Pool/Getty Images)

Andrew Bailey: Governor of Greed (Yui Mok-WPA Pool/Getty Images)


June 28, 2023   6 mins

When Britain’s brightest economists gathered last week, they set themselves a straightforward task: to decide what to do about the UK’s high rate of inflation. Eventually, after much brain-racking, they came up with a solution: to crash the economy.

It seems almost inevitable that the Bank of England’s recent decision to raise interest rates for the 13th consecutive time since the end of 2021 will push the UK economy into recession by the end of the year. Simply put, raising interest rates means that homeowners have to devote a bigger chunk of their disposable incomes (as much as 20%, according to estimates) to paying back their mortgages, potentially pushing 1.2 million households into insolvency. Renters, too, are likely to see their payments increase as buy-to-let landlords pass on higher mortgage repayments. Meanwhile, businesses will fail, workers will be laid off, and, with less money being channelled into the economy, the latter will ground to a halt.

What’s worse, this catastrophic scenario isn’t the result of the Bank’s economists not realising the consequences of their actions; among Britain’s policymaking elite, it’s the desired outcome. As J.P. Morgan’s Karen Ward, who is also an external adviser to Chancellor Jeremy Hunt, said: “The difficulty for the Bank of England is they have to create a recession. They have to create uncertainty and frailty.” Asked if he agreed with the idea of the central bank doing whatever was needed to bring down inflation, even if that could cause a recession, Hunt himself responded in the affirmative.

In this, however, he was merely channelling Andrew Bailey, the governor of the Bank of England, who said: “We’re not desiring a recession. But we will do what is necessary to bring inflation down to target” — even if that means causing a recession. Rishi Sunak has also expressed unwavering support for the Bank’s work, though no-one is more explicit than the Financial Times’ Martin Wolf, who went so far as to call for an engineered recession: “The question is not whether there will be a recession; it is rather whether there needs to be one, if the spiral is to be halted. The plausible view is that the answer to the latter part of this question is ‘yes’.”

If the idea of wealthy politicians, journalists and bankers (Bailey earns $575,000 a year) casually talking about the need to plunge millions of people into poverty makes your blood boil, good for you: you’re still human. But there is, of course, a logic to their madness. Their argument is that the British economy is facing a wage-price spiral, where workers demand higher wages to compensate for higher prices, to which companies respond by raising prices even more in an attempt to defend their profit margins, causing workers to push for even higher wages — and so on, in an inflationary feedback loop.

In this context, Bailey and his peers argue, the only way to break the inflationary spiral and put an end to the “unsustainable” wage demands of workers is to raise unemployment through an engineered recession, thus recreating a reserve army of labour and weakening the latter’s bargaining power. If such a policy sounds crazy, or wicked, it’s because it is. For starters, even if we were actually witnessing a textbook wage-price spiral, you would have to be particularly callous to blame ordinary workers for trying to protect their living standards and feed their families in the face of a cost-of-living crisis which they did nothing to create. Even the former deputy governor of the Bank of England, Sir Charlie Bean, has acknowledged this, criticising the Bank’s interest rate hike.

At the very least, this situation would call for a consensual approach to the problem, via wage and price guidelines that would distribute the burden of reducing inflation equitably among labour and capital, rather than a one-sided approach aimed at placing it on workers alone via higher unemployment. But even this ignores the fact that the UK’s wage-price spiral might not exist at all. Over the last two years, real wages — that is, wages adjusted for inflation — have been falling at among the fastest rates for more than two decades, while corporate profits, in several sectors, have been soaring. Workers, then, are already losing out in their tug of war with capital over who should shoulder the burden of inflation.

More importantly, there is no evidence that inflation in the UK is driven primarily by “irresponsible” wage demands or even overall excess demand in the economy (as was partially the case when the Government supported people’s incomes during the pandemic), which would at least provide some theoretical justification for the argument that the economy needs cooling down. If anything, we would appear to be witnessing a price-wage spiral, where workers are simply trying (and failing) to keep up with companies pushing up prices, rather than vice versa.

Since the start of the year, however, many of the supply-side costs which had been driving up prices throughout 2021 and 2022 — such as the increased cost of energy, fertilisers, metals and other commodities, as a result of supply-chain bottlenecks and the war in Ukraine — have been rapidly falling. It’s also hard to argue that Brexit is responsible when food price inflation has been higher in the euro area. So, why are prices continuing to rise?

According to a number of economists, it all comes down to greed. The idea is that, in late 2022 and early this year, large companies, especially those enjoying considerable market power, have raised prices by a greater margin than necessary to accommodate for higher input prices, thus leading to considerable profit margins. As Albert Edwards, investment strategist at Société Générale, has observed: “Companies have used the ‘cover’ of supply constraints from the pandemic and the war in Ukraine to raise output prices well beyond what is justified to maintain margins” — and consumers have largely accepted these hikes as inevitable after hearing so many stories about energy prices, the war in Ukraine, supply-chain disruption, Brexit and so on.

Until recently, “greedflation”, or profit-led inflation, was dismissed as a fringe theory, but thanks to the work of economists such as professor Isabella Weber of the University of Massachusetts, its importance — at least in the US and eurozone — is no longer ignored. In March, experts at the European Central Bank concluded that profit margins had become the main driver of inflation, accounting for two-thirds of real-terms price increases in 2022. Just this week, a similar conclusion was reached by the International Monetary Fund, while several studies have pointed to a similar dynamic at play in the United States.

What about the UK? Unfortunately, neither the Bank of England, with its 4,500 staff, nor the Government, has felt the need to commission an in-depth investigation into the phenomenon, so we don’t really have much solid data to go on. However, analysis published in March by Unite, the UK’s largest private sector trade union, found that the average profit margins of the top 350 companies listed on the London Stock Exchange increased from 5.7% in the first half of 2019 to 10.7% in the first half of 2022. And a more recent study found that the jump in UK-wide company profits was responsible for almost 60% of inflation in the past half year, as opposed to just 8.3% due to labour costs.

Despite this, the Bank of England has systematically dismissed the issue of corporate profiteering. Only last month, Andrew Bailey said that the increase in corporate profits was not the result of greed but “a story about rebuilding margins that were squeezed, particularly in the early part of last year”. Even if this were true, it is telling that the Bank considers it fine for corporations to “rebuild their margins” after a two-year squeeze, but if workers demand higher wages to compensate for their own living standards squeeze, they have to be crushed.

That said, there is evidence that, in some sectors at least, there is a degree of price-gouging going on in the UK as well. Food inflation, for example, remains at a historic high despite the falling wholesale costs faced by farmers and food manufacturers. MPs, academics and trade unionists have largely blamed supermarkets, accusing them of increasing food prices beyond the pace of inflation and their own rising costs. Tesco, the UK’s biggest supermarket, made £2.6 billion in adjusted operating profit in the 2022-23 financial year — £1 billion more than it made in 2018 and the highest it has made in any year other than 2021-22.

But the pressure may also be coming from further down the supply chain: from food manufacturers and producers. Margins among the big food manufacturers, for instance, are in the 16-22% range. And Paul Donovan, the chief economist at UBS Wealth Management, believes that thousands of companies have jacked up bills for many months, improving profit margins at their customers’ expense.

No doubt realising this, the Bank of England and Government have started to timidly acknowledge that big businesses may be playing a role in the inflationary surge — but it’s too little, too late. Indeed, following pushback from the industry, the Government quickly drew back from suggestions that supermarkets should impose “voluntary caps” on the prices of essential goods. What’s left is a recessionary policy that will do little to appease inflation, but will serve to punish workers for daring to protect their incomes. And this comes as no surprise: not for the first time, in the silent class war being waged by big business against workers and consumers, Britain’s technocratic elites have made it amply clear on whose side they stand.


Thomas Fazi is an UnHerd columnist and translator. His latest book is The Covid Consensus, co-authored with Toby Green.

battleforeurope

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

48 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Peter Kwasi-Modo
Peter Kwasi-Modo
1 year ago

“Bailey earns $575,000 a year”. That was a very modest 16% pay rise over the previous year, setting a good example to us all. Oh, and you forgot to mention the $126,000 per year that the the taxpayer contributes to Mr. Bailey’s pension fund, but it is very easy to overlook trivial amounts.
Just because you don’t pay peanuts, it does not follow that you won’t get monkeys.

Steve Farrell
Steve Farrell
1 year ago

Funny how it’s always the right time for them to get a pay rise & never the right time for everyone else.

Peter Kwasi-Modo
Peter Kwasi-Modo
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Farrell

There is an iron law of economics that it is only other people’s wage rises that stoke inflation.

Steve Farrell
Steve Farrell
1 year ago

Ha. I knew those gits (the general public) were responsible.

Steve Farrell
Steve Farrell
1 year ago

Ha. I knew those gits (the general public) were responsible.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Farrell

And once he’s failed at this job, he’ll fall upwards into another high paying role

JR Stoker
JR Stoker
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Given his past consistent record (of failure that is); surely he can’t fall upwards any further

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago
Reply to  JR Stoker

The WEF/ Soros/ Blackrock/ GS network will always have a lucrative sinecure for him, for services rendered.

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago
Reply to  JR Stoker

The WEF/ Soros/ Blackrock/ GS network will always have a lucrative sinecure for him, for services rendered.

JR Stoker
JR Stoker
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Given his past consistent record (of failure that is); surely he can’t fall upwards any further

Peter Kwasi-Modo
Peter Kwasi-Modo
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Farrell

There is an iron law of economics that it is only other people’s wage rises that stoke inflation.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Farrell

And once he’s failed at this job, he’ll fall upwards into another high paying role

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

That’s what Bailey is paid. You don’t believe he actually earns it any more than I do.

Tim Beard
Tim Beard
1 year ago

If interest rates controlled inflation
Then HOW come
12 years of near zero rates and we didn’t see out of control INFLATION???????????

RATES do not control inflation .. that was obvious …

But hey they must be seen to be doing something .. not matter how dangerous of pointless ….

polidori redux
polidori redux
1 year ago
Reply to  Tim Beard

We did – In asset prices. The rich got a lot richer, without risk.

polidori redux
polidori redux
1 year ago
Reply to  Tim Beard

We did – In asset prices. The rich got a lot richer, without risk.

Steve Farrell
Steve Farrell
1 year ago

Funny how it’s always the right time for them to get a pay rise & never the right time for everyone else.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

That’s what Bailey is paid. You don’t believe he actually earns it any more than I do.

Tim Beard
Tim Beard
1 year ago

If interest rates controlled inflation
Then HOW come
12 years of near zero rates and we didn’t see out of control INFLATION???????????

RATES do not control inflation .. that was obvious …

But hey they must be seen to be doing something .. not matter how dangerous of pointless ….

Peter Kwasi-Modo
Peter Kwasi-Modo
1 year ago

“Bailey earns $575,000 a year”. That was a very modest 16% pay rise over the previous year, setting a good example to us all. Oh, and you forgot to mention the $126,000 per year that the the taxpayer contributes to Mr. Bailey’s pension fund, but it is very easy to overlook trivial amounts.
Just because you don’t pay peanuts, it does not follow that you won’t get monkeys.

Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
1 year ago

I am not buying the Evil Greedflationary Big Business theory. Businesses were forcibly shutdown for two years by a deranged panicked technocratic & political elite egged on by armies of selfish greedy Brex deranged public sector ‘workers’ who gleefully deserted their posts to enjoy a huge boost to their savings sitting in their wfh gardens whilst the public sector – esp the NHS – just broke up. Evil is the word to use for them, for the BBC which whipped up a Contagion style hysteria which warped the truth, and the left wing Donkeys in the State who – having splattered 900bn on a Zero Interest Bubble economy – then gave the mad magic money tree a go with the furlough, so shattering the finances of the State and making us a proto socialist high tax basket case. The Guilty Men are in the State, the State Broadcaster and the pro Lockdown technocracy. Business enterprise & we are the victims of their domestic violence & ineptitude. Always ask what the average age of Covid deaths was..even after they deliberately skewed the data to inflate it (plainly a habit). 84. 84!! Everyone healthy was at no risk; a full society lockdown was criminally insane.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

84! When life expectancy is 81! As Lord Jonathan Sumption KS quite clearly told us all at the very beginning of this COVID outrage.

Don’t kill you Gran! As some buffoon told us!*

(* Was it the “bottom squeezer”, I can’t recall?)

Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
1 year ago

Agree. And we should add those awful London lawyers and our legal system to the long list of institutions guilty of cowardice and betrayal. We were told imposition of European Human Rights and the Napoleonic codified system would protect us from the tyranny of the State, remember? Yeh right. They did not even bother to hold a hearing!! Even East European countries pushed back. Our sorry shower just thumped foxes in their gardens. Shame on our legal elite too. A wholesale betrayal of the people and their profession.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

I think worldwide only about eleven* countries decided to ‘push back’ or do nothing – “nihil facere” as the Ancient Romans would have said.

All the rest, including our good selves just rolled over and cravenly surrendered to cant and hysteria.

One of the worst days in human history, or at least since we emerged from the antediluvian swamp or even the Neanderthal Valley.

(* Plus six US states.)

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

I think worldwide only about eleven* countries decided to ‘push back’ or do nothing – “nihil facere” as the Ancient Romans would have said.

All the rest, including our good selves just rolled over and cravenly surrendered to cant and hysteria.

One of the worst days in human history, or at least since we emerged from the antediluvian swamp or even the Neanderthal Valley.

(* Plus six US states.)

Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
1 year ago

Agree. And we should add those awful London lawyers and our legal system to the long list of institutions guilty of cowardice and betrayal. We were told imposition of European Human Rights and the Napoleonic codified system would protect us from the tyranny of the State, remember? Yeh right. They did not even bother to hold a hearing!! Even East European countries pushed back. Our sorry shower just thumped foxes in their gardens. Shame on our legal elite too. A wholesale betrayal of the people and their profession.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

84! When life expectancy is 81! As Lord Jonathan Sumption KS quite clearly told us all at the very beginning of this COVID outrage.

Don’t kill you Gran! As some buffoon told us!*

(* Was it the “bottom squeezer”, I can’t recall?)

Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
1 year ago

I am not buying the Evil Greedflationary Big Business theory. Businesses were forcibly shutdown for two years by a deranged panicked technocratic & political elite egged on by armies of selfish greedy Brex deranged public sector ‘workers’ who gleefully deserted their posts to enjoy a huge boost to their savings sitting in their wfh gardens whilst the public sector – esp the NHS – just broke up. Evil is the word to use for them, for the BBC which whipped up a Contagion style hysteria which warped the truth, and the left wing Donkeys in the State who – having splattered 900bn on a Zero Interest Bubble economy – then gave the mad magic money tree a go with the furlough, so shattering the finances of the State and making us a proto socialist high tax basket case. The Guilty Men are in the State, the State Broadcaster and the pro Lockdown technocracy. Business enterprise & we are the victims of their domestic violence & ineptitude. Always ask what the average age of Covid deaths was..even after they deliberately skewed the data to inflate it (plainly a habit). 84. 84!! Everyone healthy was at no risk; a full society lockdown was criminally insane.

John Dellingby
John Dellingby
1 year ago

Bailey, Hunt and the whole lot of them need to go. The people of this country have suffered enough in recent years and if it is true that they plan to engineer higher unemployment to reduce inflation, that is abominable.

John Dellingby
John Dellingby
1 year ago

Bailey, Hunt and the whole lot of them need to go. The people of this country have suffered enough in recent years and if it is true that they plan to engineer higher unemployment to reduce inflation, that is abominable.

Simon Blanchard
Simon Blanchard
1 year ago

Yes but the problem is, if you increase the pay of people on low wages they just waste it on stuff like food and rent.

Simon Blanchard
Simon Blanchard
1 year ago

Yes but the problem is, if you increase the pay of people on low wages they just waste it on stuff like food and rent.

AC Harper
AC Harper
1 year ago

At the very least, this situation would call for a consensual approach to the problem, via wage and price guidelines that would distribute the burden of reducing inflation equitably among labour and capital, rather than a one-sided approach aimed at placing it on workers alone via higher unemployment.

I guess Thomas Fazi is not old enough to remember when wage control was tried, worked for a time, and then could not be maintained, and perhaps ended up making things worse. From Wikipedia:

Callaghan’s method of dealing with the long-term economic difficulties involved pay restraint, which had been operating for four years with reasonable success. He gambled that a fifth year would further improve the economy and allow him to be re-elected in 1979, and so he attempted to hold pay rises to 5% or less. The trade unions rejected continued pay restraint and in a succession of strikes over the winter of 1978–79 (known as the Winter of Discontent) secured higher pay.

AC Harper
AC Harper
1 year ago

At the very least, this situation would call for a consensual approach to the problem, via wage and price guidelines that would distribute the burden of reducing inflation equitably among labour and capital, rather than a one-sided approach aimed at placing it on workers alone via higher unemployment.

I guess Thomas Fazi is not old enough to remember when wage control was tried, worked for a time, and then could not be maintained, and perhaps ended up making things worse. From Wikipedia:

Callaghan’s method of dealing with the long-term economic difficulties involved pay restraint, which had been operating for four years with reasonable success. He gambled that a fifth year would further improve the economy and allow him to be re-elected in 1979, and so he attempted to hold pay rises to 5% or less. The trade unions rejected continued pay restraint and in a succession of strikes over the winter of 1978–79 (known as the Winter of Discontent) secured higher pay.

Saul D
Saul D
1 year ago

This is going to get much more ugly than just the effect on mortgages.
Consumers have dipped into savings to continue buying. Interest rate rises add to living costs (in addition to energy expenditure – the winter will tighten things further). Savings will be diminishing, debt loading on things like credit cards will be increasing. Eventually consumers will stop buying anything except essentials. Demand will stop, but companies will have debt to refinance at increasing interest rates with lower income.
Indebted companies are going to collapse. And employers who do get by will look to remove excess or more expensive workers (eg 50+).
The worst situation will be what looks like an already fragile financial services industry (pensions etc) sees falling property prices, lower dividends and higher pension increases. That creates big stresses.
This then hits tax income, and the cost of government borrowing. The temptation will be to print yet more money to try to keep the debt system from collapsing, and to keep the economy active. But that creates the Argentinian outcome of super high inflation and a moribund economy.
The cure is going to be painful, but that’s the madness of MMT/money pumping was always going to end up badly. Government needs to focus on cheap, abundant energy; stripping out burdensome and unnecessary bureaucracy and documentation – scrap anything which is adding cost; and achieving cost competitive businesses against international rivals – which means allowing more innovative improvements in productivity and economic growth (eg using AI to alleviate the tedious tasks of written documentation).

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Saul D

There are a lot of zombie companies that need to collapse. Decades of cheap money have built up all sorts of distortions and inefficiencies. Bottling earlier recessions to correct some of this just means the pain is going to be more severe now. “Major surgery without anaesthetic” as someone once put it. This is the fault of many governments over 25 years or so – and equally the responsibility of the media who were silent and the voters who thought they had a free lunch. Bailey at the B of E is bad even by central bank standards (and was equally bad in his previous job at the FCA). But he’s not the only one at fault.

andrew.iddon
andrew.iddon
1 year ago
Reply to  Saul D

Inflation is due to excess free capital – a wealth tax, say 3% on everything over £2M, would have the same effect as interest rate hikes, but target the very rich instead

Last edited 1 year ago by andrew.iddon
Jonathan Andrews
Jonathan Andrews
1 year ago
Reply to  andrew.iddon

The very rich will (and are) b@gger off to place with better suit their clothes. There some crazy stat which says that the richest 1% pay something like 30% of taxes.
Yeah, let’s encourage them to go to Switzerland.

Jonathan Andrews
Jonathan Andrews
1 year ago
Reply to  andrew.iddon

The very rich will (and are) b@gger off to place with better suit their clothes. There some crazy stat which says that the richest 1% pay something like 30% of taxes.
Yeah, let’s encourage them to go to Switzerland.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Saul D

There are a lot of zombie companies that need to collapse. Decades of cheap money have built up all sorts of distortions and inefficiencies. Bottling earlier recessions to correct some of this just means the pain is going to be more severe now. “Major surgery without anaesthetic” as someone once put it. This is the fault of many governments over 25 years or so – and equally the responsibility of the media who were silent and the voters who thought they had a free lunch. Bailey at the B of E is bad even by central bank standards (and was equally bad in his previous job at the FCA). But he’s not the only one at fault.

andrew.iddon
andrew.iddon
1 year ago
Reply to  Saul D

Inflation is due to excess free capital – a wealth tax, say 3% on everything over £2M, would have the same effect as interest rate hikes, but target the very rich instead

Last edited 1 year ago by andrew.iddon
Saul D
Saul D
1 year ago

This is going to get much more ugly than just the effect on mortgages.
Consumers have dipped into savings to continue buying. Interest rate rises add to living costs (in addition to energy expenditure – the winter will tighten things further). Savings will be diminishing, debt loading on things like credit cards will be increasing. Eventually consumers will stop buying anything except essentials. Demand will stop, but companies will have debt to refinance at increasing interest rates with lower income.
Indebted companies are going to collapse. And employers who do get by will look to remove excess or more expensive workers (eg 50+).
The worst situation will be what looks like an already fragile financial services industry (pensions etc) sees falling property prices, lower dividends and higher pension increases. That creates big stresses.
This then hits tax income, and the cost of government borrowing. The temptation will be to print yet more money to try to keep the debt system from collapsing, and to keep the economy active. But that creates the Argentinian outcome of super high inflation and a moribund economy.
The cure is going to be painful, but that’s the madness of MMT/money pumping was always going to end up badly. Government needs to focus on cheap, abundant energy; stripping out burdensome and unnecessary bureaucracy and documentation – scrap anything which is adding cost; and achieving cost competitive businesses against international rivals – which means allowing more innovative improvements in productivity and economic growth (eg using AI to alleviate the tedious tasks of written documentation).

Nanda Kishor das
Nanda Kishor das
1 year ago

It’s good to read a left leaning writer talk about things that actually matter for the working class.

Nanda Kishor das
Nanda Kishor das
1 year ago

It’s good to read a left leaning writer talk about things that actually matter for the working class.

Matthew Powell
Matthew Powell
1 year ago

In an inflationary supply side shock, increased profit margins are caused by inflation, not the other way around.

Combine this with loss recuperation from the pandemic, the need to pay down the debt taken on as a result, that will shortly have to be rolled over at a much higher rate, geopolitical uncertainty, encouraging companies to increase their savings to brace for further shocks and the excess monetary stimulus that was pumped directly into the real economy, which is still in the system and is propping up demand to this day, despite price rises.

Increased profit margins are readily explainable without having to resort to conspiracy theories.

Last edited 1 year ago by Matthew Powell
Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Matthew Powell

The point is that if wages are rising more slowly than the rate of inflation while company profits are climbing faster than the rate of inflation, why is it the workers that should have to lose their jobs and homes in order to bring down inflation, when they’re already losing out as it is?

Matthew Powell
Matthew Powell
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Because in a supply side shock increased profit margins are a product of inflation, not the cause.

When someone or something abruptly exits the market (Russian commodities) demand remains the same but supply drops. This raises the profit margin of the remaining market participants mechanically as costs stay the same but demand is proportionally higher now. Prices cannot just be dropped because then you will no longer be fairly distributing your product i.e. you’d sell out of stock to a bidder offering less than the market price but turn away others able to pay it. It’s misallocation of resources and it leads to the kind of dysfunctional economics that existed under communism.

If wages were to exceed inflation, that would be inflationary, as it increases demand. We really would be in a wage-price spiral then which would cause a currency crash. Not good for a nation which relies heavily on imports like the UK, however it would increase the profits of multinationals based in the UK as they would get a boost from the conversion rate of their foreign earnings, so they might like it.

To reduce profit margins in this environment, you either need to increase supply or reduce demand. We can’t increase supply unless you want to remove sanctions on Russia so the only option is to reduce demand. This can be done through reduced consumer spending by raising rates, which is painful but better than the other way, which is workers losing their jobs and companies going bankrupt, which is even more painful.

Personally I think the Bank of England has grossly underestimated the effect of its monetary stimulus and the lag time working its way through the economy, so the scale of interest rate rises now are overkill but I don’t see anything nefarious about profit margins, which as I’ve said, are explainable within the economic context.

Last edited 1 year ago by Matthew Powell
J Guy
J Guy
1 year ago
Reply to  Matthew Powell

Finally someone who understands the situation posts a rational explanation instead of the standard Fazi-inspired political blame game.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Matthew Powell

All undoubtedly true, however when wages are rising at only half the rate of company profits (and less than the rate of inflation), it is rather immoral to place the burden of taking inflation on the wage earners while those who have benefitted don’t contribute

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Matthew Powell

You missed a Policy response – tax more of the increased margin. As you rightly explain the increase profit margin is not because the Business has become more efficient.
Touches on a broader issue – Govt is getting too much of a free-pass here that it only has a monetary response. It has fiscal measures too but choosing not to deploy.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Matthew Powell

Excellent.
Please apply to UnHerd now to replace the useless Fazi for such articles in the future.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Seconded.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Seconded.

Andrew Morgan
Andrew Morgan
1 year ago
Reply to  Matthew Powell

‘It’s misallocation of resources and it leads to the kind of dysfunctional economics that existed under communism.’
Can you be more specific on this point?

J Guy
J Guy
1 year ago
Reply to  Matthew Powell

Finally someone who understands the situation posts a rational explanation instead of the standard Fazi-inspired political blame game.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Matthew Powell

All undoubtedly true, however when wages are rising at only half the rate of company profits (and less than the rate of inflation), it is rather immoral to place the burden of taking inflation on the wage earners while those who have benefitted don’t contribute

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Matthew Powell

You missed a Policy response – tax more of the increased margin. As you rightly explain the increase profit margin is not because the Business has become more efficient.
Touches on a broader issue – Govt is getting too much of a free-pass here that it only has a monetary response. It has fiscal measures too but choosing not to deploy.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Matthew Powell

Excellent.
Please apply to UnHerd now to replace the useless Fazi for such articles in the future.

Andrew Morgan
Andrew Morgan
1 year ago
Reply to  Matthew Powell

‘It’s misallocation of resources and it leads to the kind of dysfunctional economics that existed under communism.’
Can you be more specific on this point?

Matthew Powell
Matthew Powell
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Because in a supply side shock increased profit margins are a product of inflation, not the cause.

When someone or something abruptly exits the market (Russian commodities) demand remains the same but supply drops. This raises the profit margin of the remaining market participants mechanically as costs stay the same but demand is proportionally higher now. Prices cannot just be dropped because then you will no longer be fairly distributing your product i.e. you’d sell out of stock to a bidder offering less than the market price but turn away others able to pay it. It’s misallocation of resources and it leads to the kind of dysfunctional economics that existed under communism.

If wages were to exceed inflation, that would be inflationary, as it increases demand. We really would be in a wage-price spiral then which would cause a currency crash. Not good for a nation which relies heavily on imports like the UK, however it would increase the profits of multinationals based in the UK as they would get a boost from the conversion rate of their foreign earnings, so they might like it.

To reduce profit margins in this environment, you either need to increase supply or reduce demand. We can’t increase supply unless you want to remove sanctions on Russia so the only option is to reduce demand. This can be done through reduced consumer spending by raising rates, which is painful but better than the other way, which is workers losing their jobs and companies going bankrupt, which is even more painful.

Personally I think the Bank of England has grossly underestimated the effect of its monetary stimulus and the lag time working its way through the economy, so the scale of interest rate rises now are overkill but I don’t see anything nefarious about profit margins, which as I’ve said, are explainable within the economic context.

Last edited 1 year ago by Matthew Powell
Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
Reply to  Matthew Powell

Whenever I read an author referring to “greed” on the part of businesses ( or workers for that matter) I know I am dealing with an economic illiterate and ignorant moraliser. The idea that there is some level of profit margin that is right and anything above that is greed is mere ignorant moralising.

The job of a business is to make the profit margin the market will support. In some businesses the market profit margin is incredibly thin such as in the construction industry where pricing a large contract incorrectly can result in company bankruptcy whereas in other businesses where there is little competition profit margins can be substantial. There simply is no right profit margin. You revert to the religious moralising of the medieval period if you suggest there is.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

If wages were rising at the same rate as company profits then nobody would be calling it greed. However for nigh on four decades now large companies have lobbied successive governments to curtail any worker power that might lead to a share of those profits, through various anti union regulations, large scale immigration and the gig economy.
People will put up with inequality as long as their living standards are rising, the minute they start falling they’re much less tolerant of rich companies basking in record profits

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Wages are subject to the same pressures as businesses. If your skills are in great demand and supply is tight they will, over time go up. If demand reduces or supply of the skills in question increase they will tend to fall. As you say immigration has greatly increased the supply of relatively low skilled workers so it is no surprise if over time such wages have tended to lag. Just as it is absurd to call businesses greedy so it is absurd to call workers greedy for seeking wage rises even if they are consultants on £100,000 + a year.

However, just as governments seek to prevent monopolies arising in business so they seek to limit the monopolistic demands of workers seeking to distort the natural wage level through combination. Of course, they only have limited success in either endeavour.

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Wages are subject to the same pressures as businesses. If your skills are in great demand and supply is tight they will, over time go up. If demand reduces or supply of the skills in question increase they will tend to fall. As you say immigration has greatly increased the supply of relatively low skilled workers so it is no surprise if over time such wages have tended to lag. Just as it is absurd to call businesses greedy so it is absurd to call workers greedy for seeking wage rises even if they are consultants on £100,000 + a year.

However, just as governments seek to prevent monopolies arising in business so they seek to limit the monopolistic demands of workers seeking to distort the natural wage level through combination. Of course, they only have limited success in either endeavour.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

If wages were rising at the same rate as company profits then nobody would be calling it greed. However for nigh on four decades now large companies have lobbied successive governments to curtail any worker power that might lead to a share of those profits, through various anti union regulations, large scale immigration and the gig economy.
People will put up with inequality as long as their living standards are rising, the minute they start falling they’re much less tolerant of rich companies basking in record profits

laurence scaduto
laurence scaduto
1 year ago
Reply to  Matthew Powell

You should look into this more closely.
For most of the last hundred years the “ready explanation” has been that the only thing to do is immiserate the working classes. Generation after generation of “highly respected expert economists” didn’t lift a finger to investigate any alternative explanations. Or why their favorite technique was so ineffective that they usually had to keep it up for far longer than originally touted; sometimes for years. Don’t you remember the ’70s? Many of us wondered if doing nothing wouldn’t have been better.
So this is a BIG story, not just another conspiracy theory. Major economic theories are being overturned; theories that caused a lot of real misery for millions of people. And common sense will finally get a proper trial. Profits are going up far more than wages. In the hunt to find a culprit for the inflation, price gouging is the obvious suspect.
Speaking of theories: I can’t figure for the life of me how inflation causes profit margins to soar. And the rest of your explanations (“Combine this with…”) would all be paid for before profits were declared, not after. Please reply.

Last edited 1 year ago by laurence scaduto
laurence scaduto
laurence scaduto
1 year ago

I just saw your reply to Billy Bob, below. Your explanation might work in Europe, where energy price hikes have increased costs so much. But here in the States energy prices haven’t risen much. But profits sure have.
I just came from the supermarket. There never was a real supply problem in the food business except for panic buying at the very begining of the pandemic. And yet the prices continue to soar, three years later.
I image that your theories come with some lovely mathematical “proofs”. But the real world isn’t like the one imagined in the Economics Dept. All of these corporations have hundreds of executives on the payroll whose working lives are devoted to raising profit margins. Why wouldn’t they gouge the public? Especially if everyone is doing it.
With so much at stake, this new theory certainly should at least be tested.

laurence scaduto
laurence scaduto
1 year ago

I just saw your reply to Billy Bob, below. Your explanation might work in Europe, where energy price hikes have increased costs so much. But here in the States energy prices haven’t risen much. But profits sure have.
I just came from the supermarket. There never was a real supply problem in the food business except for panic buying at the very begining of the pandemic. And yet the prices continue to soar, three years later.
I image that your theories come with some lovely mathematical “proofs”. But the real world isn’t like the one imagined in the Economics Dept. All of these corporations have hundreds of executives on the payroll whose working lives are devoted to raising profit margins. Why wouldn’t they gouge the public? Especially if everyone is doing it.
With so much at stake, this new theory certainly should at least be tested.

James Sullivan
James Sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  Matthew Powell

It’s Fazi. He has the same answer to everything.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Matthew Powell

The point is that if wages are rising more slowly than the rate of inflation while company profits are climbing faster than the rate of inflation, why is it the workers that should have to lose their jobs and homes in order to bring down inflation, when they’re already losing out as it is?

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
Reply to  Matthew Powell

Whenever I read an author referring to “greed” on the part of businesses ( or workers for that matter) I know I am dealing with an economic illiterate and ignorant moraliser. The idea that there is some level of profit margin that is right and anything above that is greed is mere ignorant moralising.

The job of a business is to make the profit margin the market will support. In some businesses the market profit margin is incredibly thin such as in the construction industry where pricing a large contract incorrectly can result in company bankruptcy whereas in other businesses where there is little competition profit margins can be substantial. There simply is no right profit margin. You revert to the religious moralising of the medieval period if you suggest there is.

laurence scaduto
laurence scaduto
1 year ago
Reply to  Matthew Powell

You should look into this more closely.
For most of the last hundred years the “ready explanation” has been that the only thing to do is immiserate the working classes. Generation after generation of “highly respected expert economists” didn’t lift a finger to investigate any alternative explanations. Or why their favorite technique was so ineffective that they usually had to keep it up for far longer than originally touted; sometimes for years. Don’t you remember the ’70s? Many of us wondered if doing nothing wouldn’t have been better.
So this is a BIG story, not just another conspiracy theory. Major economic theories are being overturned; theories that caused a lot of real misery for millions of people. And common sense will finally get a proper trial. Profits are going up far more than wages. In the hunt to find a culprit for the inflation, price gouging is the obvious suspect.
Speaking of theories: I can’t figure for the life of me how inflation causes profit margins to soar. And the rest of your explanations (“Combine this with…”) would all be paid for before profits were declared, not after. Please reply.

Last edited 1 year ago by laurence scaduto
James Sullivan
James Sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  Matthew Powell

It’s Fazi. He has the same answer to everything.

Matthew Powell
Matthew Powell
1 year ago

In an inflationary supply side shock, increased profit margins are caused by inflation, not the other way around.

Combine this with loss recuperation from the pandemic, the need to pay down the debt taken on as a result, that will shortly have to be rolled over at a much higher rate, geopolitical uncertainty, encouraging companies to increase their savings to brace for further shocks and the excess monetary stimulus that was pumped directly into the real economy, which is still in the system and is propping up demand to this day, despite price rises.

Increased profit margins are readily explainable without having to resort to conspiracy theories.

Last edited 1 year ago by Matthew Powell
Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

More utter bilge from Thomas Fazi. Honestly, why’s he still here ?
Recessions are a necessary and vital part of a functioning market economy. Dynamic, free market economies overshoot and recessions correct this.
And what is a recession more than a temporary dip in output. Why should we consider -0.5% growth over two quarters to be a “disaster” if it means we can secure faster growth afterwards ? Why is flatlining 1-2% constant growth any better ? And remember 1-2% growth is no growth at all once you measure GDP per rising number of heads.
Nor is slightly negative growth for 6 months or a year “crashing the economy”.
The aversion to recessions is both ignorant and childishly simplistic.
Get some professionals in to write this stuff.

Gerard A
Gerard A
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

If the UK market had overshot you may have had a case, but our GDP per capita is about where it was in 2017. It appear to me that the”professionals” as you call them trying to stop a supply side driven inflation by reducing demand even further are making the cure worse than the disease. The modern economic equivalent of doctors whose only remedy was leeches.
We have for many years lived with a public sector deficit and trade deficit at levels that in the 60s and 70s brought the leech prescribers out in force but has done little or no damage. Trying to shoe-horn the economy into an arbritrary inflation range is equally unnecessary.

Graeme Laws
Graeme Laws
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Wish I’d written that. I’ll cancel my sub if there is more of this rubbish.

Gerard A
Gerard A
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

If the UK market had overshot you may have had a case, but our GDP per capita is about where it was in 2017. It appear to me that the”professionals” as you call them trying to stop a supply side driven inflation by reducing demand even further are making the cure worse than the disease. The modern economic equivalent of doctors whose only remedy was leeches.
We have for many years lived with a public sector deficit and trade deficit at levels that in the 60s and 70s brought the leech prescribers out in force but has done little or no damage. Trying to shoe-horn the economy into an arbritrary inflation range is equally unnecessary.

Graeme Laws
Graeme Laws
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Wish I’d written that. I’ll cancel my sub if there is more of this rubbish.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

More utter bilge from Thomas Fazi. Honestly, why’s he still here ?
Recessions are a necessary and vital part of a functioning market economy. Dynamic, free market economies overshoot and recessions correct this.
And what is a recession more than a temporary dip in output. Why should we consider -0.5% growth over two quarters to be a “disaster” if it means we can secure faster growth afterwards ? Why is flatlining 1-2% constant growth any better ? And remember 1-2% growth is no growth at all once you measure GDP per rising number of heads.
Nor is slightly negative growth for 6 months or a year “crashing the economy”.
The aversion to recessions is both ignorant and childishly simplistic.
Get some professionals in to write this stuff.

TheElephant InTheRoom
TheElephant InTheRoom
1 year ago

Britain needs to wind its neck in from Ukraine and stop pretending the US cares about the special relationship. The sad bench we refer to as leadership needs to get their collective acts together and work for the prosperity of this country and its great people.

TheElephant InTheRoom
TheElephant InTheRoom
1 year ago

Britain needs to wind its neck in from Ukraine and stop pretending the US cares about the special relationship. The sad bench we refer to as leadership needs to get their collective acts together and work for the prosperity of this country and its great people.

andrew.iddon
andrew.iddon
1 year ago

The recession will show the real cost of all that unskilled migration over the past 25 years

andrew.iddon
andrew.iddon
1 year ago

The recession will show the real cost of all that unskilled migration over the past 25 years

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago

As much as I didn’t like Corbyn, his intended policy or forcing companies to allocate a % of board chairs to unions or worker’s representatives was sorely needed. Inequality is growing, workers are getting an ever decreasing share of the pie yet are still somehow blamed for any economic troubles

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago

As much as I didn’t like Corbyn, his intended policy or forcing companies to allocate a % of board chairs to unions or worker’s representatives was sorely needed. Inequality is growing, workers are getting an ever decreasing share of the pie yet are still somehow blamed for any economic troubles

Chris Hume
Chris Hume
1 year ago

At the very least, this situation would call for a consensual approach to the problem, via wage and price guidelines that would distribute the burden of reducing inflation equitably among labour and capital,

Does the fact that price and wage controls have only ever made matters worse not put you off slightly? The government has nowhere near the required information or expertise to make it work. It will end in complete disaster, as always.
Inflation is a terrible thing, but the electorate implicitly demanded it. Now the hangover has set in and we’re lashing around looking for a quick fix and someone to blame.

Chris Hume
Chris Hume
1 year ago

At the very least, this situation would call for a consensual approach to the problem, via wage and price guidelines that would distribute the burden of reducing inflation equitably among labour and capital,

Does the fact that price and wage controls have only ever made matters worse not put you off slightly? The government has nowhere near the required information or expertise to make it work. It will end in complete disaster, as always.
Inflation is a terrible thing, but the electorate implicitly demanded it. Now the hangover has set in and we’re lashing around looking for a quick fix and someone to blame.

Bryan Dale
Bryan Dale
1 year ago

Raising interest rates is the worst possible solution but the only one the fake Conservative government will consider. Instead it should cut its own spending, cut corporate taxes and slash regulations to bring down supply costs. It won’t do that because Labour won’t and the Conservatives only copy Labour ideas.

Bryan Dale
Bryan Dale
1 year ago

Raising interest rates is the worst possible solution but the only one the fake Conservative government will consider. Instead it should cut its own spending, cut corporate taxes and slash regulations to bring down supply costs. It won’t do that because Labour won’t and the Conservatives only copy Labour ideas.

james elliott
james elliott
1 year ago

Fazi………

Your articles often start out reasonably well – but unvariably morph into some version of, “and therefore I think we ought to give Communism another go!”

Good grief, man!

Grow up…

james elliott
james elliott
1 year ago

Fazi………

Your articles often start out reasonably well – but unvariably morph into some version of, “and therefore I think we ought to give Communism another go!”

Good grief, man!

Grow up…

Michael Daniele
Michael Daniele
1 year ago

Simply put, raising interest rates means that homeowners have to devote a bigger chunk of their disposable incomes (as much as 20%, according to estimates) to paying back their mortgages, potentially pushing 1.2 million households into insolvency
This would only be true if everyone had taken out variable rate mortgages. Is that actually the case?

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago

All fixed rate mortgages come to an end within a year or two normally, therefore it still has the same effect but merely delayed slightly